Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[DOC]

Still waiting for an answer DOC. Did you mean to say everyone in this thread that points out your lies to be an anti-religious, anti-American communist, or did you just mean me?

This is another one of those tricky bitter questions that no matter how you answer it you lose. But I'll try to ignore the deception and the bitterness and answer the underlying question.

I don't know if anyone in here is a communist like the ACLU founder was at one time. Certainly people can support the mostly anti-religious, anti traditional American values of the ACLU and still be a proponent of free enterprise. All I'm saying is that since so many people in here seem to support the ACLU it wouldn't surprise if there were individuals in here who support the atheistic humanistic Communist ideology (like the ACLU founder and the people around him did at one time).

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

All I'm saying is that since so many people in here seem to support the ACLU it wouldn't surprise if there were individuals in here who support the atheistic humanistic Communist ideology (like the ACLU founder and the people around him did at one time).

Red bating again. The ideology of people here or the ACLU has nothing to do with Jefferson's religious beliefs. We have historical facts--Jefferson's own words and actions--to show that he wanted to keep religion OUT of politics. Those facts don't change regardless of whether they're uttered by a "communists," "capitalist," "socialist," "monarchist," or what have you.

The Cold War is over, DOC. Get over it.

 

[Ducky]

This is another one of those tricky bitter questions that no matter how you answer it you lose. But I'll try to ignore the deception and the bitterness and answer the underlying question.

1) It is a direct question based on your own words. If you feel you can only lose by answering it then you should not have put yourself in a position to have to defend your own ad hominem attacks on other members of this forum.

2) "bitterness" has nothing to do with anyone's "tone" in response to you on this forum DOC. You do not make me angry, you do not make me bitter, and I am certainly not phased by your lies and slander. I'll come back to this point later in the post.

I don't know if anyone in here is a communist like the ACLU founder was at one time. Certainly people can support the mostly anti-religious, anti traditional American values of the ACLU and still be a proponent of free enterprise. All I'm saying is that since so many people in here seem to support the ACLU it wouldn't surprise if there were individuals in here who support the atheistic humanistic Communist ideology (like the ACLU founder and the people around him did at one time).

This paragraph shows a particular lack of testicular fortitude on your part. If you think we're atheist/communist anti-religion and thusly anti-american, just say so. Don't try to leave yourself wiggle room when you are called to answer for it. Have some bloody convictions.

However, let me address the specifics of that paragraph.

1) Being a communist, or having communist beliefs does not equate to being anti-american. I would have thought this ridiculousness died with Senator McCarthy, however you seem to either be channeling him, or you actually are McCarthy and have lived to the ripe age of 98 after skillfully faking your death in 1957. Either way, you are spouting nonsense with this line of thought.

More to the point, however, is that you are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation when you equate communist beliefs with anti-american beliefs.

2) Someone who is anti-religion (as you put it) is also not anti-american. This is another fallacy of equivocation. Moreover, the very subject of the original post in this thread whom you have tried to paint as a devout christian was specifically anti-religious. Refer to post #2 in this thread for the evidence, and you will see quotes from Thomas Jefferson specifically disdainful of clergy and of organized christianity. Are you now saying Thomas Jefferson was anti-american?

3) Another equivication is assuming "humanistic" equals "communist." Since you haven't shown any ability or willingness to understand any of the terms you bandy about without regards to their meanings, I'll not burden your obviously over-taxed intellect explaining why.

4) You seem to like to describe those that would continue to point out you willingly ignore evidence to the contrary of your beliefs as bitter or angry or as somehow attacking you. If you look over this thread, you will find several people, myself included, have insulted you directly. What you will also notice is that we do so after 700 posts in this thread because we have no other logical conclusion for your logical fallacy of argument from incredulity than it being willfully and directly perpetrated.

In other words, you cannot have possibly come this far in this thread and missed where your posts on Jefferson, the ACLU, the separation of church and state as a legal concept, your claims that volunteer prayer is not allowed in public schools, or any other off topic point you try to make about your beliefs were either shown to be grossly inaccurate or outright false. That you would then have to resort to calling us atheist communist anti-religious and thusly anti-america displays to us that you are not here to discuss anything, you are not here to learn anything, and you are not here to even pay attention to what we say. You are simply going to ignore all posts to the contrary of your beliefs unless you feel you can get an ad hominem attack against what you feel are the bitter/angry communist/atheist/anti-religious skeptics on this forum, or you will answer with urban legends and falsehoods. I have not seen one post you have made that has not either been shown to be grossly misleading about its topic or outright false and yet not once in this thread have you ever acknowledged this when shown the evidence of it.

So don't play this moral high ground crap here. You are willing to perpetuate falsehoods in the face of evidence showing those falsehoods to be what they are, and at the same time claim that you are being attacked while also using the same words to attack everyone else. The simple fact of the matter is you are currently throwing stones from a glass house.

After 700 posts in this thread, I simply do not feel you have earned any reason for me to respect you as I have no choice based on your posts but to conclude that:

1) You have absolutely no intention of honest discussion since you purposefully and specifically continue to try to spread falsehoods despite having been shown evidence to the contrary.

2) Your posts claiming you are being persecuted by bitter/communist/anti-religious/anti-american people are simply the only tools you have left in what looks to be a very small intellectual arsenal of thought.


I'll keep a running tally of your logical fallacies for you starting with your last post.

Your logical fallacies this time were:

1) Equivocation (x3)
2) Ad Hominem attack
3) Argument from Incredulity

 

[TobiasTheViking]

I don't know if anyone in here is a communist

Ehm

/me looks at his nick.

Yeah..... me, at least.

like the ACLU founder was at one time. Certainly people can support the mostly anti-religious, anti traditional American values of the ACLU and still be a proponent of free enterprise. All I'm saying is that since so many people in here seem to support the ACLU it wouldn't surprise if there were individuals in here who support the atheistic humanistic Communist ideology (like the ACLU founder and the people around him did at one time).

HEY... what do you have against atheist/communist anti-religion and thusly anti-american little old me?

 

[Hawk one]

I think it's time to repeat Slingblade's little quiz, because it's obvious that DOC is now trying to run away from that by focusing on calling us communists and anti-American for no good reason (only several bad ones).

How about you go one better than "belief?" I have before me the specific court case in which these words were uttered. I know who said it, when, and in what context.

I'll give you a hint: so far, the only words you posted that match anything in this case are "Supreme" and "Court."

Let's have a quiz.

1. In what case were these words uttered?
2. In what year were these words uttered?
3. In what year was the ACLJ founded?

At the end of this quiz, you will discover everything you've said....is wrong!

So how about it, DOC? You know the answers to these three questions?

 

[wahrheit]

We're starting to get into another "attack the messenger phase". I realize that's just par for the course in these forums especially when your talking about an emotional topic. The tactic that has resurfaced in several posts is the tired "your a liar, DOC".

I hope nobody actually wrote "your a liar, DOC".

I hope it was "you are a liar, DOC" or "you're a liar, DOC".

 

[Cleon]

I hope nobody actually wrote "your a liar, DOC".

I hope it was "you are a liar, DOC" or "you're a liar, DOC".

You have to understand, spelling and grammar are just more cogs in the wheel of the anti-american, communist, humanistic, ACLU agenda. See: D. James Kennedy, David Barton.

 

[drkitten]

I still don't know what happened to the additional $250,000 + of taxpayer money that went to court costs.

I'm sure you don't. Someone with the intelligence of a hamster wheel might have been able to figure out that it went to the relevant court system (that's what "court costs" means -- do you think lights in the courtroom are free?).

 

[DOC]

How about you go one better than "belief?" I have before me the specific court case in which these words were uttered. I know who said it, when, and in what context.

I'll give you a hint: so far, the only words you posted that match anything in this case are "Supreme" and "Court."

Let's have a quiz.

1. In what case were these words uttered?
2. In what year were these words uttered?
3. In what year was the ACLJ founded?

At the end of this quiz, you will discover everything you've said....is wrong!

This post is a good example of the "attack the messenger" mentality. For one thing it says everything I said is wrong. This is a false statement. When I said I "believe" the statement came from Jay Sekalow, I did "believe" the statement came from Jay Sekalow. So that is not wrong. And indeed I still believe he might have said it while arguing a case before the Supreme Court because I've heard him on TV using that phrase and I believe he said he used that phrase before the Supreme Court. Also I said several other things in that post which were not wrong so once again it is false and misleading to say "everything' I said is wrong.

Also the fact that you have not yet given us the information you said you have, shows me your more interested in attacking the messenger than educating everyone in the forum. So once again attacking the messenger takes precedence over the message.

 

[DOC]

I'm sure you don't. Someone with the intelligence of a hamster wheel might have been able to figure out that it went to the relevant court system (that's what "court costs" means -- do you think lights in the courtroom are free?).

Once again we have a bitter "attack the messenger" message. And in addition to the rude bitter remark, it might contain false information because it implies that all the 250,000 dollars in taxpayer money went to the relevant court system. But if we are to believe the article I originally quoted "The ACLU vs the Boy Scouts" by Hans Zeigler. That money in court costs went to the ACLU:

"Under terms of the new settlement, San Diego must request Judge Jones to cancel the Boy Scouts' lease on Balboa Park. The city will also pay the ACLU nearly $1 million in court costs and attorney fees, which will, of course, help finance further attacks against the Boy Scouts.

Now that the City of San Diego has given up on the Boy Scouts of America, a nearly 90-year relationship has come to an end."

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zeiger/040114

 

[Mojo]

Once again we have a bitter "attack the messenger" message. And in addition to the rude bitter remark, it might contain false information because it implies that all the 250,000 dollars in taxpayer money went to the relevant court system. But if we are to believe the article I originally quoted "The ACLU vs the Boy Scouts" by Hans Zeigler. That money in court costs went to the ACLU:

"Under terms of the new settlement, San Diego must request Judge Jones to cancel the Boy Scouts' lease on Balboa Park. The city will also pay the ACLU nearly $1 million in court costs and attorney fees, which will, of course, help finance further attacks against the Boy Scouts.

Let's try bolding a different bit of that:

"The city will also pay the ACLU nearly $1 million in court costs and attorney fees..."

Do you know where the court costs end up? Do you know who the attorney fees get paid to?

A costs award is to cover the expenses of the winning party in the case in question. If the city was stung for more in costs than the ACLU spent in the case, then they should have appealed the order.

 

[Cleon]

Once again we have a bitter "attack the messenger" message.

It might have something to do with the fact that every time we debunk the garbage you post, you either ignore it, deflect it, or change the subject.

And in addition to the rude bitter remark, it might contain false information because it implies that all the 250,000 dollars in taxpayer money went to the relevant court system. But if we are to believe the article I originally quoted "The ACLU vs the Boy Scouts" by Hans Zeigler. That money in court costs went to the ACLU:

OK, here we go again. You're repeating debunked garbage.

"Under terms of the new settlement, San Diego must request Judge Jones to cancel the Boy Scouts' lease on Balboa Park. The city will also pay the ACLU nearly $1 million in court costs and attorney fees, which will, of course, help finance further attacks against the Boy Scouts.

Let me explain this to you, using simple words. Stop me if you get confused.

1. City conducts illegal action.
2. ACLU sues, spends a crapload of money in court costs and attorney fees.
3. Court rules that #1 was, in fact, illegal, and the city must pay the ACLU back the aforementioned court costs and attorney fees.
4. Net financial gain for the ACLU: Squat.

Is there anything about that that wasn't clear? The ACLU didn't "pocket" any taxpayer money, they were reimbursed for money they already spent on court costs and attorney fees.

This is standard practice for court cases. Let's take a look at your sacred ACLJ. Here they reached a settlement with a school district after they filed a lawsuit. As part of that agreement, the school district agreed to pay $16,000 to the ACLJ in legal fees. The ACLJ didn't "pocket" the money, it was reimbursement for money already spent.

Is there anything about this that is still confusing you, DOC?

 

[drkitten]

Is there anything about this that is still confusing you, DOC?

I suspect so. He's wondering why his faith in God is not making him at all credible. After all, with faith, all things are possible -- including the waving away of inconvenient facts.

 

[drkitten]

This post is a good example of the "attack the messenger" mentality. For one thing it says everything I said is wrong. This is a false statement. When I said I "believe" the statement came from Jay Sekalow, I did "believe" the statement came from Jay Sekalow.

Yes. And your beliefs are incorrect.

This is yet another retreat into silly semantic games to disguise the fact that, once again, you've made an argument the very basis of which relies on ignorance and misrepresentation of facts.

 

[drkitten]

it might contain false information because it implies that all the 250,000 dollars in taxpayer money went to the relevant court system.

It might. But it doesn't -- because the implication is, in fact true.

Court costs go to the court. That's why they are called "court costs."

 

[drkitten]

"Now that the City of San Diego has given up on the Boy Scouts of America, a nearly 90-year illegal relationship has come to an end."

Are you suggesting doing something illegal for a long time is acceptable?

 

[Hawk one]

Doc, why can't you just answer the questions sling gave you instead of just attacking?

And while you're at it, how about you think about -why- you believed something that turned out to be wrong. Was it because someone else had told you this wrong thing, but it fit your beliefs so nicely, you never bothered to reseach it? I suspect it is so.

And I suspect that whoever told you this either:

a) knew it was not truth, but was relying on people like you just taking his word for it, and wouldn't research it. And of course, he's just been proven right. That's the main recipe for a liar's success, that the persons he tells his lies to are gullible enough to believe him.

or

b) Like you, he didn't know it was untrue, but he also wouldn't bother to research it. Probably again because it fitted his beliefs so nicely, so he just took it for granted.

Of course, if the person who told you belongs in category b, odds are he heard it from someone else again... And sooner or later, you'll find someone in category a that's spreading lies.

So, let's see if you can learn something about doing proper research. And if you remember where you first "learned" the wrong thing, then perhaps you should start thinking if this same source can also be wrong about other things, because said source may be out to promote an agenda rather than getting the facts right.

So, again, here are the questions:

1. In what case were these words uttered?
2. In what year were these words uttered?
3. In what year was the ACLJ founded?

Will you be honest enough to attempt to anwer this time? Because I'm going to repeat them until I get the answers. and maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something in this process...

 

[Ducky]

DOC, I would list the logical fallacies for your last two posts, but they just seem to be claiming persecution again, and repeating the same incorrect information.

At this point, it seems that is the only tactic you have left to fall back on in your limited intellectual arsenal.

And yes, that was a direct attack on your intelligence. As I explained in post #703 (which you have ignored) you have not earned any respect here by repeating the same falsehoods and ignoring the evidence to the contrary. We are forced to logically conclude you are willingly lying when you do that.

 

[drkitten]

I've read every posting you've made to this thread, DOC, and my conclusion is that you seem to think you can make an inaccurate statement accurate by repeating it.

I think you're misreading DOC's postings.

I don't think he thinks he can make an inaccurate statement accurate.

I think he doesn't care whether the statements he makes are accurate or not.

I'm still undecided on whether he is incapable of perceiving whether they are accurate or not.

 

[slingblade]

This post is a good example of the "attack the messenger" mentality. For one thing it says everything I said is wrong. This is a false statement. When I said I "believe" the statement came from Jay Sekalow, I did "believe" the statement came from Jay Sekalow.

But you didn't know. You have never bothered to find out for sure. You heard something someone said, and you just swallowed it whole and never checked it for yourself.

This is why there is such disdain here for "belief" of this sort. Why settle for "belief" when you can know?

So that is not wrong. And indeed I still believe he might have said it while arguing a case before the Supreme Court because I've heard him on TV using that phrase

This is called "moving the goalposts." It is not what you said originally, and so cannot be used in this argument.

and I believe he said he used that phrase before the Supreme Court.

Not what you said originally; not your claim. Stick to your original claim.

Also I said several other things in that post which were not wrong so once again it is false and misleading to say "everything' I said is wrong.

THIS POST:

You probably don't realize this, but much of the above is thanks to the work of the American Center for Law and Justice (I believe it was founded by Pat Robertson). Now Pat has his faults, but thank God this organization called the ACLJ (composed of mostly Christian attorneys) is fighting the well financed ACLU tooth and nail. I believe that the wording "students don't leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates" came directly from Jay Sekulow (head of the American Center for Law and Justice) when he argued a case in front of the Supreme Court and the Dept. Of Education "now" uses it because Sekulow and the American Center for Law and Justice won the case before the Supreme Court. They have also won other big cases.

Because of the work of the ACLU we were put in an environment where a girl was told by a principle not to read the bible on the school bus because it violated separation of church and state. We were also put in an environment where students were put in a police car for praying around a flagpole. Thank God that thru the hard expensive work of the American Center for Law and Justice we are starting to straighten out the mess the ACLU created.

...is entirely in error save for the parts I bolded. Nothing else in that post is factual or true. I do not retract my assessment, as the post is 99% in error, and the minute bit you got correct is not enough to make any difference in my assessment.

Also the fact that you have not yet given us the information you said you have, shows me your more interested in attacking the messenger than educating everyone in the forum. So once again attacking the messenger takes precedence over the message.

I gave you the answers to 1 and 2 already. The answers existed in this thread before the questions did. You even quoted them once.

If you have ever taken a test, you know that the correct answers are not revealed until you finish the test. You haven't taken it yet.

Doc, can you Google? Then Google the phrase you wrongly attributed and tell us who really coined it, in what year, and in what case.

Then tell us when the ACLJ was founded.

If you do this, you will immediately see your errors. I promise!


"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

1. In what case were these words uttered?
2. In what year were these words uttered?
3. In what year was the ACLJ founded?