Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[Nova Land]

... 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.

DOC, I have a question for you.

This apparently is a fairly important matter to you. It's something you are interested in convincing others about. Have you ever taken the time to look up Barton's sources for yourself, to make sure these actually say what Barton says they say?

You appear to be basing your opinion of what Jefferson thought and wrote, not on Jefferson's actual writings, but on what someone else has told you that Jefferson thought and wrote. But if you are willing to do that, how do you know that Barton didn't do the very same thing?

If this is important to you, then it is a fairly simple matter to go to a good library and look these things up for yourself. Then you won't need to rely on the word of someone such as Barton -- who, for all you know, may be as unfamiliar with Jefferson's actual writings as you are, and may simply be passing on things he has read in other people's articles about Jefferson as you are doing.

If Barton is correct, then looking up Jefferson's writings for yourself will enable you to make your case much more strongly and much more convincingly. If you look up Jefferson's writings for yourself, you won't have to say Jefferson said such and such; and I know this is true because David Barton says so -- you'll be able to say, Jefferson says such and such, and I know this is true because I looked up the original and read it for myself.

On the other hand, you may find that Barton has misrepresented what Jefferson thought and wrote. People have been known to do that. Isn't that what you believe the ACLU people have done?

If you have faith that Barton is an honest and reliable source, and that Jefferson really did think and say what Barton claims he thought and said, then you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by looking up Jefferson's writings for yourself.

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

I will be passing through Knoxville this weekend, and plan to visit the University of Tennessee library while I'm there. Their catalog lists what appears to be the book of Jefferson's paper which DOC says is Barton's source. I will be glad to look up and photocopy pages 494-497, to read them (and the surrounding pages if those are also relevant), and to summarize what's on them when I get a chance.

I'll have very limited computer access for the next week and a half, but should be able to type out brief excerpts from those pages at some time next week or the week after.

 

[Cactus Wren]

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....

Wikipedia: Who's Who Scam

While there are many legitimate Who's Who biographical directories, some unscrupulous individuals have created Who's Who scams that involve the selling of "memberships" in Who's Who directories that are created online and through instant publishing services. These are essentially thinly veiled scams designed to get individuals to part with their money and not some exclusive directory like the legitimate Who's Who published by A & C Black ...

The Hall of Lame: Forbes article on Who's Who in America:

"The reality is, I don't do anything," says John Fox Sullivan, publisher of National Journal and a member of the board [of advisors for Who's Who in America] for the last decade. "There is almost no communication back and forth. Once a year I get a piece of paper asking me if I want to recommend someone. It's not as if there's an annual retreat somewhere where we sit around and decide who makes it this year. Or if there is, I haven't been invited."

[ ... ]

Who's Who in America also appears to contain a lot of relatively unaccomplished people who simply nominated themselves. To make the process of self-promotion easier, Reed Elsevier, the publication's parent company and the owner of Lexis-Nexis, now has a site on the Internet where would-be biographees can complete a "biographical data form." Spaces are provided for "career history," as well as for "awards, honors, and grants." Applicants who are uncomfortable with sending personal information over the Web are invited to fax their biographies to a number provided on the screen.

[ ... ]


Donald Ray Grubbs of Portland, Texas, is proof that persistence pays off. From 1973 to 1986, Donald Ray worked as a pipe fitter and welder for the Pipefitters Local 195 in Beaumont. Now an employee of Longview Inspection, a company that assesses the structural integrity of industrial sites, Grubbs has been appearing in various Who's Who publications for a decade or so. Only a couple of years ago, he said, was he "elected" to Who's Who in America. "You work up the chain of Who's Who documents," Grubbs explained. "I was in Who's Who in American Education, Who's Who in the World, and then Who's Who in America."

 

[DOC]

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.

Your post is full of falsehoods and misleading statements. You state, I said, the "concept" was invented in 1947. And than you list 4 posts. In none of those posts do I say the concept was invented in 1947 except for post 536 and then I was making a correction about something I said Barton said. You also failed to mention that I was talking about "Legal" concepts in post 439 and 515. In post 515, I even put the words legal and concept in italics like this "legal concepts".

Also you said I did not say that the "term" separation of church and state was invented in 1947. That is a false statement, I said it in post 373. You should also notice that at the top of post 373 I said that I was making those statements as best as I could determine. People who make several inaccurate and misleading statements in one post, should not rant and rave when someone else makes an inaccurate statement.

 

[DOC]

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.




[qimg]http://www.kitten-pictures.com/images/Kitten-Pictures-68.jpg[/qimg]

What is the claim your talking about?

And from your post I gather you don't think the information found in Washington's 1st inaugural, Lincoln's 2nd inaugural, The last paragraph or two of Coolidge's inaugural, the fact that the founder of the ACLU was a communist, and the fact that Justice Hugo Black was in the KKK, is worthwhile information for an American to know.

 

[DOC]

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

Actually the source is the Papers of Thomas Jefferson. I believe I originally said, from memory, the Writings of Thomas Jefferson. See post 570 for the actual source of Barton's claim.

 

[DOC]

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

You in no way showed Barton to be wrong when he said Jefferson proposed a bible scene for the National seal. You only stated what the bible scene was and gave your personal opinion about it.

 

[DOC]

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.

If the Supreme Court would just stick to the constitution and the words:

"Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prevent the free exercise thereof" we wouldn't be in this mess.

I think we should stick with the founders and not Leo Pfeffer and Hugo (KKK) Black.

 

[wahrheit]

I am torn between posting or .

DOC seems to be one of the just-repeat-it-often-enough-hoping-some-of-it-will-stick faction.

 

[kmortis]

Hrm...kitten pix didn't do anything. What about poohats?

 

[Cleon]

You in no way showed Barton to be wrong when he said Jefferson proposed a bible scene for the National seal. You only stated what the bible scene was and gave your personal opinion about it.

This is so incredibly dishonest, on so many levels, that all I can say is:

Go away, DOC. Just go away, you filthy little troll.

 

[skeptifem]

If the Supreme Court would just stick to the constitution and the words:

"Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prevent the free exercise thereof" we wouldn't be in this mess.

do you NOT see how that is the same exact concept?????


uughghghgnbghghg i wish i had a cat picture on hand...

 

[Miss Anthrope]

do you NOT see how that is the same exact concept?????


uughghghgnbghghg i wish i had a cat picture on hand...

 

[DOC]

do you NOT see how that is the same exact concept????

Please explain.

 

[kmortis]

Please explain.

do you NOT see how that is the same exact concept?????


uughghghgnbghghg i wish i had a cat picture on hand...

Well, kitty pix don't seem to cut it anymore. I guess the trolls have evolved by some means (I do wish someone would explain how certain orgainisms change over time). Therefore, I present you with...

...Carebear stare!

 

[DOC]

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.

Maybe this will help you to see why this matters. Take for example the case where a Nativity scene , that the majority of a community enjoyed for 80 years, could no longer be enjoyed because of an ACLU lawsuit. If the ACLU could only refer to the simple wording of the 1st amendment, they wouldn't have a case. It's only because of the "legal concept" invented in the 1947 case by Hugo Black and Leo Pfeffer are they able to deny the wishes of the majority of the citizens. Thomas Jefferson can go to church in the Rotunda of Congress building for seven years but a community can't enjoy a nativity scene because of the invention of a legal concept.

The above can also be applied to school prayer. If the majority of a community feels a non-denominational optional prayer would be to the benefit of their children and to society (like it was for 185 years) they can't have it because someone invented a non-constitutional legal concept in 1947. If the courts could only refer to the wording of the 1st amendment than individual communities would be allowed to have school prayer if they so chose. If we just would stuck to the wording of the founding fathers in the 1st amendment the wishes of the people, by the people, and for the people could be adhered to.

And maybe things like Columbine and Virginia Tech would not have happened if those killers (and the students who made fun of them) had said prayers everyday when they grew up. That's why this matters. And I believe its only going to get worse the more the ACLU and others fight to get rid of God in public life.

 

[skeptifem]

it doesnt say 'the government will make no law respecting an establishment of religion, except when the majority agrees that its favorable'. You keep bringing up the majority like it matters, when the majority has jack to do with keeping church and state seperate. and no, removing the nativity scene doesnt restrict the free excercise of religion, they can have the nativity scenes on their own private properties and the aclu wont say anything. kids can pray on their own in school all they want to. they just cant have prayer in an official capacity, as in an endorsement from the school for prayer.

I guess you didnt know that the ALCU won a lawsuit for a high school student who wanted to use a bible verse as her quote next to her senior picture and the school didnt let her. They sued and won and helped a girl publish a bible verse in her schools yearbook, because it was a personal expression of religion and had nothing to do with the schools feelings about religion. The aclu helps people both ways, if there is an unfair restriction on someones religious freedom they help, and if theres an unfair official endorsement of religion they help, so really, get off your high horse and see that they are completely fair in how they give out aid to people suffering injustice. demonizing them is pretty much impossible because they help so many different kinds of people.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I've not been alive all that long, but I have learned a few things in my 43 years. One is something of the nature of evil, which, in part, is to do bad and call it good. DOC, your last post contains evil.

I'm disgusted by your behavior in this thread.

 

[kmortis]

I'm disgusted by your behavior in this thread.

​

 

[fuelair]

Maybe this will help you to see why this matters. Take for example the case where a Nativity scene , that the majority of a community enjoyed for 80 years, could no longer be enjoyed because of an ACLU lawsuit. If the ACLU could only refer to the simple wording of the 1st amendment, they wouldn't have a case. It's only because of the "legal concept" invented in the 1947 case by Hugo Black and Leo Pfeffer are they able to deny the wishes of the majority of the citizens. Thomas Jefferson can go to church in the Rotunda of Congress building for seven years but a community can't enjoy a nativity scene because of the invention of a legal concept.

The above can also be applied to school prayer. If the majority of a community feels a non-denominational optional prayer would be to the benefit of their children and to society (like it was for 185 years) they can't have it because someone invented a non-constitutional legal concept in 1947. If the courts could only refer to the wording of the 1st amendment than individual communities would be allowed to have school prayer if they so chose. If we just would stuck to the wording of the founding fathers in the 1st amendment the wishes of the people, by the people, and for the people could be adhered to.

And maybe things like Columbine and Virginia Tech would not have happened if those killers (and the students who made fun of them) had said prayers everyday when they grew up. That's why this matters. And I believe its only going to get worse the more the ACLU and others fight to get rid of God in public life.

You should be ashamed of that last paragraph - and there is indirect evidence that the Cho rectum did, but of course admitting/noticing that would hurt your straw house.

 

[wahrheit]

If the majority of a community feels a non-denominational optional prayer would be to the benefit of their children and to society (like it was for 185 years) they can't have it because someone invented a non-constitutional legal concept in 1947.

Society benefitted from school prayer for 185 years? I'm sure you do have a source to support that claim.

Just kidding. I'm sure you don't know jack what you are talking about.

And maybe things like Columbine and Virginia Tech would not have happened if those killers (and the students who made fun of them) had said prayers everyday when they grew up. That's why this matters. And I believe its only going to get worse the more the ACLU and others fight to get rid of God in public life.

DOC, the above post* of yours is an embarrassment to humankind. It is full of hatred and idiocy. Shame on you, Mr. Fake Christian. Please go somewhere else and spare us your disconcerting, ignorant and sick palaver. Thank you!

*Actually, most of them.