Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[Cleon]

Well I was going on my memory of the Boy Scout incident.

Your memory sucks.

Through fundraising and volunteer work, a state-of-the-art swimming pool and a 600-seat outdoor amphitheater were constructed. In 1949, the Boy Scouts Desert Pacific Council headquarters building was completed.

Parts of Balboa Park remained undeveloped by 1957, so the city council agreed to transfer additional property to the Boy Scouts for maintenance and operations. A fifty-year lease was signed with a rental fee of one dollar per year.

So the Boy Scouts, an organization that discriminates against atheists and homosexuals, was getting a sweetheart deal at (essentially) free city land.

What exactly gives the BSA the right to such a sweetheart deal?

More importantly, how does this translate in your little mind to saying the "Boy Scouts can't use the park?" They can use the park just as much as anyone else, including religious groups, can use the park. They just don't get special rights that the rest of us don't have.

 

[Hawk one]

I see DOC's Christian values still include lots of lying. Why do you keep lying so much, DOC? Why do you turn the fact about the Boy Scouts not getting any special privelidges regarding a park into a lie about them being denied using that park? Why do you keep lying about when the phrase "separation of church and state" was first used in public? Why do you turn the fact that the government should not sponsor prayer into a lie about prayer being banned in school?

And what makes you think that all this lying will make anyone more positive to the Christian values you are so obviously preaching about? Wouldn't you think that living what you preach and being intellectually honest would be a better strategy if you want to convert anyone?

 

[drkitten]

And what makes you think that all this lying will make anyone more positive to the Christian values you are so obviously preaching about? Wouldn't you think that living what you preach and being intellectually honest would be a better strategy if you want to convert anyone?

That's what's always puzzled me about the fibs-for-Jesus approach to political debate. The political positions espoused by the religious right aren't necessarily wrong; after all, the biggest fool in the world can say the sun is shining, without making it dark out. As a realistic example, a lot of secular schools have also realized that mandatory school uniforms may have educational benefits (as the religious schools have been saying for years), and that these benefits arguably trump student right to freedom of expression.

The problem is, the religious seem to have no qualms about lying. Demonstrably. Which means that when they make statements, those statements immediately lose most of the credibility that they might have had as an independent proposition. And the religious right are obviously entirely untrustworthy as political alllies, so even if they and I could make common cause on an issue, I wouldn't be willing to work with them because they're untrustworthy. Not just untrustworhy, but judging by the quality (and transparancy) of the lies they tell, they're stupid and untrustworthy.

Those aren't the characteristics I look for in a decision-maker or a power-broker.

 

[DOC]

According to the excerpt in post 519 it said the scouts don't have exclusive access of their own camp. Anyone can use it.

 

[DOC]

I see DOC's Christian values still include lots of lying. Why do you keep lying so much, DOC? Why do you turn the fact about the Boy Scouts not getting any special privelidges regarding a park into a lie about them being denied using that park? Why do you keep lying about when the phrase "separation of church and state" was first used in public? Why do you turn the fact that the government should not sponsor prayer into a lie about prayer being banned in school.

A Lack of Logic and Dignity

The first definition Webster's Desk Dictionary gives for the word lie is [a false statement made with "deliberate intent to deceive".]

In this entire forum there is not 1 shred of evidence that anyone has made a false statement with a "deliberate intent to deceive". Therefore every post in this forum that accuses a person of lying is without evidence and is an empty assertion. Whether its one person or five persons making accusations (it doesn't matter) -- without proof of deliberate intent to deceive, its empty. It might have some shock value to immature people reading it (for awhile), but its still empty.

Assertion: A logical and dignified person does not accuse a person of degrading behavior such as deliberately intending to deceive without evidence.

Therefore a logical argument can be made that every post in this forum that accuses a person of lying lacks logic and dignity.

 

[drkitten]

According to the excerpt in post 519 it said the scouts don't have exclusive access of their own camp. Anyone can use it.

Yes, but they pay the Boy Scouts for permission and access, yes? And the Boy Scouts get first crack at it.

If, as the article suggests, more than 12,000 people use the park and facilities each year, that's a hell of a lot of subsidy that the city is giving to the Boy Scouts "with a rental fee of one dollar a year."

A dollar a year. If they (the BSA) charge every camper $5, then they're making $60,000 - $1 each year off this sweetheart deal from their privileged access to public land.

Tell me again why this is "fair"? Why does the BSA get a $60,000 public subsidy and not, for example, Temple Beth Shamus, or the Lions?



.... oh, and one more thing? It's not "their own camp." It's the city's. That's part of the issue.

 

[Cleon]

According to the excerpt in post 519 it said the scouts don't have exclusive access of their own camp. Anyone can use it.

Yes--other groups can pay the Boy Scouts for the privilege of using a publicly owned park.

 

[Cleon]

Tell me again why this is "fair"? Why does the BSA get a $60,000 public subsidy and not, for example, Temple Beth Shamus, or the Lions?

Where Kaddish is said over Jameson's....

 

[drkitten]

In this entire forum there is not 1 shred of evidence that anyone has made a false statement with a "deliberate intent to deceive".

DOC, that very statement above is a false statement, and you are making it with the intent of deceiving me. Therefore, in the very post where you claim not to be a liar, you are lying.

As a simple example, in post #373, you make the false statement that

The term "Separation of Church and State" was invented by an ACLU attorney in 1947 in arguing a case before the Supreme court.

But of course, you had already indicated familiarity with the Danbury letter. So you knew it was false.

The intention to decieve is inferrable.

Ergo, in post #373, you lied.

Ergo, in the post to which I am responding, you are also lying.

Not that this surprises anyone in this thread except you.

 

[drkitten]

Where Kaddish is said over Jameson's....

Ecumenicalism takes many forms.

 

[DOC]

DOC, that very statement above is a false statement, and you are making it with the intent of deceiving me. Therefore, in the very post where you claim not to be a liar, you are lying.

As a simple example, in post #373, you make the false statement that



But of course, you had already indicated familiarity with the Danbury letter. So you knew it was false.

The intention to decieve is inferrable.

Ergo, in post #373, you lied.

Ergo, in the post to which I am responding, you are also lying.

Not that this surprises anyone in this thread except you.

I guess people can say anything they want in these forums. But I stand by my statement that anyone who uses the term lying or liar in here lacks logic and most likely lacks dignity... Even the well respected historian David Barton who was in Who's Who said the particular words and concept "Separation of Church and State" was an invention of an ACLU attorney in 1947.

http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html


The Danbury letter uses the words "thus building a wall of separation between Church and state". There different. The legal concept of Separation of church and state was invented in 1947 and I stand by that.

At the time I said the "term" "Separation of Church and state'" was invented in 1947 that's exactly what I believed because it is different than "thus building a wall of separation between Church and state. Somebody has since dug up the fact that there was a 1910 book title with "separation of church and state in it but I never heard of that book at the time and I doubt many people have.

You may believe or wish I was lying but there is still no proof so I still believe there is a lack of logic there. I won't use the words lack of dignity in this particular instance because you could believe what your saying but the evidence is not there even though in your mind you might think its there.

 

[drkitten]

But I stand by my statement that anyone who uses the term lying or liar in here lacks logic and dignity...

Fair enough. I stand by my statement that you, as a liar, lack truthfulness, honor, trustworthiness, and credibility.

Even the well respected historian David Barton who was in Who's Who said the particular words and concept "Separation of Church and State" was an invention of an ACLU attorney in 1947.

Except I'm fairly confident he didn't. None of the so-called "citations" you've listed, with perhaps a handful of scattered exceptions, actually stand up to critical analysis.

Basically, stand on your dignity all you like. I'll stand, instead, on your posting history. I feel confident that any observer will find you lying from one end of this thread to the other.

And, equally unfortunately, I'm sure your days of lying on this thread have just come to a middle....

 

[Cleon]

Even the well respected historian David Barton who was in Who's Who

 

[Ossai]

DOC

According to the excerpt in post 519 it said the scouts don't have exclusive access of their own camp. Anyone can use it.

Because it is not their camp. They do not have ownership. The special privilege was removed not the right to use public land.

You may believe or wish I was lying but there is still no proof so I still believe their is a lack of logic and dignity there.

So you’re an egotistical liar and even when caught and documented lie again in a vague attempt to cover it. How divorced from reality are you?

Ossai

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
Even the well respected historian David Barton who was in Who's Who

About the Author
David is the recipient of several national and international awards, including the Daughters of the American Revolution Medal of Honor; the George Washington Honor Medal; two Angel Awards for excellence in media and educational medium, many Who's Who, and numerous other awards.

He is the author of numerous books on historical, legal, and educational issues. David is a national conference speaker and a frequent consultant to state and federal legislators.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Godly-Heritage-David-Barton/dp/0925279293

 

[DOC]

Correction

Earlier I stated that David Barton said that the particular words and concept "Separation of Church and State" was an invention of an ACLU attorney in 1947. Well that is certainly possible but I mistook the following passage as coming from a wallbuilders website when it looks like it is not a wallbuilders website. So as of yet I don't have a cite that Barton actually said the above, but the author of the following certainly implies it.

"Research by David Barton, founder of Wallbuilders, Inc. exposes the alleged separation of church and state for the myth that it really is. The words separation of church and state don't appear in any official government documents authored by the founding fathers. This concept and these particular words were invented by an ACLU attorney named Leo Pfeffer in 1947 in the Supreme Court case of Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing Township. That liberal supreme court imposed it on the nation by a 5 to 4 vote. The ACLU and other anti-Christian organizations and individuals have used it to harass Christians with ever since."

http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html

 

[Cleon]

He is the author of numerous books on historical, legal, and educational issues. David is a national conference speaker and a frequent consultant to state and federal legislators.

Of course! He's a political activist. He's not any sort of remotely competent historian--hell, earlier in this thread we established that he doesn't know even the most basic historic facts about Jefferson's life.

The idea that he is "respected" as a historian beyond religious-right ideologues is laughable. The idea that "Who's Who" is some sort of gauge of "respect" is even more ridiculous.

So I repeat:

 

[DOC]

Yes--other groups can pay the Boy Scouts for the privilege of using a publicly owned park.

Well then its only fair that the public pays back to the Boy Scouts the millions the Boys Scouts spent on the public park. The public had to pay the ACLU nearly a million in legal fees and court costs.


From Post 519:
The Scouts have spent millions of dollars developing and maintaining the public park over the years, without burden to the city and its taxpayers.

 

[drkitten]

"Research by David Barton, founder of Wallbuilders, Inc. exposes the alleged separation of church and state for the myth that it really is. The words separation of church and state don't appear in any official government documents authored by the founding fathers. This concept and these particular words were invented by an ACLU attorney named Leo Pfeffer in 1947 in the Supreme Court case of Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing Township. That liberal supreme court imposed it on the nation by a 5 to 4 vote. The ACLU and other anti-Christian organizations and individuals have used it to harass Christians with ever since."

http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html

This citation has already been debunked. It's factual standards for (in)accuracy have been illustrated by the fact that at no time did Leo Pfeffer act for the ACLU -- i.e., this statement alone is a line (it's an untruth designed to mislead, and as you already know that, that makes you a liar as well if you are suggesting that this citation is accurate).

Beyond that, if you are seriously suggesting that "the concept" of "separation of church and state" does not appear in the phrase "wall of separation between church and state", and that the concept itself was invented in 1947.....

.... well, that reflect badly upon your sense of reality.

 

[Cleon]

Well then its only fair that the public pays back to the Boy Scouts the millions the Boys Scouts spent on the public park.

Not at all, considering the Boy Scouts were able to rent it out and make a mint--illegally. Funny how your article fails to mention that part.