-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
- Status
I must have missed where this had anything to do with Thomas Jefferson. The thread's title is in fact "Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity" isn't it?
Or were you just throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks to avoid acknowledging that everything you have posted about Jefferson has either been inaccurate, taken out of context, or downright false?
Or were you just throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks to avoid acknowledging that everything you have posted about Jefferson has either been inaccurate, taken out of context, or downright false?
Another empty post that adds 0 to the forum... If you want to talk about Jefferson, go ahead, nobody is stopping you.
My 115 posts are out there for everyone to see. Why don't you let people decide for themselves what to think about my posts... Believe it or not, you and others don't have to keep reminding everyone about your personal opinions about my posts. But I have a feeling you will keep giving us your same personal feelings about my posts because you don't have much else to contribute.
See post 460 to see what a post that gives information looks like.
Last edited:
Skeptic Guy
Raccoon Death Squad Leader
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 6,990
Doc, I understand that you are disappointed that your post doesn't add anything to this thread, but there are still opportunities to do so. Having read through the thread, it seems that you have given up on the OP regarding Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity and are, instead, focusing on your theory that Leo Pfeffer worked for the ACLU. Since there seems to be no evidence to support this assertion and even if there was, it has nothing to do with the OP, may I suggest that you drop it and get back to the OP.
I would suggest starting a new thread with the Pfeffer/ACLU question as its subject, but it is of so little relevance and interest, I won't.
Doc, in my 7800+ posts on this forum I have probably had many that you would consider adding 0 to the forum. I have, however, a thread I started that ended up in the forum spotlight section, won the monthly language award several times, and been considered worthy enough of this community to be the recipient of a drive to replace a stolen computer of mine (for which I am eternally grateful.) But, yeah, you're right, I have nothing to contribute. Your 137 posts sure did have so much in them that we should all recognize you have added 137 posts of misinformation, exaggeration, and outright falsehoods. So who's adding nothing to the forum? Please, do not pretend to know what adds to the forum or doesn't after 137 posts of complete hogwash.
However, do you care to address my post instead of claiming persecution? What exactly does any of this have to do with the OP? What point about Thomas Jefferson were you trying to make by bringing Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge, SCOTUS, some guy that may or may not have been affiliated with the ACLU is some obscure way, and all the other crap that's NOT about Jefferson you've used as smokescreen to avoid inconvenient facts rebutting your stances throughout this thread?
Or are you going to find another Communist, Politician, and/or KKK member to throw at us in some strange attempt to show the separation of church and state idea is myth?
Last edited:
Cleon
King of the Pod People
The below is a post that gives information by your definition and based on yours of 460. Like yours, this has NO connection to the thread topic AND it does not give proof, however many words that it may contain that the person you named was an ACLU lawyer. There may be evidence, it may be somewhere on the internet, but it is not in your "information post" and it is not in mine.:
James Randi is now a regular guest on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, a podcast produced by The New England Skeptics' Society and the JREF. This weekly podcast is put on by the fine folks at the New England Skeptical Society in conjunction with the JREF, and you're sure to be entertained, educated, and enlightened. It's also available on iTunes.
Created with TshwaneLex, and thanks to my good friend Gilles-Maurice de Schryver and his colleague David Joffe, my "Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural," is available at a click. We've made many corrections, and some additions, as well. The print version is still available here.
Click here to see the Encyclopedia.
As part of our fund raising efforts, the JREF is offering certain products related to our efforts. James Randi's books, DVDs, recordings, logo clothing, and other interesting items await those who click here.
Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe.
Enter the forum | More info | Membership Agreement
Through your support the JREF is able to continue its efforts. Help us today through a donation. You can do so easily using PayPal.
Randi's biographers have come across personal and promotional photos that haven't been se
Last edited:
Dissenting opinion on church prayer -- notice footnote 3
Post 460 showed who were the litigants in the Supreme Court Case that got volunteer prayer kicked out of the public schools. Here is the dissenting opinion in that case by Justice Stewart.
Notice the 10 footnotes at the end of the dissenting opinion especially footnote #3
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting
See post 472
Post 460 showed who were the litigants in the Supreme Court Case that got volunteer prayer kicked out of the public schools. Here is the dissenting opinion in that case by Justice Stewart.
Notice the 10 footnotes at the end of the dissenting opinion especially footnote #3
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting
See post 472
Do not remove notice that post was edited by a member of the Moderating Team
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Darat
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, violation of rule 4 aside, I assume this means you are not going to address my posts, not going to acknowledge the evidence given contrary to your beliefs, and going to continue your game of trying to post irrelevant topics to distract from your thorough spanking in this thread.
PS, you should have been tipped off that you can't post the site in full when at the bottom of your copy/paste it has a f***ing copyright statement.
PS, you should have been tipped off that you can't post the site in full when at the bottom of your copy/paste it has a f***ing copyright statement.
My time is limited so I can't guarantee that I will respond to any post, especially posts that contain personal attacks. Posts should be able to stand on their own merit and don't need me to validate them.
Last edited:
Dissenting opinion on school prayer -- notice footnote #3
Yes, on my last attempt to post Justice Stewart's dissenting opinion on the case that removed prayer from public school I didn't notice the site was copyrighted and I didn't know about the hotlink rule so let me try again with a different site.
Justice Stewart's dissenting opinion and notice footnote #3
[SIZE=-1]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421
[/SIZE]
Yes, on my last attempt to post Justice Stewart's dissenting opinion on the case that removed prayer from public school I didn't notice the site was copyrighted and I didn't know about the hotlink rule so let me try again with a different site.
Justice Stewart's dissenting opinion and notice footnote #3
Edited by Darat:
Breach of Rule 4 removed.
[SIZE=-1]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421
[/SIZE]
Last edited by a moderator:
Dissenting opinion on school prayer -- notice footnote #3
Well I've tried to post Supreme Court Justice Stewart's dissenting opinion and the 10 footnotes from 2 different websites in this forum but haven't been able to do it because of rule 4 the moderator wrote.
It's the Engle case year 1962 that removed prayer from public school. If anyone knows how to legally put Justice Stewart's opinion in here with his 10 footnotes please do so and if not you should be able to find it on the internet and note his footnote #3.
I believe it should be OK to put the link in here so here it is:
[SIZE=-1]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421[/SIZE]
Well I've tried to post Supreme Court Justice Stewart's dissenting opinion and the 10 footnotes from 2 different websites in this forum but haven't been able to do it because of rule 4 the moderator wrote.
It's the Engle case year 1962 that removed prayer from public school. If anyone knows how to legally put Justice Stewart's opinion in here with his 10 footnotes please do so and if not you should be able to find it on the internet and note his footnote #3.
I believe it should be OK to put the link in here so here it is:
[SIZE=-1]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421[/SIZE]
Last edited:
Well give me one preceding post that does not contain any derogatory comment about me and I'll respond to it.
Thomas Jefferson admired Christian teachings and is quoted by some (misleadingly) as rational for Church/State separation. I mentioned separation of Church and state in the very first post. The Engle case has everything to do with Church/State Separation and Jefferson's name was even brought up in the Engle case. I don't understand how you don't see the connection. And even if there was no connection -- so what -- I created the 5400 response forum and if you don't like the topic I'm talking about than stay out of the forum. (It's very simple)
Last edited:
It is not quoted misleadingly, as has been repeatedly show to you, Jefferson is quoted accurately regarding separation of church and state. It also has been repeatedly shown to you how saying Jefferson admired "christian teachings" is misleading as he didn't admire most of the basic tenants of christianity.
If by that statement you mean "I had a passing reference to seperation of church and state and said I would try to get to it later" then you'd be accurate. Here is your first post in this thread in it's entirety:
So you clearly established that you would be talking about Jefferson and his beliefs about Christianity and the Separation of Church and state. Later on you claimed it was a 1910 book that invented the term, when it was shown to you in post 2 of this thread that jefferson clearly and unabiguously invented the term in the letter to danbury.
You've never actually related it to Jefferson in any meaningful way. It is irrelevant if Jefferson was cited in the case. You have yet to show why this is relevant at all other than a cursory connection to Jefferson's beliefs.
Also, I read the records on that case. Jefferson is cited in a way that does not support your position.
You also didn't create a "forum" you created a thread in a forum. If you are now saying that you'll post whatever tickles your fancy and ignore anyone or any fact that refutes your position, then you would simply be keeping in line with your behavior on the previous 21 pages of this thread. Saying "So what? I can do what I want" is not going to win you any points with this forum, as we see that for the childish response it is - an attempt to avoid answering any data or people critical of your position.
Also, there has not been 5400 responses to this thread, there has been 5400 views, with roughly 470 responses. In the grand scheme of the JREF forum, that's not even close to the top 20 threads, so get over yourself.
Saying this thread has 5400 responses is exceedingly misleading Doc.
Then you say you'll respond to a post without any personal attacks if we present it, which shows you aren't reading anyone's posts in response to you. You apparently just post whatever you think supports your idea of what Jefferson stood for whether it relates to Jefferson or not. Basically, you have subtly admitted that you are just here to spam.
Last edited:
If you consider a post (my 467 above) that points out that your post 460 contains NO evidence of the point you were supposedly making (which is a simple statement of fact) then your definition of derogatory comment about you clearly means "any disagreement or pointing out of error in my posts is derogatory" which is fine - but means all responses to you have been , by the false way you define derogatory, derogatory. If you use the standard meaning of derogatory, then neither it or my post 479 were derogatory - they merely noted errors in your posts. So, if that is the case, feel free to respond
to my 467 or 479 or both.
- Status