@PureChristian01 HA HA HA HA!! If i had my way, Glenn Beck would be place in his FEMA concentration camps he always warns about. You people are absurd.
For a detailed source on why Joseph Story's response to Jefferson was WEAK, google search "Blasphemy, Verbal Offense against the Sacred from Moses to Salman Rushdie," Leonard W. Levy. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill & London. (1995) p. 410-11
America is not a Christian nation; the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (ratified by U.S. Senate) and the 1843 letter of Pres. Tyler back me up. I would encourage readers not to swallow the historical revisionist nonsense of the religious right.
I've already stated my opinion on the treaty of Tripoli and I'm not about to repeat myself. You seem to take Tyler's letter on separation of church and state to be anti-christian. It's not. In fact, one of the main arguments for religious freedom was that Christianity would be best served by it.
It's obvious that gmn545 I are going to have to agree to disagree. I would encourage other readers to look up what Joseph Story, Kent and James Wilson have to say on Christianity and common law. Indeed, Story specifically dealt with Jefferson's letter, as have other scholars. Please also read: "When Christianty was part of the common law" by Banner Stuart and "Christianity, the common law and the Constitution" by James Stoner and draw your own educated conclusion on Common law and Christianity
Yes, we get that you like Jefferson and I'm sure you quote Madison a lot as well. The main reason separationists quote Jefferson and Madison ad nausim is because they have to cherry pick their historical information in order to present any evidence from our nation’s history to support their position on the Establishment Clause. You cite Jefferson because that's all you've got.
BTW, If Christianity wasn't part of the common law, there would not be court cases where people were punished for taking the name of Jesus in vain. Justice Story refuted Jefferson's nonsense shortly after Jefferson's letter was published. Case law is crystal clear on this issue, both in America and England. Does anyone really think that after a thousand years of Christian influence in England, Christianity wasn't part of the common law? Read Blackstone and Coke people. . .real experts.
@ThePaleoConservative In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "ancien scripture", in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Since you mentioned Blackstone, Jefferson himself writes ... cont'd
And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, ... cont'd
@ThePaleoConservative ...and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law." ..."Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody." - Thomas Jefferson
@ThePaleoConservative The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines."
You can't deny facts; don't even try. America is a secular nation; our Constitution - the law of the land and indicates the intent of the Founding Fathers - makes no mention of God, Jesus, or Christianity. This was done purposefully.
@gmn545, I'm not denying facts. I'm denying your conclusions from the facts and your bias or ignorance of other facts. Yes, the Constitution doesn't contain a reference to Jesus or Christianity. If in your view, that means this isn't a Christian nation, I can't argue with your point. When one considers the whole picture, acts of Congress, the President, state constitutions, state laws, common law, State and national Supreme Court rulings etc, one can conclude America wasn't a secular nation.
@ThePaleoConservative "When one considers the whole picture .. one can conclude America wasn't a secular nation." Huh? Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. I can cite more than just Jefferson. The "wall of separation" idea wasn't just his idea. Other 17th- and 18th-century Enlightenment writers had used a variant of it. Earlier still, religious dissident Roger Williams had written in a 1644 letter of a "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world."
@gmn545, Jefferson clearly stated that religious matters were left up to the states. According to Jefferson, states could deal with religious matters as they desired. Funny, I don't hear the separation of church and state crowd talking about that aspect of Jefferson's views.
@ThePaleoConservative Jefferson stated religious matters, in the context of human authority, can only be dealt with as high as the state. He was clearly opposed to any federal regulation of religious matters. The 'crowd' is fully aware of what Jefferson thought about religious authority: "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." (Letter to J. Moor, 1800)
@ThePaleoConservative "Supreme Court rulings" For your sake, I hope you're not referring to the 1892 Holy Trinity case, because if so, I will tear that crap to shreds with the facts behind it. The President? "Among all our presidents from Washington downward [ending at Andrew Jackson], not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." -- Rev. Bird Wilson (episcopal minister of Albany, New York), October 1831
I'm well aware of the facts around it because I've actually read the case. However, it wasn't the one I was thinking of. As Rob Boston said in a book of his, "This is a Christian nation." To this day, historians debate what Brewer meant by the term." In general, I think both sides look at the term Christian nation and draw different conclusions as to what that term means, which is why common ground is hardly ever found on this issue.
"But in what sense can [the U.S.] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it...Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all."
~ Justice Brewer "The United States: A Christian Nation."(1905)
@ThePaleoConservative Jefferson never meant for those words to say that america is a secular or a non-religious nation, that's way out of context. Jefferson was simply distinguishing the American view of Christianity which was more Bible based and on the works of Jesus and the evil Christianity of the RC which burned people alive for not submitting to the Pope and their beliefs
Supreme Court Justice and Harvard University's Dane Professor of Law Joseph Story.
James Kent: justice of the New York Supreme Court, in 1804 Chief Justice, and in 1814 Chancellor of New York. In 1821 he was a member of the New York State Constitutional Convention.
James Wilson who unlike Jefferson, was actually at the Constitutional convention and was a respected legal scholar that George Washington loved.
They all say christianity is part of the common law!
@ThePaleoConservative Argument from authority (logical fallacy). I go by the facts. Jefferson already acknowledged that the majority held this view, but that it wasn't correct. He explains why Christianity is not part of the common law. "a thousand years of Christian influence in England"? Did you miss this part? "Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."... Period.
@gmn545, Seriously? There is a thousand years of Christian influence but it's not part of the common law? That's laughable on it's face. Oh boy, let's play the logical fallacy card when all else fails. At best, Jefferson's argument proves that maybe, common law in England wasn't founded on Christianity, but it does nothing to refute that Christianity hadn't incorporated itself firmly into the common law. Case law in England and the United States firmly states: Christianity is part of the C.L.
@ThePaleoConservative What's wrong with you? Jefferson gave the starting date for the use of common law and when the christian influence entered in, and as he said "Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it." The only thing that's laughable on its face is your willful ignorance on this subject.
@gmn545, What kind of common law do you think America adopted? English common law in the 600-700's? Or English common law with over a thousand years of Christian influence? The common law all experts said was based on Christianity? Are you really going to argue that from 700's till the 1700's the Christianity didn't impact English common law? Or that laws punishing people who took the name of Jesus in vain weren't based on Christianity?
@ThePaleoConservative Yes, I would argue that, considering it was the English common law that was based on Roman law and the Enlightment philosophy that America adopted. Blasphemy laws were originally part of the canon law (pertaining to the church), and didn't become part of the common law until the 17th century. Funny how the Americans made it a point to include 'Freedom of Speech' into the constitution. Founding Father Thomas Paine made use of this in bashing religion, including Christianity!
At the end of the video Beck asks us to wait to see what's in that letter. I read it and here's what's in it: The opposite of what Barton is claiming. It's on his own website, wallbuilders, check it out.
John Adams, in the letter, clearly opposes what Barton is claiming. Look it up and read it yourself.
If you wanna see how Barton misleads simply search his website for John Adams letter to Benjamin Rush. You'll clearly see how the president describes the holy ghost with sarcasm and calls it "artiface" "cunning" and "craft". Don't believe me, read the letter yourself. I've seen plenty of videos with Barton lecturing in churches blatantly claiming the opposite of what the president was actually saying.
Does Barton believe Joseph Smith's revelation (Book of Mormon, etc) and that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer like Glenn? If not how can he work with a guy whose religion is an all out attack on evangelical Christianity, claiming all of our creeds are an abomination and our professors are all corrupt?
What is the use of using footnotes, if you are quotemining and leaving out vast amounts of relevant material that say just the opposite of what you are quoting? Huh Barton?
David Barton and Glen Beck are liars! I just recently watched an excellent documentary, " The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers", and discovered that the Founding Fathers were all 33rd degree freemasons. They actually hated the true God of the Bible! You will be shocked to discover what the Founding Fathers actually believed in the own words! Please do a search and learn the truth for yourself.
Religious means we are a Christian Nation? Really.
From: Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, June 16, 1817
And you remember to have heard, that, when the act for religious freedom was before the Virginia Assembly, a motion to insert the name of Jesus Christ before the phrase, 'the author of our holy religion,' which stood in the bill, was rejected, although that was the creed of a great majority of them.
@jfsfrnd Yawn, maybe you can explain to me why in the same Assembly, Jefferson and Madison worked on bills to "punish disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath breakers. A bill for appointing days of public fasting and thanksgiving and finally, a bill annulling marriages PROHIBITED BY THE LEVITICAL LAW AND APPOINTING THE MODE OF SOLEMNIZING LAWFUL MARRIAGES. Finally, what did other states have to say about religions? Hint: many had established Christian religions.
@jfsfrnd, Yes, i've read the bills. You can find them in "Real Theater and Mere Shadow." by Daniel Dreisbach. BTW, I wasn't aware Dreisbach writes for the Heritage Foundation. I do know he is highly educated, a scholar, and a gentleman. Chris Rodda works for some liberal political organization. Can I discredit her, simply because of that, like you are trying to do with Daniel Dreisbach? Please stay consistant, that's all I ask.
@ThePaleoConservative So you don't know which organization she works for but you call it ''some liberal political organization''. What is the name of this ''liberal political organization''? Have you looked into it to see what their mission statement says or what they are about before you call them ''liberal''? The Heritage Foundation says it is ''a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies. . .''
@jfsfrnd, She write for the DailyKos which is most certainly a hard-core liberal organization. She also works as the Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Do you really dispute the Religious Freedom Foundation isn't a liberal organization. Dresibach also works for the Claremount institue which is again, a conservative organization. Please, be skeptical of his work, we shouldn't just take anyone's word for it.
@ThePaleoConservative The Daily Kos is a progressive blog not an organization. The MRFF is a religious freedom organization that was founded in answer to the evangalical ''take over'' of the military and helps all religious and non-religious military personnel to express their religious freedom as expressed in the first amendmendment. I'm skeptical of everyone, thats why I do my own research. I even check Rodda's work, she has been off on some minor things too.
@ThePaleoConservative Oh damn, now we are going to have to go through Daniel Dreisbachs books to see if he is citing the documents accurately. Why don't you get them from a non-biased government or educational site? Meanwhile I'll look up those bills myself. What states had established religions and what time frame was that in each state? And why can't the states establish a state religion today?
@jfsfrnd, I don't think anyone disputes many of the states had established religions. Also, all of the early states had oaths that had to be taken before one could be a member of the state legislature. These oaths required people to profess belief in things such as God, Jesus, the Old and New Testament and belief in a reward or punishment after death. Why cant' states do that day? Well the Supreme Court says the bill of rights applies to the states now.
Uhm...hmm? Actually my comment was a joke, kind of a cheech & chong reference. But I see by your. Ive seen some of your comments and apparantly your talking up the cause I too believe in. So I think you jumped the gun here. The no footnote reference was in relation to a book that bashed founding fathers and religion.
Dont bother to argue w/ the other guy about they were diest, or God told Bush to go to war, they hate Chrisitans and will spout anything including, lies to make themselves right.
@gmn545 Name calling won't defeat him, he has documents, books, and other written works by the founding fathers that back up his claims. Such is that the founding father never intended religious expression to be separated from state but an institutionalized one, oh and David Barton has responded to all his critics and he embarasses them a lot. wallbuilders. com destroys liars for Jesus website.
Rodda doesn't even cover 10 percent of David Bartons claims, he only picks and chooses certain aspects. If you go to the website, type in anything from jefferson to Madison, anything you can think off and David will back up what he says with facts including footnote refernces. One example is that the Constitution and the DoI are both secular document when in fact they were both based on what the Bible taught in the OT about good government.
@cubed07 Also evidence exist if we look at other founding fathers who held equal if not, more influence then Jefferson and Franklin. Most of the raging debate centers around those two men when their were 55 men of whom some were preachers and clyergymen who participated and signed the Consitution and had influence in writing the DoI. Ever heard of Benjamin Rush, Thomas Locke, and many other founders that were devout Christians. If you look outside of Jefferson and Franklin, you'll be shocked.
@cubed07 chance now how or when Jefferson supported the VBS? I will tell you. A Bible Society not even related with the University (so not the VBS) had written to Jefferson and said that people were so poor that there were those who could not afford a Bible that wanted one. Jefferson made a one-time 50$ donation to this society. That's the exact footnote that Barton uses. Not only does he blow the context out of the water, he lies about the society in question (This is a very old lie that goes
@cubed07 Rush. Locke, however wasn't a signer of either founding document, and I don't know if you meant John Locke, who established the Social Contract Theory. And finally, there are reasons why the less religious founders had major roles in the founding of our nation. They developed documents that were very much secular and based on common law, which Jefferson asserted to have had 'Anglo Saxon origins'. I can cite everything here, and would provide photocopyed links, but youtube won't let you
@cubed07 back over 100 years). Here's a link from Jefferson's writings that shows this same attitude for the public schools in Virginia. It's also interesting that you mention God's Providence in Human Affairs, as Jefferson's version of the Bible, which was not used to convert the Indians, disconnects all mysticism and providence from Jesus. Out of the 56 (not 55 signers), one was an ordained minister (Withersoon). And yes, I have heard of
@cubed07 Alright. Do you have any evidence for the 10% figure? Her book covers many of the claims that he and other revisionists make, I'm sure more than 10%. Now for the debunking. The fact that a chapel existed in the congressional building did indeed mean that Christian men partially founded our government. However, there was conflict whether there should even be a chaplain and a chapel funded by taxpayer dollars, as referenced in Detached Memoranda, writings of James Madison. Do you by
@86rocker Another example is the fact that their is a chapel in the original congressional building where our founding father held church services and invited clergymen and pastors to speak there every sunday. Another example is Thomas Jefferson being a deist, this is probalby the biggest BS ever, if Jefferson was a deist, why did he financially support the Virginia Bible Society in distributing Bibles? What would a diest possibly want with a book that acknowledges God providence in human affair
@cubed07 post links in comments. Continue, please, with your examples. And inform yourself by doing just a bit of research. If you'd like the footnotes, again, I would be happy to email them to you.
@cubed07 Barton has been exposed as a liar, primarily by Chris Rodda. Don't believe me? She's actually met the man and told him to his face that he needs to quit lying to the people. Check out her video series here on YouTube:
@gmn545 How do you know Rodda is telling the truth? BC she tells you what you want to hear? Barton has an extensive collection of primary sources. Rodda has what?
@gmn545 What do you mean you have "looked into her work" ?? 'Since Barton quotes primary sources, the only way to dispute his findings is to simply deny their validity and their is no way to verify that. So what exactly is her "work?"
@leatherneck2044 Barton QUOTE MINES off of primary sources, and you'd know that if you bothered looking into Rodda's work, which (since you asked) is a published book entitled "Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History"....Just go to liarsforjesus. com and educate yourself, please. Or better yet, watch her series of debunking Barton's nonsense right here on YouTube (search for "David Barton Lies About Chris Rodda").
@gmn545 Why would I want to look up the work of a person who is clueless about American History? I notice you don't refute anything Barton said in this segment! Why is that? Because you can't! Sure, Barton made some mistakes, but he corrected them. The vast majority of the quotes and citations Barton uses are spot on. Look them up yourself sometime instead of listening to some ignorant hack. If you want a real education, look up Daniel Dreisbach and educate yourself.
@ThePaleoConservative Because that person (Chris Rodda) did her homework regarding EVERYTHING Barton claimed and point-by-point refuted him in her book (and website, filled with *footnotes* too lol) before I could :) That's why I gave the link. But if you wish to cover your eyes and pretend like the facts aren't there, which clearly show Barton's presentation to be historical revisionist nonsense at its finest, you go right ahead. Just know that we who are educated won't fall for his crap.
@gmn545, I don't need to quote or use Barton. I would rather read actual scholars like Daniel Dreisbach. Scholars who actually have a ph.d, who write peer-reviewed articles and books that are reviewed by scholars. What exactly is Chris Rodda's qualifications again? Research director for liberal activist group? She uses footnotes? LOL, So does Barton. I'll stay with Dreisbach. I agree with you that Rodda does a good job of tearing David Barton a new one, but her conclusions are off.
@ThePaleoConservative "qualifications"? Kurt Wise has a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard. He's also a young-earth creationist who stated "...if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."
Degrees mean little if you're dedicated to a preconceived bias and agenda. "So does Barton" yeah I know that; it was a joke referring to his constant mention of footnotes.
@gmn545 ''it was a joke referring to his constant mention of footnotes.''
Yeah Barton continually pats himself on the back for his numerous footnotes. What does it matter if a book contains thousands of footnotes citing thousands of valid documents if the author misquotes them?
@gmn545 Fair point, but I think every person doesn't have some kind of bias. I have no doubt Professor Dreisbach has his own personal bias on this subject matter, but Chris Rodda certainly does to. For the record, I have looked over part of her books and am going to look it over some more in the future. I am not closing my eyes to her points of view by any means. Sorry I didn't grasp your joke about Barton, but it's the internet and humor can be hard pick up on-line.
@ThePaleoConservative Chris Rodda just wanted Barton to stop lying; that's her agenda. She has a video too of her approaching him, handing him a copy of her book (which debunked all of his nonsense), and pleading him to stop all the historical revisionism. He then later did a radio interview lying about how the encounter went, in promotion of HIS book. *smh*
Glad you're not closed-minded on her work. Enjoy reading it.
@ThePaleoConservative Sure everyone does have bias. You should read about Phyrro. He was a Philosopher who is known to be the first skeptic philosopher. Google his name and read about him and his philosophy.
@jfsfrnd, I will try to look into him sometime. I have a paper I'm working on, about separation of church and state etc,. When I am done with it, could I send it to you for some review and commentary?
@jfsfrnd, LOL thanks for the humor! I have plenty of footnotes in it! It was originally done for a school paper. I'm revisiting it, in part because of my interest in the subject, and I have some new information I want to add and I have some bad stuff from Barton that needs to go! Don't expect it anytime soon, I'm a big Elder Scrolls fan and I'm going to be spending a lot of time on skyrim! But whenever it gets done, I'll let you know!
@ThePaleoConservative Many of us have also refuted his claims on youtube. Read the comments on all of his videos. Chris Roddas first book is online for free. Whoever thinks that Barton is correct because his footnotes are accurate, Google ''Liars for Jesus pdf'' and read her book. Get all of the facts before you side with Barton. His footnotes are accurate because he cites the real documents and letters, but you have to compare what he says with what the documents and letters actually say.
@ThePaleoConservative Daniel Dreisbach writes for the Heritage Foundation which is a Conservative think tank.
From the Heritage Foundation website click ''about''
''Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.''
@ThePaleoConservative Barton creates strawman arguments and then refutes them. No one is saying that some of the founding fathers weren't Christians, especially at time of the signings of both documents. They are saying that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the country were not founded on Christianity, which is TRUE. Were they founded by Christians. Yes, partly.
@jfsfrnd I agree with you that Barton has issues. I don't think everything he says is wrong or off, but he certainly has to be taken with a grain of salt. I guess we have to come up with a definition of what makes a nation "christian" before we come to our conclusions. I agree with you, that the documents you listed aren't really Christian documents. If that ends the debate in your opinion, it would be a waste of time to go on. However, I see Christian influence in American government a lot.
@ThePaleoConservative Actually both sides, the extreme left and the extreme right have issues. One side claims that none of the founders were ever Christians (they say they were all Deists) and the other side claims they were all Christians (including Bartons claim that some number like 29 (he keeps changing it) of them held seminary degrees and that made them ministers). Christians have pushed their influence on government since the founding. Some of it was accepted and some thrown out.
@jfsfrnd I'm glad we can find some common ground here. Even if your are a member of the extreme right or left, you can still at least use evidence correctly and give the whole picture. I would suggest that tearing down crosses at public parks for example, was something that was accepted and not thrown out by the founders.
@ThePaleoConservative I'm on the left, but I read. There is cross sitting on a hill in Hollywood overlooking the city. As far as I know it's still there.
@cubed07, I am on your side about separation of church and state, but any honest person has to be concerned about David Barton. I have yet to see David Barton post anything on his website that refutes Chris Rodda. We know Barton used quotes that have not be proven and anyone can make a mistake. However, Barton has used a few other things that are obviously intended to mislead people to his conclusion. For example, the John Adams letters dealing with the Holy Ghost or the seminary school stuff.
@ThePaleoConservative David Barton quotes original sources including the old documents themselves for a majority of his facts. He doesn't need to do a detail refutation of Chris Rodha, the information and facts alone on his website already refuted her cliams before she wrote her book and a lot of what. Also david quotes in context which is more important than pulling random facts and slamming them togeehr which is what Rodda does a lot of the time.
@cubed07 What about his claims regarding the seminary schools? Or the John Adams letters? I'm willing to forgive the quotes he used that haven't been proven to actually written or said by certain founding fathers, because he did use citations from legitimate books and has retracted these quotes on his website.
@ThePaleoConservative Those were from secondary sources which are still historically factual, such as, friends or family members of the founder in question, David Bartion has said that he will raise the standard by only quoting primary sources and not secondary sources anymore, he's only guilty of quoting secondary sources, that's it
@gmn545, careful! If I was Chris Rodda I might call you a liar and throw vitriol at you! The quotes you posted are correct, but you leave out the parts of the treaty and letter that hurt your cause. The part of the treaty immediately after your quote explains why American was not a Christian nation and it has nothing to do with separating church and state. In the Jefferson letter, he admits his view point was in the minority.
@ThePaleoConservative the treaty was in context to the pirates who were predominitely muslim, their view of Christianity in America was that they were the Roman Catholic church or Church of England. The muslims and the RC hated each other which is why the pirates would attack american ships and Jefferson sought to distance the nation from that conflict. Jefferson meant by the we are not a Christian nation as in we are not a part of the RC and have no animosity towards the muslims.
"we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, Feb. 10, 1814.
Why is it that we never hear the part about Jefferson's views on this subject being "contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth," from our pro-separation friends?
You are entitled to side with Jefferson on this matter, but I'll side with everyone else.
@ThePaleoConservative I do side with Jefferson, as his view is based on facts. "For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; .." Cont'd
the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."... "if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. cont'd...
These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians ... cont'd..
@ThePaleoConservative ...and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, Feb. 10, 1814
Side with the ignorant majority all you wish. Jefferson backs up his argument with the facts. Sorry.
@chicagobdr529 what are you insane you don't need footnotes and bibliographies to show where you got you information from? no matter what you do if you are an honest person then you have to prove to people that your works are honest and by proving that you need to show where you got your information from... Think ma dude
There was another wall of separation, the Berlin wall!
PureChristian01 2 months ago
@PureChristian01 There was also a time when there was no wall of separation between church and state....it was called the dark ages!
Saebeck32 2 months ago
@Saebeck32 If you had your way, the USA would be the USSR
PureChristian01 1 month ago
@PureChristian01 HA HA HA HA!! If i had my way, Glenn Beck would be place in his FEMA concentration camps he always warns about. You people are absurd.
Saebeck32 1 month ago
For a detailed source on why Joseph Story's response to Jefferson was WEAK, google search "Blasphemy, Verbal Offense against the Sacred from Moses to Salman Rushdie," Leonard W. Levy. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill & London. (1995) p. 410-11
America is not a Christian nation; the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (ratified by U.S. Senate) and the 1843 letter of Pres. Tyler back me up. I would encourage readers not to swallow the historical revisionist nonsense of the religious right.
gmn545 3 months ago
I've already stated my opinion on the treaty of Tripoli and I'm not about to repeat myself. You seem to take Tyler's letter on separation of church and state to be anti-christian. It's not. In fact, one of the main arguments for religious freedom was that Christianity would be best served by it.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
It's obvious that gmn545 I are going to have to agree to disagree. I would encourage other readers to look up what Joseph Story, Kent and James Wilson have to say on Christianity and common law. Indeed, Story specifically dealt with Jefferson's letter, as have other scholars. Please also read: "When Christianty was part of the common law" by Banner Stuart and "Christianity, the common law and the Constitution" by James Stoner and draw your own educated conclusion on Common law and Christianity
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
Yes, we get that you like Jefferson and I'm sure you quote Madison a lot as well. The main reason separationists quote Jefferson and Madison ad nausim is because they have to cherry pick their historical information in order to present any evidence from our nation’s history to support their position on the Establishment Clause. You cite Jefferson because that's all you've got.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
BTW, If Christianity wasn't part of the common law, there would not be court cases where people were punished for taking the name of Jesus in vain. Justice Story refuted Jefferson's nonsense shortly after Jefferson's letter was published. Case law is crystal clear on this issue, both in America and England. Does anyone really think that after a thousand years of Christian influence in England, Christianity wasn't part of the common law? Read Blackstone and Coke people. . .real experts.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "ancien scripture", in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Since you mentioned Blackstone, Jefferson himself writes ... cont'd
gmn545 3 months ago
And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, ... cont'd
gmn545 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative ...and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law." ..."Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody." - Thomas Jefferson
gmn545 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines."
You can't deny facts; don't even try. America is a secular nation; our Constitution - the law of the land and indicates the intent of the Founding Fathers - makes no mention of God, Jesus, or Christianity. This was done purposefully.
gmn545 3 months ago
@gmn545, I'm not denying facts. I'm denying your conclusions from the facts and your bias or ignorance of other facts. Yes, the Constitution doesn't contain a reference to Jesus or Christianity. If in your view, that means this isn't a Christian nation, I can't argue with your point. When one considers the whole picture, acts of Congress, the President, state constitutions, state laws, common law, State and national Supreme Court rulings etc, one can conclude America wasn't a secular nation.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative "When one considers the whole picture .. one can conclude America wasn't a secular nation." Huh? Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. I can cite more than just Jefferson. The "wall of separation" idea wasn't just his idea. Other 17th- and 18th-century Enlightenment writers had used a variant of it. Earlier still, religious dissident Roger Williams had written in a 1644 letter of a "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world."
gmn545 3 months ago
@gmn545, Jefferson clearly stated that religious matters were left up to the states. According to Jefferson, states could deal with religious matters as they desired. Funny, I don't hear the separation of church and state crowd talking about that aspect of Jefferson's views.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Jefferson stated religious matters, in the context of human authority, can only be dealt with as high as the state. He was clearly opposed to any federal regulation of religious matters. The 'crowd' is fully aware of what Jefferson thought about religious authority: "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." (Letter to J. Moor, 1800)
gmn545 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative "Supreme Court rulings" For your sake, I hope you're not referring to the 1892 Holy Trinity case, because if so, I will tear that crap to shreds with the facts behind it. The President? "Among all our presidents from Washington downward [ending at Andrew Jackson], not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." -- Rev. Bird Wilson (episcopal minister of Albany, New York), October 1831
gmn545 3 months ago
I'm well aware of the facts around it because I've actually read the case. However, it wasn't the one I was thinking of. As Rob Boston said in a book of his, "This is a Christian nation." To this day, historians debate what Brewer meant by the term." In general, I think both sides look at the term Christian nation and draw different conclusions as to what that term means, which is why common ground is hardly ever found on this issue.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
"But in what sense can [the U.S.] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it...Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all."
~ Justice Brewer "The United States: A Christian Nation."(1905)
gmn545 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Jefferson never meant for those words to say that america is a secular or a non-religious nation, that's way out of context. Jefferson was simply distinguishing the American view of Christianity which was more Bible based and on the works of Jesus and the evil Christianity of the RC which burned people alive for not submitting to the Pope and their beliefs
cubed07 2 months ago
Ignorant majority?
Supreme Court Justice and Harvard University's Dane Professor of Law Joseph Story.
James Kent: justice of the New York Supreme Court, in 1804 Chief Justice, and in 1814 Chancellor of New York. In 1821 he was a member of the New York State Constitutional Convention.
James Wilson who unlike Jefferson, was actually at the Constitutional convention and was a respected legal scholar that George Washington loved.
They all say christianity is part of the common law!
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Argument from authority (logical fallacy). I go by the facts. Jefferson already acknowledged that the majority held this view, but that it wasn't correct. He explains why Christianity is not part of the common law. "a thousand years of Christian influence in England"? Did you miss this part? "Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."... Period.
gmn545 3 months ago
@gmn545, Seriously? There is a thousand years of Christian influence but it's not part of the common law? That's laughable on it's face. Oh boy, let's play the logical fallacy card when all else fails. At best, Jefferson's argument proves that maybe, common law in England wasn't founded on Christianity, but it does nothing to refute that Christianity hadn't incorporated itself firmly into the common law. Case law in England and the United States firmly states: Christianity is part of the C.L.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative What's wrong with you? Jefferson gave the starting date for the use of common law and when the christian influence entered in, and as he said "Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it." The only thing that's laughable on its face is your willful ignorance on this subject.
gmn545 3 months ago
@gmn545, What kind of common law do you think America adopted? English common law in the 600-700's? Or English common law with over a thousand years of Christian influence? The common law all experts said was based on Christianity? Are you really going to argue that from 700's till the 1700's the Christianity didn't impact English common law? Or that laws punishing people who took the name of Jesus in vain weren't based on Christianity?
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Yes, I would argue that, considering it was the English common law that was based on Roman law and the Enlightment philosophy that America adopted. Blasphemy laws were originally part of the canon law (pertaining to the church), and didn't become part of the common law until the 17th century. Funny how the Americans made it a point to include 'Freedom of Speech' into the constitution. Founding Father Thomas Paine made use of this in bashing religion, including Christianity!
gmn545 3 months ago
At the end of the video Beck asks us to wait to see what's in that letter. I read it and here's what's in it: The opposite of what Barton is claiming. It's on his own website, wallbuilders, check it out.
John Adams, in the letter, clearly opposes what Barton is claiming. Look it up and read it yourself.
frendguy 3 months ago
If you wanna see how Barton misleads simply search his website for John Adams letter to Benjamin Rush. You'll clearly see how the president describes the holy ghost with sarcasm and calls it "artiface" "cunning" and "craft". Don't believe me, read the letter yourself. I've seen plenty of videos with Barton lecturing in churches blatantly claiming the opposite of what the president was actually saying.
frendguy 3 months ago
Does Barton believe Joseph Smith's revelation (Book of Mormon, etc) and that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer like Glenn? If not how can he work with a guy whose religion is an all out attack on evangelical Christianity, claiming all of our creeds are an abomination and our professors are all corrupt?
apologiamixer 6 months ago
If Barton is a Christian why does he work with a cultist like Mormon Glenn Beck?
apologiamixer 6 months ago
What is the use of using footnotes, if you are quotemining and leaving out vast amounts of relevant material that say just the opposite of what you are quoting? Huh Barton?
jfsfrnd 7 months ago
@jfsfrnd Give it up! Yes, we know he made some mistakes. However, the vast majority of his footnotes are spot on.
ThePaleoConservative 4 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Some mistakes?
jfsfrnd 4 months ago
David Barton and Glen Beck are liars! I just recently watched an excellent documentary, " The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers", and discovered that the Founding Fathers were all 33rd degree freemasons. They actually hated the true God of the Bible! You will be shocked to discover what the Founding Fathers actually believed in the own words! Please do a search and learn the truth for yourself.
shiphrahhopeful 7 months ago
Religious means we are a Christian Nation? Really.
From: Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, June 16, 1817
And you remember to have heard, that, when the act for religious freedom was before the Virginia Assembly, a motion to insert the name of Jesus Christ before the phrase, 'the author of our holy religion,' which stood in the bill, was rejected, although that was the creed of a great majority of them.
jfsfrnd 8 months ago
@jfsfrnd Yawn, maybe you can explain to me why in the same Assembly, Jefferson and Madison worked on bills to "punish disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath breakers. A bill for appointing days of public fasting and thanksgiving and finally, a bill annulling marriages PROHIBITED BY THE LEVITICAL LAW AND APPOINTING THE MODE OF SOLEMNIZING LAWFUL MARRIAGES. Finally, what did other states have to say about religions? Hint: many had established Christian religions.
ThePaleoConservative 4 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Yawn, produce some evidence.
jfsfrnd 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jfsfrnd, I just did. You may not agree with it, but don't act like it's not "evidence."
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Have you read those bills and understand them or did you just pull that quote from the web?
jfsfrnd 4 months ago
@jfsfrnd, Yes, i've read the bills. You can find them in "Real Theater and Mere Shadow." by Daniel Dreisbach. BTW, I wasn't aware Dreisbach writes for the Heritage Foundation. I do know he is highly educated, a scholar, and a gentleman. Chris Rodda works for some liberal political organization. Can I discredit her, simply because of that, like you are trying to do with Daniel Dreisbach? Please stay consistant, that's all I ask.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative So you don't know which organization she works for but you call it ''some liberal political organization''. What is the name of this ''liberal political organization''? Have you looked into it to see what their mission statement says or what they are about before you call them ''liberal''? The Heritage Foundation says it is ''a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies. . .''
jfsfrnd 3 months ago
@jfsfrnd, She write for the DailyKos which is most certainly a hard-core liberal organization. She also works as the Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Do you really dispute the Religious Freedom Foundation isn't a liberal organization. Dresibach also works for the Claremount institue which is again, a conservative organization. Please, be skeptical of his work, we shouldn't just take anyone's word for it.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative The Daily Kos is a progressive blog not an organization. The MRFF is a religious freedom organization that was founded in answer to the evangalical ''take over'' of the military and helps all religious and non-religious military personnel to express their religious freedom as expressed in the first amendmendment. I'm skeptical of everyone, thats why I do my own research. I even check Rodda's work, she has been off on some minor things too.
jfsfrnd 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Oh damn, now we are going to have to go through Daniel Dreisbachs books to see if he is citing the documents accurately. Why don't you get them from a non-biased government or educational site? Meanwhile I'll look up those bills myself. What states had established religions and what time frame was that in each state? And why can't the states establish a state religion today?
jfsfrnd 3 months ago
@jfsfrnd, I don't think anyone disputes many of the states had established religions. Also, all of the early states had oaths that had to be taken before one could be a member of the state legislature. These oaths required people to profess belief in things such as God, Jesus, the Old and New Testament and belief in a reward or punishment after death. Why cant' states do that day? Well the Supreme Court says the bill of rights applies to the states now.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
This guy is a complete liar! Liarsforjesus (.) com
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
Uhm...hmm? Actually my comment was a joke, kind of a cheech & chong reference. But I see by your. Ive seen some of your comments and apparantly your talking up the cause I too believe in. So I think you jumped the gun here. The no footnote reference was in relation to a book that bashed founding fathers and religion.
Dont bother to argue w/ the other guy about they were diest, or God told Bush to go to war, they hate Chrisitans and will spout anything including, lies to make themselves right.
MWFrontier 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, Feb. 10, 1814
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"
--Treaty of Tripoli, Article XI, unanimously passed by Senate and signed by John Adams, June 10, 1797
gmn545 1 year ago
Read the whole quotes in their entirety.Go to wallbuilders. com, David Barton shows with facts what the true intent of these quotes.
cubed07 10 months ago
@cubed07 Go to Liarsforjesus. com and watch him get exposed...David Barton is a history revisionist and theocrat. Nothing more.
gmn545 10 months ago
@gmn545 Name calling won't defeat him, he has documents, books, and other written works by the founding fathers that back up his claims. Such is that the founding father never intended religious expression to be separated from state but an institutionalized one, oh and David Barton has responded to all his critics and he embarasses them a lot. wallbuilders. com destroys liars for Jesus website.
cubed07 9 months ago
@cubed07 Give examples. Rodda completely destroys Barton. Mention a specific quote from Barton and it is no doubt at least partially false.
86rocker 9 months ago
@86rocker wallbuilders. com
Rodda doesn't even cover 10 percent of David Bartons claims, he only picks and chooses certain aspects. If you go to the website, type in anything from jefferson to Madison, anything you can think off and David will back up what he says with facts including footnote refernces. One example is that the Constitution and the DoI are both secular document when in fact they were both based on what the Bible taught in the OT about good government.
cubed07 9 months ago
@cubed07 Also evidence exist if we look at other founding fathers who held equal if not, more influence then Jefferson and Franklin. Most of the raging debate centers around those two men when their were 55 men of whom some were preachers and clyergymen who participated and signed the Consitution and had influence in writing the DoI. Ever heard of Benjamin Rush, Thomas Locke, and many other founders that were devout Christians. If you look outside of Jefferson and Franklin, you'll be shocked.
cubed07 9 months ago
@cubed07 chance now how or when Jefferson supported the VBS? I will tell you. A Bible Society not even related with the University (so not the VBS) had written to Jefferson and said that people were so poor that there were those who could not afford a Bible that wanted one. Jefferson made a one-time 50$ donation to this society. That's the exact footnote that Barton uses. Not only does he blow the context out of the water, he lies about the society in question (This is a very old lie that goes
86rocker 9 months ago
@cubed07 Rush. Locke, however wasn't a signer of either founding document, and I don't know if you meant John Locke, who established the Social Contract Theory. And finally, there are reasons why the less religious founders had major roles in the founding of our nation. They developed documents that were very much secular and based on common law, which Jefferson asserted to have had 'Anglo Saxon origins'. I can cite everything here, and would provide photocopyed links, but youtube won't let you
86rocker 9 months ago
@86rocker I think this is better for a private youtube mailbox debate so I'll send you one with my response.
cubed07 9 months ago
@cubed07 I meant she
cubed07 9 months ago
@cubed07 back over 100 years). Here's a link from Jefferson's writings that shows this same attitude for the public schools in Virginia. It's also interesting that you mention God's Providence in Human Affairs, as Jefferson's version of the Bible, which was not used to convert the Indians, disconnects all mysticism and providence from Jesus. Out of the 56 (not 55 signers), one was an ordained minister (Withersoon). And yes, I have heard of
86rocker 9 months ago
@cubed07 Alright. Do you have any evidence for the 10% figure? Her book covers many of the claims that he and other revisionists make, I'm sure more than 10%. Now for the debunking. The fact that a chapel existed in the congressional building did indeed mean that Christian men partially founded our government. However, there was conflict whether there should even be a chaplain and a chapel funded by taxpayer dollars, as referenced in Detached Memoranda, writings of James Madison. Do you by
86rocker 9 months ago
@86rocker Another example is the fact that their is a chapel in the original congressional building where our founding father held church services and invited clergymen and pastors to speak there every sunday. Another example is Thomas Jefferson being a deist, this is probalby the biggest BS ever, if Jefferson was a deist, why did he financially support the Virginia Bible Society in distributing Bibles? What would a diest possibly want with a book that acknowledges God providence in human affair
cubed07 9 months ago
@cubed07 post links in comments. Continue, please, with your examples. And inform yourself by doing just a bit of research. If you'd like the footnotes, again, I would be happy to email them to you.
86rocker 9 months ago
@cubed07 Barton has been exposed as a liar, primarily by Chris Rodda. Don't believe me? She's actually met the man and told him to his face that he needs to quit lying to the people. Check out her video series here on YouTube:
youtube. com / watch?v=ewwWM4psFo8 (part 1)
gmn545 9 months ago
@gmn545 How do you know Rodda is telling the truth? BC she tells you what you want to hear? Barton has an extensive collection of primary sources. Rodda has what?
leatherneck2044 8 months ago
@leatherneck2044 Because I've looked into her work myself. How about you do the same thing.
gmn545 8 months ago
@gmn545 What do you mean you have "looked into her work" ?? 'Since Barton quotes primary sources, the only way to dispute his findings is to simply deny their validity and their is no way to verify that. So what exactly is her "work?"
leatherneck2044 8 months ago
@leatherneck2044 Barton QUOTE MINES off of primary sources, and you'd know that if you bothered looking into Rodda's work, which (since you asked) is a published book entitled "Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History"....Just go to liarsforjesus. com and educate yourself, please. Or better yet, watch her series of debunking Barton's nonsense right here on YouTube (search for "David Barton Lies About Chris Rodda").
gmn545 8 months ago
@gmn545 Why would I want to look up the work of a person who is clueless about American History? I notice you don't refute anything Barton said in this segment! Why is that? Because you can't! Sure, Barton made some mistakes, but he corrected them. The vast majority of the quotes and citations Barton uses are spot on. Look them up yourself sometime instead of listening to some ignorant hack. If you want a real education, look up Daniel Dreisbach and educate yourself.
ThePaleoConservative 4 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Because that person (Chris Rodda) did her homework regarding EVERYTHING Barton claimed and point-by-point refuted him in her book (and website, filled with *footnotes* too lol) before I could :) That's why I gave the link. But if you wish to cover your eyes and pretend like the facts aren't there, which clearly show Barton's presentation to be historical revisionist nonsense at its finest, you go right ahead. Just know that we who are educated won't fall for his crap.
gmn545 4 months ago
@gmn545, I don't need to quote or use Barton. I would rather read actual scholars like Daniel Dreisbach. Scholars who actually have a ph.d, who write peer-reviewed articles and books that are reviewed by scholars. What exactly is Chris Rodda's qualifications again? Research director for liberal activist group? She uses footnotes? LOL, So does Barton. I'll stay with Dreisbach. I agree with you that Rodda does a good job of tearing David Barton a new one, but her conclusions are off.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative "qualifications"? Kurt Wise has a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard. He's also a young-earth creationist who stated "...if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."
Degrees mean little if you're dedicated to a preconceived bias and agenda. "So does Barton" yeah I know that; it was a joke referring to his constant mention of footnotes.
gmn545 3 months ago
@gmn545 ''it was a joke referring to his constant mention of footnotes.''
Yeah Barton continually pats himself on the back for his numerous footnotes. What does it matter if a book contains thousands of footnotes citing thousands of valid documents if the author misquotes them?
jfsfrnd 3 months ago
@gmn545 Fair point, but I think every person doesn't have some kind of bias. I have no doubt Professor Dreisbach has his own personal bias on this subject matter, but Chris Rodda certainly does to. For the record, I have looked over part of her books and am going to look it over some more in the future. I am not closing my eyes to her points of view by any means. Sorry I didn't grasp your joke about Barton, but it's the internet and humor can be hard pick up on-line.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative, Sorry, I meant to say I think every person does have some kind of bias.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Chris Rodda just wanted Barton to stop lying; that's her agenda. She has a video too of her approaching him, handing him a copy of her book (which debunked all of his nonsense), and pleading him to stop all the historical revisionism. He then later did a radio interview lying about how the encounter went, in promotion of HIS book. *smh*
Glad you're not closed-minded on her work. Enjoy reading it.
gmn545 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Sure everyone does have bias. You should read about Phyrro. He was a Philosopher who is known to be the first skeptic philosopher. Google his name and read about him and his philosophy.
jfsfrnd 3 months ago
@jfsfrnd, I will try to look into him sometime. I have a paper I'm working on, about separation of church and state etc,. When I am done with it, could I send it to you for some review and commentary?
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Absolutely. I'd like to see it, thanks.
jfsfrnd 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Make sure you put in lots of footnotes so your paper will look more professional. (That was a joke BTW) LOL
jfsfrnd 3 months ago
@jfsfrnd, LOL thanks for the humor! I have plenty of footnotes in it! It was originally done for a school paper. I'm revisiting it, in part because of my interest in the subject, and I have some new information I want to add and I have some bad stuff from Barton that needs to go! Don't expect it anytime soon, I'm a big Elder Scrolls fan and I'm going to be spending a lot of time on skyrim! But whenever it gets done, I'll let you know!
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Many of us have also refuted his claims on youtube. Read the comments on all of his videos. Chris Roddas first book is online for free. Whoever thinks that Barton is correct because his footnotes are accurate, Google ''Liars for Jesus pdf'' and read her book. Get all of the facts before you side with Barton. His footnotes are accurate because he cites the real documents and letters, but you have to compare what he says with what the documents and letters actually say.
jfsfrnd 4 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Daniel Dreisbach writes for the Heritage Foundation which is a Conservative think tank.
From the Heritage Foundation website click ''about''
''Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.''
jfsfrnd 4 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Barton creates strawman arguments and then refutes them. No one is saying that some of the founding fathers weren't Christians, especially at time of the signings of both documents. They are saying that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the country were not founded on Christianity, which is TRUE. Were they founded by Christians. Yes, partly.
jfsfrnd 4 months ago
@jfsfrnd I agree with you that Barton has issues. I don't think everything he says is wrong or off, but he certainly has to be taken with a grain of salt. I guess we have to come up with a definition of what makes a nation "christian" before we come to our conclusions. I agree with you, that the documents you listed aren't really Christian documents. If that ends the debate in your opinion, it would be a waste of time to go on. However, I see Christian influence in American government a lot.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Actually both sides, the extreme left and the extreme right have issues. One side claims that none of the founders were ever Christians (they say they were all Deists) and the other side claims they were all Christians (including Bartons claim that some number like 29 (he keeps changing it) of them held seminary degrees and that made them ministers). Christians have pushed their influence on government since the founding. Some of it was accepted and some thrown out.
jfsfrnd 3 months ago
@jfsfrnd I'm glad we can find some common ground here. Even if your are a member of the extreme right or left, you can still at least use evidence correctly and give the whole picture. I would suggest that tearing down crosses at public parks for example, was something that was accepted and not thrown out by the founders.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative I'm on the left, but I read. There is cross sitting on a hill in Hollywood overlooking the city. As far as I know it's still there.
jfsfrnd 3 months ago
@cubed07, I am on your side about separation of church and state, but any honest person has to be concerned about David Barton. I have yet to see David Barton post anything on his website that refutes Chris Rodda. We know Barton used quotes that have not be proven and anyone can make a mistake. However, Barton has used a few other things that are obviously intended to mislead people to his conclusion. For example, the John Adams letters dealing with the Holy Ghost or the seminary school stuff.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative David Barton quotes original sources including the old documents themselves for a majority of his facts. He doesn't need to do a detail refutation of Chris Rodha, the information and facts alone on his website already refuted her cliams before she wrote her book and a lot of what. Also david quotes in context which is more important than pulling random facts and slamming them togeehr which is what Rodda does a lot of the time.
cubed07 2 months ago
@cubed07 What about his claims regarding the seminary schools? Or the John Adams letters? I'm willing to forgive the quotes he used that haven't been proven to actually written or said by certain founding fathers, because he did use citations from legitimate books and has retracted these quotes on his website.
ThePaleoConservative 2 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative Those were from secondary sources which are still historically factual, such as, friends or family members of the founder in question, David Bartion has said that he will raise the standard by only quoting primary sources and not secondary sources anymore, he's only guilty of quoting secondary sources, that's it
cubed07 1 month ago
@gmn545, careful! If I was Chris Rodda I might call you a liar and throw vitriol at you! The quotes you posted are correct, but you leave out the parts of the treaty and letter that hurt your cause. The part of the treaty immediately after your quote explains why American was not a Christian nation and it has nothing to do with separating church and state. In the Jefferson letter, he admits his view point was in the minority.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative the treaty was in context to the pirates who were predominitely muslim, their view of Christianity in America was that they were the Roman Catholic church or Church of England. The muslims and the RC hated each other which is why the pirates would attack american ships and Jefferson sought to distance the nation from that conflict. Jefferson meant by the we are not a Christian nation as in we are not a part of the RC and have no animosity towards the muslims.
cubed07 2 months ago
Comment removed
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@gmn545
"we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, Feb. 10, 1814.
Why is it that we never hear the part about Jefferson's views on this subject being "contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth," from our pro-separation friends?
You are entitled to side with Jefferson on this matter, but I'll side with everyone else.
ThePaleoConservative 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative I do side with Jefferson, as his view is based on facts. "For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; .." Cont'd
gmn545 3 months ago
the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."... "if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. cont'd...
gmn545 3 months ago
These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians ... cont'd..
gmn545 3 months ago
@ThePaleoConservative ...and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, Feb. 10, 1814
Side with the ignorant majority all you wish. Jefferson backs up his argument with the facts. Sorry.
gmn545 3 months ago
I know Olbermann watched this...His head must have popped watching it. Great job, David Barton.
dashcap8 1 year ago
Trim the fat GB!!! That includes Your sarcasm. I am kinda with you but hit harder dont lean too much on fear!!!
jalmenda 1 year ago
"We dont need no stinking footnotes!"
chicagobdr529 1 year ago
@chicagobdr529 what are you insane you don't need footnotes and bibliographies to show where you got you information from? no matter what you do if you are an honest person then you have to prove to people that your works are honest and by proving that you need to show where you got your information from... Think ma dude
1turner22 1 year ago
Wow. You don't learn this in school...
mdbarnes21 1 year ago