Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[Cleon]

Post 211 quotes Wiki, but Wiki supports Barton's claim that Jefferson proposed that the National Seal contain a Bible scene.

Fine, I will explain this to you like you're 10.

Barton's claim:

Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto

(bolding mine, por supuesto)

Reality:

Jefferson's proposal included an allegorical image of the Israelites delivered from bondage, true; it also included images of Hengist and Horsa, two figures from pagan (Saxon, specifically) legend.

As I pointed out in post #215, which you have ignored twice now, Jefferson's proposal did not include a motto, contrary to Barton's claim. Franklin suggested the motto "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." (Which is interesting, considering that Franklin was unquestionably a self-identified Deist, as established earlier in this thread.)

In summary, Barton's claim is, at best, only half true--Jefferson did suggest a depiction of a Bible story. However, given his inclusion of pagan imagery as well, not to mention his well-known hostility towards organized religion, it is more likely that he chose the scene for the allegory of freedom from tyranny rather than some endorsement of Christianity. (In this, I sympathize with Jefferson; as a left-leaning Deist Jew, Passover holds a lot of weight with me for much the same reasons it did with Jefferson.)

So even the part of Barton's claim that is true is still dishonest; he's not telling the whole story of Jefferson's suggestion, and using the omission to suggest a religious significance Jefferson likely did not share.

 

[Ossai]

DOC

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.

Nicely implied but let’s actually check.
From ACLU of San Diego Secures Landmark Settlement in Boy Scout Lease Case (1/8/2004)
“The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two San Diego families, the Breens and the Barnes-Wallaces. The Breens are agnostics who are unsure of the existence of God and who do not participate in organized religion. They have a son, Maxwell, who is nine years old.
The Barnes-Wallaces are a same-sex couple with a 10-year-old son, Mitchell. Both families are avid users of Balboa Park, except the portion of the park under Boy Scout control. Their sons would like to be Scouts, but cannot join. Max Breen would be unable to take the Boy Scout oath, which avows a reverence for God. Mitchell Barnes-Wallace cannot join because his parents are lesbians, whom the Scouts do not consider "morally clean."

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.

Yet attempt to obscure the issue, how about paying attention to what the other posters have actually written. You’ve got 15 pages of thread to go back and actually find the correct answer. Yes it has been posted.

Ossai

 

[drkitten]

dup post ignore.

 

[drkitten]

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.

In retrospect, I find this particular phrase of DOC's to be particularly interesting.

In my experience, whenever someone says "there is no proof," that is often, in a purely practical sense, and admission of the truth of the accusation. After all, if I were to say something blatantly and completely incorrect, you wouldn't say "you have no proof of that," you'd simply say "you're wrong!"

Let's try it.

"The capital of France is Ottawa, on the shores of the Black Sea." "There is no proof of that!"

So I find it interesting that at this point, DOC has, essentially, given up any pretence of actually defending either himself or his sources from the charge of "lying." Inistead he's simply insisting that before we call him a "liar" -- which, by the way, I still do -- we must have "proof" for such an accusation to be "logical."

.... which is also a load of happy horsemanure. I don't need "proof" to accuse you of burgling my house, mere "evidence" will suffice. Even the police don't need "proof" to arrest you and bring you to trial. And even at the trial, the evidence ncecessary to sustain a conviction doesn't arise to what mathematicians call "proof." If I find your fingerprints all over the broken window, your footprints in the flowerbed underneath, and your tyre marks in the alley outside, that's may well be enough for the jury.

Are you seriously claiming, DOC, that the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" and the phrase "separation of church and state" do not embody the same concept? If you do, I think you would welcome a chance to explain how those concepts are different. I therefore invite you to do so. If you can explain how your fingerprints, footprints, and tyre marks are all over the scene of the burglary, perhaps there is another rational explanation besides "you're the burglar."

But I'm fairly comfortable that the best you will be able to do is raise silly and ineffective semantic debates about whether or not I've "proven" you to be a liar, or merely demonstrated it by evidence sufficient to sway any rational observer.

 

[Darat]

...snip... I don't need "proof" to accuse you of burglarizing my house, mere "evidence" will suffice.

...snip...

Totally off topic (but since that was disproved in the first couple of dozen posts hey-ho)

drkitten - I have a lot of respect both for your ability to put forward your arguments and your use of language however please, please - burglarizing - - one the ugliest words known to humankind!

You can accuse me of burgling your house, I can accuse you of burgling my house, we can each have burgled the other's house and we will both have been burgled but never in a million years will you convince me either of us has been burglarized!

 

[drkitten]

drkitten - I have a lot of respect both for your ability to put forward your arguments and your use of language however please, please - burglarizing - - one the ugliest words known to humankind!

You can accuse me of burgling your house, I can accuse you of burgling my house, we can each have burgled the other's house and we will both have been burgled but never in a million years will you convince me either of us has been burglarized!

Yeah, and I'll bet that you have methods that you use instead of methodologies you utilize, too.

 

[DOC]

Fine, I will explain this to you like you're 10.

Barton's claim:



(bolding mine, por supuesto)

Reality:

Jefferson's proposal included an allegorical image of the Israelites delivered from bondage, true; it also included images of Hengist and Horsa, two figures from pagan (Saxon, specifically) legend.

As I pointed out in post #215, which you have ignored twice now, Jefferson's proposal did not include a motto, contrary to Barton's claim. Franklin suggested the motto "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." (Which is interesting, considering that Franklin was unquestionably a self-identified Deist, as established earlier in this thread.)

In summary, Barton's claim is, at best, only half true--Jefferson did suggest a depiction of a Bible story. However, given his inclusion of pagan imagery as well, not to mention his well-known hostility towards organized religion, it is more likely that he chose the scene for the allegory of freedom from tyranny rather than some endorsement of Christianity. (In this, I sympathize with Jefferson; as a left-leaning Deist Jew, Passover holds a lot of weight with me for much the same reasons it did with Jefferson.)

So even the part of Barton's claim that is true is still dishonest; he's not telling the whole story of Jefferson's suggestion, and using the omission to suggest a religious significance Jefferson likely did not share.

Barton did not say Jefferson's proposal included a motto. Jefferson's proposal was that the motto include the word God. And Barton used the "Writings of Thomas Jefferson" as his source. Barton was not incorrect.

 

[Cleon]

Barton did not say Jefferson's proposal included a motto.

Yes, he did. I even bolded it for you. I will repeat:

Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto

Barton's exact words.

Jefferson's proposal was that the motto include the word God.

No, it wasn't--and now you've contradicted yourself. Again.

And Barton used the "Writings of Thomas Jefferson" as his source.

No, Barton claims that his source was the writings of Thomas Jefferson.

Given that the information he presented was not correct, chances are his actual source was either A) some third party reporting an incorrect claim or B) Barton's rectal cavity.

Barton was not incorrect.

Yes, he was.


Apparently, you really don't like evidence that doesn't back up your preconceived opinions. You even go so far as to ignore any such evidence. Well, sucks to be you. But every time you try to ignore the facts, they're still going to be there.

Stubborn things, facts.

 

[DOC]

Are you seriously claiming, DOC, that the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" and the phrase "separation of church and state" do not embody the same concept? If you do, I think you would welcome a chance to explain how those concepts are different. I therefore invite you to do so.

I said the "term" separation of church and state was invented 1947. "Separation of church and state" is a legal "term" that is constantly used to this day by groups like the ACLU. If I had said the metaphor "building a wall of separation between church and state" was invented in 1947 you might have a argument.

Jefferson's use of that metaphor (and by the way "Separation of Church and State" is not a metaphor), in the context he used it ( post 61), has a different meaning in a lot of people's opinion (including myself and Renquist) than the meaning given to it in 1947 by Leo Pfeffler and Hugo Black.

 

[DOC]

To Cleon:

Here is what Barton said and his source. You can interpret and criticize it anyway you want.

"Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto; [13]."

Source:
[13] Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), Vol. I, pp. 494-497, from “Report on a Seal for the United States, with Related Papers,” August 20, 1776.


From the article "The Founders on Public Religious Expression"

http://www.leaderu.com/common/founderspubrelig.html#_ftn13

 

[Cleon]

To Cleon:

Here is what Barton said and his source. You can interpret and criticize it anyway you want.

"Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto; [13]."

Yes, I'm aware. I've quoted his exact words twice, and explained why it's wrong.

Your selective blindness seems to be kicking in again.

 

[BrianSI]

I've only recently discovered this thread.


I'd like to thank Fowlsound for his patience, and for rendering the last 13 or so pages completely unnecessary to the claim at hand. However, these pages are quite useful as a clear demonstration of the difference between opinion and fact (Thanks then also to Cleon, Dr.K, et al.)

I have come to the conlcusion that DOC would continue posting in this thread indefinitely, regardless of whether anyone responses. I imagine he assumes quantity = quality.


And I would now like to contribute in my own way.

 

[kmortis]

Fine, I will explain this to you like you're 10.

Barton's claim:



(bolding mine, por supuesto)

Reality:

Jefferson's proposal included an allegorical image of the Israelites delivered from bondage, true; it also included images of Hengist and Horsa, two figures from pagan (Saxon, specifically) legend.

As I pointed out in post #215, which you have ignored twice now, Jefferson's proposal did not include a motto, contrary to Barton's claim. Franklin suggested the motto "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." (Which is interesting, considering that Franklin was unquestionably a self-identified Deist, as established earlier in this thread.)

In summary, Barton's claim is, at best, only half true--Jefferson did suggest a depiction of a Bible story. However, given his inclusion of pagan imagery as well, not to mention his well-known hostility towards organized religion, it is more likely that he chose the scene for the allegory of freedom from tyranny rather than some endorsement of Christianity. (In this, I sympathize with Jefferson; as a left-leaning Deist Jew, Passover holds a lot of weight with me for much the same reasons it did with Jefferson.)

So even the part of Barton's claim that is true is still dishonest; he's not telling the whole story of Jefferson's suggestion, and using the omission to suggest a religious significance Jefferson likely did not share.

To add on to this: There's nothing distasteful about using the Bible for symbolic imagery, heck, it's chocked full of it. Most of Western Literature would be difficult to understand without at least a passing understanding of the Bible. So, for Jefferson to draw on a cultural reference (such as the Bible) that everyone would "get", is totally in character for him.

 

[kmortis]

Barton did not say Jefferson's proposal included a motto. Jefferson's proposal was that the motto include the word God. And Barton used the "Writings of Thomas Jefferson" as his source. Barton was not incorrect.

Gotta citation? I have a copy of that book here....

 

[drkitten]

I said the "term" separation of church and state was invented 1947.

No, you didn't. You said the "concept" was invented in 1947. Post 195, 439, 515, and 536, inter alia.

But let that deliberate untruth with intent to deceive pass, for the moment (although I assure you the readership of this thread will have noticed it and added it to your credibility total.)

So what? What's the meaningful difference between "separation between church and state," which is the exact term written by Jefferson hiimself as a statement of his preferred relationship between the two entities, and "separation of church and state," which is the modern formulation since 1910 (and of course, the 1947 trial). What activities would be permitted under separation "between," but not separation "of"?

You are falsely claiming (with intent to decieve) that you have only been interested in the linguistic expression. But even if that were true, there is no meanginful significance in the differences.

 

[kmortis]

1) I apologize. I don't have that book of Jefferson's papers. I have the Vintage Press version "Jefferson: Papers Public and Private".

2) In the book I DO have, has a rather interesting piece. (page 18) From the Draft Virginia Constitution, written by Jefferson in 1776.

All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.

It's the second phrase that interests me. Doesn't sound like an overwhelming endorsement of religion, eh?

 

[skeptifem]

It proves that the current Separation of Church and State "legal concept" that is being used to tear a ten commandment display down that has been up for decades and prevent the Boys Scouts from using public parks in cities like San Diego is based on "bad history" as Former chief Justice Renquist said it was. (Post 380)

If the ACLU and others want to tear down manger scenes that have been used for 85 years or end school prayer that has been around for 180 years do it threw the polls or threw the constitution; don't do it threw bad history. Because guys like me are going to be constantly reminding everyone it was based on bad history.

ok its been established by now that the boyscouts thing isnt true, anyway.

is it 'bad history' to remember that people fought against england for their own religious freedom because the english had an official government religion and it ****ed up things completely for everyone who wasnt a part of it? and that is why they left and fought wars. do you think maybe that has something to do with the documents signed by the founding fathers?

is it 'bad history' that the government says it will make no law respecting any establishment of religion or restrict the free excercise of religion? it means 'do whatever you want, but the government isnt going to endorse any religion'. it means the same friggin thing as seperation of church and state. do you understand that WHAT IS SINGED INTO LAW is what is upheld, not what you think some guy said in an unnoficial manner?


and yeah, prayer in school is endorsing religion, unless you want to waste all kinds of time being all inclusive and having schools honor and encourage EVERY religious tradition. it would waste time and money and it shouldnt happen because school is for learning. if people want to go and participate in religious cerimonies they can go to church on their own time. Besides, kids can pray ALL THEY WANT TO in school, they just cant have teachers leading or encouraging prayer in any official manner.

 

[skeptifem]

I said the "term" separation of church and state was invented 1947. "Separation of church and state" is a legal "term" that is constantly used to this day by groups like the ACLU. If I had said the metaphor "building a wall of separation between church and state" was invented in 1947 you might have a argument.

Jefferson's use of that metaphor (and by the way "Separation of Church and State" is not a metaphor), in the context he used it ( post 61), has a different meaning in a lot of people's opinion (including myself and Renquist) than the meaning given to it in 1947 by Leo Pfeffler and Hugo Black.

I still really, really fail to see why this matters at all. the term 'rule of thumb' used to mean as a rule you couldnt beat your wife with a stick larger in girth than your thumb. I dont see a thread about that, because no one cares. A current understanding that is wide spread makes the phrase perfectly acceptable to use in a different way than it originally was. That comparison would apply you were correct anyway, and youre not.

 

[fuelair]

Fine, I will explain this to you like you're 10.

Barton's claim:



(bolding mine, por supuesto)

.

You are giving Doc an awful lot of credit there - you might want to drop back to five or six on that. Give him a fair chance to twist out of it.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

1)
It's the second phrase that interests me. Doesn't sound like an overwhelming endorsement of religion, eh?

Now, watch DOC twist it or change the subject. (e.g. Leo Pfeffer, Hugo Black, Communists, the KKK, Lincoln's Third Inaugural Address from the alternative universe where he wasn't shot, etc.)