Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[DOC]

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.

Where was that established about David Barton?

 

[Hawk one]

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".

So you're saying you're just incredibly ignorant, and "merely" keep on telling falsehoods unthinkingly because you're not capable of doing some basic and proper research on f.ex. the Boy Scout case you dropped in?

I might have bought that if it hadn't been for the fact that you
a) Have told -dozens- of such falsehoods in this thread alone

and more importantly

b) Kept repeating the same falsehoods when they have been shown to be false.

For example, people have corrected you and told you that the Boy Scouts are getting unfair -priviledges-, such as getting first pick access of a public area for next to nothing, and then be able to charge the rest of the public for using the same area. Yet you somehow try to twist these facts into the Boy Scouts - an organisation that is well-known to discriminate - being persecuted and banned from a public park. It's so blatantly dishonest, that there is no other word for it than lying.

Repeating a known falsehood is to lie. And trying to make a semantic case out of this just goes to show you're still being basically dishonest, and unable to have an honest debate.

So again, why do you keep lying? And what makes you think telling lies - and don't try your semantic bs, kid, that's such a transparent evasion of the subject - will convince anyone that Christianity presents the better moral values? Right now, your repeated lies only shows us one more example of religious hypocricy. You're pretty much only helping people who happens to read your posts to become agnostics and atheists with your repeated lies and "holier than thou" attitude and denial of your obvious lying. And before you start typing out some more bs, -think- about what I'm trying to tell you here. THINK!

And by the way, why is your faith so weak that you have to keep lying to keep it? Plenty of Christians out there that know for a fact that they're not being persecuted, especially not in USA. Plenty of them that knows the undeniable fact - unless you're even lying to yourself, that is - that the Founding Fathers meant for Church and State. They have no problem with their faith, because they have a strong faith. But you apparently don't, because if you did, then you wouldn't have to keep attacking perceived "enemies" of your faith and make up lies about them in order to stick to your socalled "moral high ground. Such a pitiable state to live in, not being able to be honest even with oneself...

 

[Darat]

Where was that established about David Barton?

At the top of the thread is a dropdown menu called "Search this thread" - click on that and you can do a search for "David Barton".

 

[DOC]

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.

What is your source that the Boy Scouts made a mint--illegally?

 

[DOC]

At the top of the thread is a dropdown menu called "Search this thread" - click on that and you can do a search for "David Barton".

Thank you, but I would estimate that Barton is in over 20 posts in this forum and I would just like to know the post he is referring to when he says that Barton doesn't even know the basic historical facts about Jefferson's life. I name post numbers all the time.

 

[Cleon]

What is your source that the Boy Scouts made a mint

They rented it out, didn't they? They certainly charged the Scouts that went to their camp there.

Given that their main expense was all of one dollar per year, it would take a rather cunning bit of incompetence to not make a good amount of money from their sweetheart deal.

--illegally?

The ACLU won the case, didn't they?

 

[Cleon]

Thank you, but I would estimate that Barton is in over 20 posts in this forum and I would just like to know the post he is referring to. I name post numbers all the time.

Start at post 211.

Admittedly, I was confusing the bull you posted from Kennedy with the bull you posted from Barton, but they both have serious problems in the "historical accuracy" department.

You did make an attempt at a somewhat amusing game of word-parsing, but in the end, Barton was full of crap.

 

[drkitten]

IEven 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

I should point out that I myself am also in Who's Who. As, I suspect, are a number of other posters on this forum. It's a big book, especially if (as most people who make a point of citing their WW credentials do) you include the various sub-volumes such as "Who's Who in the American West" or "Who's Who in Balding Left-Handed Chicken Farmers of British Descent."

So who are you going to believe, me or Barton? What's he got that I haven't got? Aside from a nasty habit of telling palpable and easily seen-through untruths, that is....

 

[DOC]

Start at post 211.

Admittedly, I was confusing the bull you posted from Kennedy with the bull you posted from Barton, but they both have serious problems in the "historical accuracy" department.

What is your reasoning that Barton has a serious problem in the historical accuracy department.

 

[Cleon]

What is your reasoning that Barton has a serious problem in the historical accuracy department.

I'm not going to rehash the thread, DOC. You're being deliberately dense.

 

[DOC]

I'm not going to rehash the thread, DOC. You're being deliberately dense.

You shouldn't criticize somebodies skill at their life's work as you do to Barton unless your willing to back it up with sound reasoning.

 

[Cleon]

You shouldn't criticize somebodies lifework like Barton unless your willing to back it up with sound reasoning.

I already backed it up. Starting at post 211. As you well know. I'm not going to re-hash it, as I said. And I'm certainly not going to play your little "I'm too dense, explain it to me like I'm 10" game.

Cope.

 

[DOC]

They rented it out, didn't they? They certainly charged the Scouts that went to their camp there.

Given that their main expense was all of one dollar per year, it would take a rather cunning bit of incompetence to not make a good amount of money from their sweetheart deal.



The ACLU won the case, didn't they?

What is your source that

1. the Scouts rented it out

2. they charged the scouts that went to their camp there.

3. they're "main expense" was one dollar a year.

 

[Cleon]

What is your source that

1. the Scouts rented it out

2. they charged the scouts that went to their camp there.

3. they're "main expense" was one dollar a year.

You love this "deliberately stubborn" thing, don't you? Have fun with it.

In the end, it doesn't matter. The Boy Scouts were getting a sweetheart deal they had no business getting.

 

[DOC]

I already backed it up. Starting at post 211. As you well know. I'm not going to re-hash it, as I said. And I'm certainly not going to play your little "I'm too dense, explain it to me like I'm 10" game.

Cope.

Post 211 quotes Wiki, but Wiki supports Barton's claim that Jefferson proposed that the National Seal contain a Bible scene. So you still have not presented any evidence that Barton has serious problems with historical accuracy as you stated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States#History

"Jefferson suggested a depiction of the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night for the front of the seal;"

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

What is your source that

1. the Scouts rented it out

2. they charged the scouts that went to their camp there.

3. they're "main expense" was one dollar a year

You love this "deliberately stubborn" thing, don't you? Have fun with it.

In the end, it doesn't matter. The Boy Scouts were getting a sweetheart deal they had no business getting.

If I would have done the above, other people in this forum would say I'm lying, when you do it, it becomes "it doesn't matter".

 

[DOC]

DOC quote:
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.

I believe the author was implying that "anyone" could use the Boy Scout camp "before" the court case.

So you’re an egotistical liar and even when caught and documented lie again in a vague attempt to cover it.

So according to your logic and the logic of the poster who "caught me" (in your words) the metaphor "building a wall of separation between church and state" used in a short courtesy letter (as Renquist called it) is the same thing as the legal term "separation of church and state" used in a Supreme Court case about 145 years later. That's some documentation.

 

[Ducky]

Same old strawmen tactics. ok well this is very overdue in this thread:

 

[fuelair]

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.

Just re: the Who's Who thing. My wife has been in several of them - when I for a short period taught two library science courses in Nashville, I had practical assignments for the students and one involved locating names in various biographical references. My wife was one I used and at that time she showed up in three. My wife has been a regular teacher or low level administrator all these years - yet in multiple Who's Who and Teacher sources. All that was needed to happen to start it was an aunt who was in one (Famous Men of Science) sending my wifes' name in for another.. I fear that my desire not to be personally known to you and certain others precludes my identifying her for verification and I bring it up to point out that being in WW has long been fun but no ticket to anything because it has not meant that much in a LONG time.

 

[kmortis]

.............