TheAmericanPeople – I can’t answer for Thomas Nelson, but I can tell you we have the documentation in our book. Those who want to make this about Thomas Nelson, me, leftists, etc., need to simply consider the evidence in our book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=82cUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=we+will+submit+more+willingly+to+them,+accordingly+as+we+shall+perceive+that+the+means+that+God+and+nature+have+put+into+our+hands+are+more+and+more+employed+to+reduce+and+humble+a+haughty+enemy&source=bl&ots=JOULfEvW4-&sig=MVy_ynAQX1f43UIXaITq8ouUK2o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QxsYUI6QBKSU0QGO5YHgDA&ved=0CE4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=we%20will%20submit%20more%20willingly%20to%20them%2C%20accordingly%20as%20we%20shall%20perceive%20that%20the%20means%20that%20God%20and%20nature%20have%20put%20into%20our%20hands%20are%20more%20and%20more%20employed%20to%20reduce%20and%20humble%20a%20haughty%20enemy&f=false

This discussion has ended, I think. Nice to see you again, but our business is finished here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

is seen as the turning point into Strict Separationism.

As for James Wilson and natural law, “the right to have rights” that informed the Bill of Rights is founded in the Declaration of Independence, which is a natural law document, “the laws of nature and of nature’s god.” Wilson [and Hamilton in “The Farmer Refuted”] are quite in the mainstream.

“To him to believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all power Will, discovered by Reason.”

–John Adams, Letter to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794

Wilson approved the 3/5 compromise on r7/12/1787 ather than proposed it as I mistakenly thought earlier.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_712.asp

Wilson’s opinion on natural law was outside of the mainstream or the Bill of Rights and Constitution would have contained more Christian specific language.

Before using a quote to support a thesis in historical writing it is necessary to examine the social ,economis and cultural context surroundings the peron being quoted at the time. I am looking purely on who he was at the time he made the quote as well as how he was raised to include his personal belief system. There is no presentism here. I took nothing from thev21st century but simply how society viewed culture and society in the first 20 years of the 20 th century.

I was at the Truman Library and Museum in June. It was during Truman’s administration that we began to start see the massive increase in challenges to the Establishment Clause since its inception in 1791. Our nation did well from 1791-1948 maintaining our support as a nation for a Christian value system. However,it’s no coincidence that the events that followed in the second half of the century had a direct link to forsaking our Christian tradition.

Franklin was raised Puritan later evolving into a very open Deist with a hint of Calvinism mixed in for good measure . (“The Founders on Faith” by Steven Waldman ) it is a GREAT BOOK on the true faith of the founders.

We are much closer in our perspectives than we realized. Have a great day!

Mark

Why Barton picked a fight with Jefferson on his side, is beyond me.

This is what bugs me. Barton could make the same overall points about the foundations of this country and simply show that Jefferson’s views were outside of the mainstream. Then again, perhaps I should be grateful that Barton didn’t take that approach, leaving the field clear for me.

I don’t feel he should be the victim of personal vendettas from the Left.he is passionate for Christ which he should be. However Jesus would probably not recommend his methods. Just sayin.

He does attack when criticized. A properly trained historian will not write anything he/she wouldn’t be able to defend when crticized. Barton either does not know how to respond to a peer review ( I use thst term “peer” loosely) or he realizes he is not being honest with his readers and feels the need to attack. He does not need to have anyone else discredit him. His lack of scholarship and peer reviews are doing that for him. Why he chose Jefferson, the most “outside the mainstream ” thinking founder of the period. There is too much scholarship out there by historians who do nothing else but study Thomas Jefferson. This is why when I write I am always thinking a step ahead “How to I rebutt this statement?”

Mark

July 30, 2012 at 4:51 pm

“Texas Prof, I’m sorry but I think you crossed a line in condemning David Barton that went beyond mere overheated rhetoric.”

Again, I disagree. TxHistoryProf said himself he worded his statement poorly. And I’ve seen nothing in his posts to make me think it was anything other than that.

“The tactic has been not to correct Barton, but to discredit him,”

Barton should be discredited. He isn’t a historian, despite his claims otherwise. He distorts and fabricates history to serve his own purposes. When faced with criticism of his claims, he attacks his critics rather than address their valid criticisms.

I’m not sure what you are getting at.

OFT – “…which would give you the victory dance you intently desire. “

And, how do you divine my desires? Do you read bull entrails, chicken bones or use some other technique?

discrediting Barton isn’t about a “personal vendetta.” Barton has deceived a lot of people He gets people to believe him by pandering to them (telling them the things they want to hear – and that he wants to believe himself), then attacks his critics by portraying them as the enemy. By discrediting him, I mean not only exposing the misrepresentations and falsehoods he spreads,but also showing that his tactics are wrong as well.

July 29, 2012 at 9:24 pm

“”Mr. Barton wants a country that forces one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…”

That’s a falsehood and you know it, and it’s not right to play Pontius Pilate with “I don’t know what Barton wants to do.” You’ve read plenty enough of him to know that’s a slander.”

I disagree. It might be a bit exaggerated, perhaps hyperbolic. But given Barton’s deceptive methods and statements, it is not unreasonable to say Barton wants christianity elevated above all other religions in the US.

“But Barton is in no way forcing “one specific religion on all Americans disregarding the first amendment’s right to freedom of religion…” ”

who said Barton was “forcing one specific religion on all Americans ….” ?