Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[Ducky]

I never knew US history was dishonest. Apparently the US government didn't understand Jefferson's wall of Separation all those years it was giving the Catholic Church 3/4 of the Indian Education Budget.

"The history of the Catholic Church in Indian education dates from earliest times. Note has already been made of the subsidy granted a Catholic priest in the treaty of 1803 with the Kaskaskia Indians (See Note 2). The Catholic Church also came to dominate sectarian education under government auspices and eventually commanded three-fourths of all the funds appropriated by the Congress for this purposes(see Note 3).

http://jaie.asu.edu/v2/V2S3stat.htm

And you're going back in time. As I just showed you, in 1880 and later it was deemed that practice was unconstitutional in accordance with Jefferson's writings on the separation of church and state.

The document you were quoting does nothing to support your position. In fact, it lays out how it was shown this practice was unconstitutional. The fact that churches were given taxpayer dollars in the past does not make it constitutional, this is why we have court systems and congress to challenge these practices.

So again, why the dishonest quote mining, DOC?

 

[DOC]

And you're going back in time.

Yes, that's what US history is all about in case you didn't know.

Your definition of someone discussing actual historical events appears to be "dishonest quote mining".

 

[Ducky]

Yes, that's what US history is all about in case you didn't know.

Your definition of someone discussing actual historical events appears to be "dishonest quote mining".

When you are trying to apply a practice in history to the practices today, and you leave out historical, and legal precedent, you are dishonestly quote mining. Especially when your source document contradicts your premises itself, with more facts about what you are trying to convey. But hey, way to ignore my last post regarding legal precedence and legal challenging of unconstitutional practices.

 

[jmercer]

I have to agree with Ducky; lack historical context and deliberate excerpting of historical practices is misleading - at best.

 

[DOC]

I have to agree with Ducky; lack historical context and deliberate excerpting of historical practices is misleading - at best.

OK, I'll try to put it in historical context, 1880 is 79 years AFTER Jefferson was elected president.

 

[DOC]

When you are trying to apply a practice in history to the practices today, and you leave out historical, and legal precedent, you are dishonestly quote mining. Especially when your source document contradicts your premises itself, with more facts about what you are trying to convey. But hey, way to ignore my last post regarding legal precedence and legal challenging of unconstitutional practices.

You, you, you, your, your, you. I must admit your a master at focusing on the messenger.

 

[DOC]

You will dishonestly quote mine anything, won't you?

The very next sentence in that link is this:

Quote:
"Soon after 1880, therefore, the Commissioner outlined in detail a comprehensive system of Indian education to be owned and controlled exclusively by the federal government."

You will dishonestly quote mine anything, won't you?

The very next sentences in that link are:

"Work on this project was immediately begun and was well along by the early 1890s. When it became operational, there existed in fact parallel school systems for Indian children--one under the control of a number of churches, and a second owned and controlled by the government. Both, however, were supported by appropriations from the Congress. It is worth noting that in terms of the current controversy between church and state, there actually existed for one short and bitter period in the late 19th Century what present-day advocates of tax support of religious schools propose to bring about today, viz., a sectarian controlled system of education paralleling the public school system, with both supported alike from tax funds."

http://jaie.asu.edu/v2/V2S3stat.htm

What's good for the goose is good for the gander I guess. That's what happens when you focus so much on attacking the messenger. Take your time next time and concentrate on the message.

 

[Mojo]

You, you, you, your, your, you. I must admit your a master at focusing on the messenger.

 

[Complexity]

DOC - We focus on you (the "messenger") because you have no message, you ran into the room naked, shouting drivel, and you're not cute.

There is nothing here to block derision.

Please exit the stage to your left - we want someone better.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

You, you, you, your, your, you. I must admit your a master at focusing on the messenger.

Ummm... You are the one who edited the quotes out of context. They didn't just edit themselves. Therefore, what are we to think of the motives and character of "the messenger?"

I'd tell you what I think of your character, DOC, but it would violate several forum rules.

 

[DOC]

see next post

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Ducky pointed out in post 1201 the dual system was later found to be unconstitutional. As far as I can see there was no attempt to change the historical context of the quote, he was just editing out superfluous data.

Besides, Ducky's alleged "quoting mining" in no way excuses your proven historical cherry picking. In case you're wondering, it's called a tu quoque fallacy in the logic business, I suggest you read up on it.

 

[DOC]

http://jaie.asu.edu/v2/V2S3stat.htm

Quote:
"Soon after 1880, therefore, the Commissioner outlined in detail a comprehensive system of Indian education to be owned and controlled exclusively by the federal government."

_____


They should have left the Indian schools in the hands of all those denominations. Then maybe the high suicide rates and rampant alcoholism wouldn't be the norm on so many of the reservations. And I'm sure it would have been much cheaper too.

 

[slingblade]

http://jaie.asu.edu/v2/V2S3stat.htm

"Soon after 1880, therefore, the Commissioner outlined in detail a comprehensive system of Indian education to be owned and controlled exclusively by the federal government."

They should have left the Indian schools in the hands of all those denominations. Then maybe the high suicide rates and rampant alcoholism wouldn't be the norm on so many of the reservations. And I'm sure it would have been much cheaper too.

Now I'm angry.

And do you also imagine, doc, that all those indians were alcoholic and suicidal before they were forced into white schools, white culture, and white religion?

Hey, Doc: have you ever asked yourself why whites were interested in educating Indians, but not the blacks they held as slaves?

 

[Ducky]

You, you, you, your, your, you. I must admit your a master at focusing on the messenger.

Whatever. You took things out of context, I added the context back. It's not attacking the messenger if you cannot display any sort of academic honesty with your quote mining.

Oh, and again, way to ignore my post regarding challenges to practices that are unconstitutional. Just because something happens does not make it legal.

In regards to your idiotic tu quoque, how can I be taking something out of context you already have? I was quoting what YOU left out, showing the document did not support your assertions as presented. That means I am not obligated to leave in every part of your source, simply to point out where you dishonestly quote mined. That means I did not dishonestly quote mine. But hey, way to try to make me out to be as dishonest as you are, ace.

 

[kmortis]

You, you, you, your, your, you. I must admit your a master at focusing on the messenger.

DIC,
You are an idiot
You are a moron
You don't have the mental facilities that are readily apparent in a lobotmized labrador
Your arguments are laughable, at best; pitiable at worst
Your intellect is as lacking as your honesty
You need to stop preaching.

THAT is focusing on the messenger. You are apparently too stupid to remember that only I will attack you. Re-read Ducky and you just might see that he's addressing your "points". Me, on the other hand, will attack you whenever you decide to go down this path. Jackass.

 

[Ducky]

Simple question, DOC.

Why would you cite a source about a faith based initiative receiving taxpayer dollars, without noting that in that very document it discusses how it was found to be unconstitutional?

When you answer that question, you will have the answer to why what I did is not quote mining, and what you did was.

I'll wait for your answer.

 

[joobz]

DOC,
People are upset because you have missrpresented history and told lies about a historical figure to support some view of yours. The same anger would exist if you lied about the color of the sky. People here tend to not tolerate bad information, especially deliberately false information.

But, let's go past that. Let's pretend you found some big "truth", that jefferson was indeed devout christian. How does this minimize the seperation of church and state issue? We know better. This argument is functionally similar to saying that slavery is ok because the founding fathers held slaves. This doesn't reduce the value of the "all men are created equal" view. Indeed, that truth was used to overturn slavery.

You have stated, "Attack the MEssage not the messanger." If this is true, then why are you attacking Jefferson, and not his message?

 

[Fitter]

kmortis, having read DOC's post about about native suicide and alcoholism and knowing survivors of the church-run residential school system here in Canada, I was wondering if you could direct some vitriol his way on my behalf. Thank you in advance.
Fitter

 

[Foster Zygote]

DOC, let's pretend you found some big "truth", that Jefferson was indeed devout Christian. How does this minimize the seperation of church and state issue?

Not at all. One of those Christian presidents DOC presented as "evidence" against the legitimacy of the separation clause is Jimmy Carter, a devout evangelical who strongly supports the separation of church and state.