Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[Ducky]

to repeat:

DOC:


"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?

 

[Mojo]

to repeat:

DOC:


"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?

And another one:

Who originally said "religion is the opium of the masses" (or in the original language: "die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes")?

 

[Cleon]

It's one thing to bash me, and want to kick the boys scouts out of a park; but when you start bashing Washington at Valley Forge, I think you pretty much show your true colors.

You enjoy the blood bought freedoms you have, and then you trash the people who gave them to you. Interesting -- sad, but interesting.

You're lying again, DOC.

 

[kmortis]

It's one thing to bash me, and want to kick the boys scouts out of a park; but when you start bashing Washington at Valley Forge, I think you pretty much show your true colors.

You enjoy the blood bought freedoms you have, and then you trash the people who gave them to you. Interesting -- sad, but interesting.

Actually, what Gen. Washington did at Valley Forge was worth while. But, like all other humans, he did stuff that wasn't nearly as good. He took a job that was sort of a no win situation and did the best he could. Unfortunately, the best he could wasn't good enough.

While a Lt Colonel, he "lost control of his troops" (Jumon Glen^WP) leading to the death of about 40 French POWs.

He practiced a strategy of strategic retreats, which, when practiced by others, worked to draw their enemies out; but when practiced by Washington only served to lose New York, Philadelphia and the South Eastern colonies. It wasn't until the French showed up that he started to directly engage the enemy (with the exception of Valley Forge, which was still more of an ambush than an engagement. Attacking inebriated soldiers at midnight on Christmas isn't an upfront battle, just good tactics.)

He refused to fight a battle with the British for over two years. For two years he had his army wandering about avoiding conflict. Even after the French agreed to aid us, he tried to keep them at arms length, owing to the bad blood he felt from his French-Indian War days.

As a side project, go look where he had "investment land" located. Then ask yourself, "why is that important to this topic?"

George Washington was a great man. He had his foibles though. I think it's time to stop deifying him and see him for what he really was. A man who served, reluctantly mind you, in a difficult time, in a difficult job and probably a job that was just a bit tougher than what he was cut out for.

He did, however, make a great First President. He was a natural as a statesman, and a politician. He was able to keep control of his squabbling cabinet (the arguments between Hamilton and Jefferson were legendary). He was not, however, a god. I find it funny that an obvious theist would try to make him out to be one.

Not that it matters, I don't care if the BSs are in the park. I just don't think they should have EXCLUSIVE rights to a public park. I guess that makes me a commie?

 

[drkitten]

I probably know more than 99 percent of the non-Mormon population about their concept of God.

And if you don't, you can just lie about them, too. Just like you do about Christianity in general, and history, and law, and the Founding Fathers,....

 

[drkitten]

I didn't look up the book, but I can't imagine any serious military historian or even casual military history buff thinking George Washington was a more influential military leader than Alexander the Great. I'd also question the use of "influential" and whether they're referring to influence on military theory in which case Washington isn't in the top 50 or influence on history in which case he's in the top 100, but not number 1.

Well, no serious military historian or even casual military theorist takes that particular book seriously. It was written (and published) as a US-centric patriotic feel-good for sale to Fox News viewers, and you know how demanding those folks are about the accuracy of their "facts."

 

[DOC]

Well, no serious military historian or even casual military theorist takes that particular book seriously. It was written (and published) as a US-centric patriotic feel-good for sale to Fox News viewers, and you know how demanding those folks are about the accuracy of their "facts."

Do you have any source that the book was written for Fox News viewers and that "no" serious military historian or casual military theorist takes the book seriously or is that just a personal opinion of a person who probably never heard of the book a week ago much less read it.

 

[Ducky]

to repeat:

DOC:


"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?

 

[DOC]

to repeat:

DOC:


"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?

Your flooding the thread. Isn't that trollish behavior and against the rules. I'm not going to answer questions that the person who originally asked already knows the answer. This is just a weird attempt to sabotage the forum. Any further repeat of the above is just continuing flooding the forum and a admistrator should do something about it.

 

[drkitten]

Do you have any source that the book was written for Fox News viewers and that "no" serious military historian or casual military theorist takes the book seriously

It was not technically written "for Fox News viewers," but the demographic readership is much the same.

But yes, I clanced through the book when it came out in 1996 and I read several reviews of it. The reviews were hilarious, especialy from the non-US contingent. Check out the Times or the Guardian for some classic thoughts.

Furthermore, if you look at the line under which it was published (Citadel Books, an imprint of Kensington books), it's fairly obvious that it's a hack press, and the author is similarly a hack author who is relying on his military background for something like fourteen badly researched books entitled "The Top N Badly-Researched Elements of Some Silly Category."

 

[Ossai]

DOC

Your flooding the thread. Isn't that trollish behavior and against the rules. I'm not going to answer questions that the person who originally asked already knows the answer. This is just a weird attempt to sabotage the forum. Any further repeat of the above is just continuing flooding the forum and a admistrator should do something about it.

And here I though you were not answering because it would be unequivocally evidence that you knowingly attempted to pass false data off as accurate.

Ossai

 

[DOC]

It was not technically written "for Fox News viewers," but the demographic readership is much the same.

Do you have a source that the demographic readership is much the same.

 

[slingblade]

DOC
And here I though you were not answering because it would be unequivocally evidence that you knowingly attempted to pass false data off as accurate.

Ossai

Even better, he did it with a most un-Christian sneer, arrogantly brought my education into question, rudely insulted my intelligence, and without any humility whatsoever has proven himself incapable of either being sorry for his mistakes, or of knowing how to apologize to those he has offended.

I'm certainly not the first, or the only, person to whom he's done this.

Apparently, this is the sort of moral behavior we ought to be emulating.

I'll pass.

 

[DOC]

DOC
And here I though you were not answering because it would be unequivocally evidence that you knowingly attempted to pass false data off as accurate.

Ossai

Please explain in detail why you thought I knowingly attempted to pass false data off as accurate and why not answering questions (that the asker implied that they already knew the answers) is unequivocal evidence of it. If your going to make serious allegations you should be willing to back it up with a detailed explanation, that is, unless your a troll.

 

[Foster Zygote]

If your going to make serious allegations you should be willing to back it up with a detailed explanation, that is, unless your a troll.

I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over the roar of the irony.

 

[drkitten]

Do you have a source that the demographic readership is much the same.

Yes, but you evidently didn't bother to look at it.

 

[kmortis]

Now, now, Foster, maybe he's offering Ossai a small ring-shaped island?

No?

Oh a tRoll... gotcha.

 

[Hawk one]

DOC, instead of just answering with false accusations of trolling, how about you read and answer these reasons (that I've posted twice before) as to -why- we keep asking you:

It's about teaching you to learn about source criticism. After all, you must have "learned" somewhere that the quote in question was (falsely) attributed to the ACLJ president. Where did you "learn" about this? From Kennedy's webpage? Barton's? And wherever you found it, why would this source "teach" you this outright lie?

So why are you so resistant to actually learn some facts, DOC? Is it because the actual facts collide with your already made-up mind? Most likely, yes. But what can you possibly gain by having such a closed mind and not being able to see the facts as they are? What possibly good can come of repeatedly resisting the path of honesty and truthfulness?

I chose to repeat those three questions because I think they represent an excellent[/] first step on becoming more honest and truthful, and being able to present a message of facts. If you can really think of another first step, then feel free to show that, but let me tell you this: Repeating lies about saying the Boy Scouts were kicked out of a public park when all they did was losing exclusive and illegal priviledges.... That is not the first step at all.

So, again, here is my suggestion for a first step of honesty. Once you've overcome your prejudices and fears, I think it'll be a relief for you to take this step:

"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?

 

[slingblade]

Please explain in detail why you thought I knowingly attempted to pass false data off as accurate and why not answering questions (that the asker implied that they already knew the answers) is unequivocal evidence of it. If your going to make serious allegations you should be willing to back it up with a detailed explanation, that is, unless your a troll.

With pleasure!

Presenting Post #685, 29th April 2007, 11:52 AM :

1.

You probably don't realize this,

Doc is lying. Proof for this accusation is Post # 671, posted 29th April 2007, 12:19 AM. I proved I knew the truth in that post, and I provided it, in a quote from the U.S. Dept. Of Edu, complete with footnote. Doc read it, and then concocted his lies about me and my information, which he posted almost 12 hours later.

2.

but much of the above is thanks to the work of the American Center for Law and Justice

Doc is lying. Proof for this accusation is Post # 671. I proved I knew the truth in that post, with a quote from the U.S. Dept. Of Edu, complete with footnote. Doc read it, and then concocted his lies about me and my information, which he posted almost 12 hours later.

(I believe it was founded by Pat Robertson).

True.

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.

Opinion.

I believe that the wording "students don't leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates" came directly from Jay Sekulow

Doc is lying. Proof for this accusation is Post # 671. I proved I knew the truth in that post, with a quote from the U.S. Dept. Of Edu, complete with footnote. This footnote gives the case name and date wherein these words were first uttered. Doc read it, and then concocted his lies about me and my information, which he posted almost 12 hours later.

(head of the American Center for Law and Justice)

True.

when he argued a case in front of the Supreme Court

Doc is lying. Proof for this accusation is Post # 671. I proved I knew the truth in that post, with a quote from the U.S. Dept. Of Edu, complete with footnote. Doc read it, and then concocted his lies about me and my information, which he posted almost 12 hours later.

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.

Doc is lying. Proof for this accusation is Post # 671. I proved I knew the truth in that post, with a quote from the U.S. Dept. Of Edu, complete with footnote. Doc read it, and then concocted his lies about me and my information, which he posted almost 12 hours later.

They have also won other big cases.

Unproven, but may stand for now, as it is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

So, do you see now, Doc?

Post #671 clearly established that not only was Jay Sekulow not the person who coined the words in question, but that the words came from a specific case in which religion was not at question.

Now, I'm going to spoil everyone's fun, but enough is enough.

EDITED to give Doc one more chance to come clean.

 

[Cleon]

Any further repeat of the above is just continuing flooding the forum and a admistrator should do something about it.

DOC, there is a small triangular icon at the bottom left-hand corner of every single post here. It is the "report" button. If you honestly feel the moderators need to get involved, click it and report the post.

If you do not do so, then all this whining about others "trolling" (snicker) and "flooding" is nothing but hot air.