Comments on: David Barton promotes The Jefferson Lies

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 22:14:30 +0000

In reply to David. David - Thanks for the kind words. My view is that there are bad actors among all ideologies and Fischer seems to excel at proving that point. .

By: Zoe Brain

Zoe Brain — Wed, 30 May 2018 22:06:36 +0000

First, please read this:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html
Now see what’s still being said by pastors in political fora:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3CiMaYweeE&feature=share

By: Jayhuck

Jayhuck — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:49:51 +0000

Patro-

personally I believe in reason. I don’t believe in authority – neither the authority of masses, nor the authority of professionals.

So you don’t believe in doctors, or engineers, or psychologists, or biologists, etc? I find it difficult to interpret this phrase of yours. SURE professionals get things wrong some times, but so what? Doctors get things wrong sometimes, but that doesn’t mean I want to run to the guy trumpeting reason for a medical procedure. “Professionals”, at least the way you seem to be using the term, are people who’ve dedicated their lives to a particular area of study. If a majority of historians are saying something, I think it would do us all well to at least listen.
It sounds to me like this is a way for you to just dismiss “professional” proclamations that you don’t like.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:49:51 +0000

Patrocles# ~ Nov 24, 2011 at 12:20 am
“personally I believe in reason. I don’t believe in authority – neither the authority of masses, nor the authority of professionals. Meaning, I’m not much interested in “what every professional historian in the United States” thinks. Every professional historian in the United States has been wrong before.”
by authority, I’m assuming you mean expertise. Now to be an expert in a field, doesn’t make you infallible, and using such a criteria for determining expertise would never work. An expert in a particular field is someone who has a significant amount of knowledge of the field and (more importantly) the ability to defend his/her ideas in rational discourse with other experts in the field.
From what I’ve seen, Barton not only doesn’t have significant knowledge of US history, but he also only picks venues where he can AVOID any sort of confrontation with experts in US history.

By: Zoe Brain

Zoe Brain — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:37:32 +0000

I wish I had more time to devote to it because it is an immensely important issue. Let me see how I can handle this…

Of course. Though I feel a bit arrogant saying I’ll “let you” handle it – it is after all, your blog! So I’ll just give you my thanks.
Now back to Jefferson?
Yes, there’s ideologically motovated distortion. Yes, you’ve shown that. I don’t see a mass rising of evangelical scholars pointing this out though, there’s too much polarisation. Few are interested in the truth, those that are prefer to stay out of a fight that’s becoming increasingly personal (you Heretic!), and which could impact their employment.
Yes, I’m aware of the pressure put on your college to rid themselves of this turbulent prof. Grove City College is as exceptional as you are in supporting you.
Facts are. Reality wins in the end. It’s going to happen anyway, no matter what you or Barton do or do not do. It might take awhile, centuries in some cases, and hastening the process as you’re attempting to do is good. But if, and I think when, Barton’s beliefs are allowed to remain unchallenged by Evangelicals, please don’t be too discouraged. It’s just the Culture War.

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:37:32 +0000

Even if Barton’s own interpretation of Jefferson is not correct, that wouldn’t prevent him from successfully uncovering incorrect interpretations by his opponents
For example, Jefferson is incorrectly branded as a “deist”- but he didn’t believe in a god who had retreated after creation, but in a god who immediately governed over the world. (Unhappily, he seems to have lacked.understanding for human destructiveness (sin), suffering and vicarious suffering – vicarious suffering being the title under which Jesus was entitled to be seen as the perceivable aspect of God.)
But, like “oft”, I supose that the real interesting question is what Jefferson thought about the Church-State-relations. Which is still open to debate.

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:37:32 +0000

Timothy Kincad.
personally I believe in reason. I don’t believe in authority – neither the authority of masses, nor the authority of professionals. Meaning, I’m not much interested in “what every professional historian in the United States” thinks. Every professional historian in the United States has been wrong before.
Resulting from the fact that professional historians form a particular class with its particulat culture and particular prejudices.

By: David

David — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:37:32 +0000

Today’s tweet from Bryan Fischer, senior policy analyst at the $20 million/year Christian organization, the American Family Association:
“Time to declare victory in the war on poverty, shut down welfare. 80% of “poor” have AC, 75% own cars, 2/3 have cable.”
Warren, how long are you going to attach yourself to this corrupted religio-ideology? You are too good and too decent a man for this.

By: oft

oft — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:20:03 +0000

Warren,
As the quote above clearly states, separation doctrine pertains to everyone because separation doctrine is derived from Natural Law, which applies to everyone. TJ also allows any State to establish any religion it wants which he has “ever believed.’

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:20:03 +0000

oft – The Kaskaskia Indians were not a state. There is no separation issue when the federal govt. deals with another sovereign entity.
What did Jefferson champion regarding religion in his own state of VA?