If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WBUR Boston)   According to David Barton, everything you know about American history is wrong. Especially the whole "separation of church and state" stuff. Guess which political party he consults with?   (wbur.org) divider line 178
    More: Scary, Americans, texas gop, Oral Roberts University, WallBuilders, Trinity, secularists, expert witnesses, U S Capitol  
•       •       •

2343 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Aug 2012 at 1:29 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-09 11:06:22 AM
Article 11. 'nuff said.

Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

book it/done.
 
2012-08-09 11:16:29 AM
He says they prove that the Founding Fathers were deeply religious men
Some were, some weren't.

who built America on Christian ideas
Arguably, if you ignore those ideas aren't exclusive to Christianity.

"You look at Article 3, Section 1, the treason clause," he told James Robison on Trinity Broadcast Network. "Direct quote out of the Bible. You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim.
I was unaware those parts of the Constitution were written in Hebrew... What about the 5th amendment's: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property", which comes from John Locke? What does Locke have to say on Religion?

"Locke, writing his Letters Concerning Toleration (1689-92) in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance. Three arguments are central: (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity."

he claims that Congress not only published the first American Bible in 1782, but it also intended the Bible to be used in public schools.
I'm sure some members of Congress did. However, James Madison earlier wrote a essay against using pubic funds to teach religious opinions. Link

But historians say Barton is flat-out wrong in his facts and conclusion. Congress never published or paid a dime for the 1782 Bible.
Oh, well there you go. Lying for Jesus.

"And we're going to be told they don't want any kind of religion in education, they don't want voluntary prayer?" Barton asks his audience rhetorically?
Who has ever said they didn't want voluntary prayer? Yeah, that's just a strawman. Lying for Jesus again.

I guess it sucks that the founders never explicitly stated whether or not the government was founded on Christianity, so we are all left to speculate... Oh wait. They did. In the "Treaty of Tripoli."

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
 
2012-08-09 11:25:11 AM
When I think David Barton, I think of the gym where all the insanely buff homosexuals go.

I don't care how you want to spin the founding fathers. Theocracy is a baaaaaaaaad idea.
 
2012-08-09 11:26:20 AM
No serious historian on the right or left (including Evangelicals like Mark Noll) takes David Barton seriously. He is not a historian and has no training in history or historical methodology.
 
2012-08-09 11:27:00 AM
My mother and I recently had a shouting match (well, she did all the shouting) when she started talking about the 10 commandments being removed from a courthouse. She was infuriated. I told her it made sense because of the 1st amendment. The courthouse is a government building, and it is inappropriate to be promoting any religion in a government building. And having a copy of the 10 commandments can absolutely be seen as promoting one particular religion. Then I quoted the 1st amendment to her, which pissed her off. And then she was stuck on the part where it says "CONGRESS shall make no law..."

Then she actually said to me, "What the hell does Congress have to do with a courthouse? Congress doesn't have anything to do with that courthouse!"

I tried to explain to her how the different branches of government work and handle different things while still being part of the same whole (making laws, vs interpreting laws etc) but she just kept yelling that this country used to have God's blessing and we've squandered it and we are/will be incurring His wrath.

After a while, I just stared at her and stopped talking. I simply could not reason with her. I don't even know why I tried.
 
2012-08-09 11:43:41 AM
Hee hee Musselmen.
 
2012-08-09 11:44:50 AM
TFA:

We looked up every citation Barton said was from the Bible, but not one of them checked out.
 
2012-08-09 11:46:33 AM
www.publicartinla.com

One of the Founding Fathers was Jewish.
 
2012-08-09 11:47:49 AM
 
2012-08-09 11:51:09 AM

Via Infinito: Then she actually said to me, "What the hell does Congress have to do with a courthouse? Congress doesn't have anything to do with that courthouse!"


Technically, it's also the 14th, incorporating the restriction to the states as well.

Via Infinito: I simply could not reason with her. I don't even know why I tried.


Because she's your mother; and if you won't, why should anyone else make any effort beyond waiting for her to kick the bucket.
 
2012-08-09 12:06:49 PM

eraser8: I've heard of that slimy c*ck hole: David Barton's The Jefferson Lies Voted the Least Credible History Book in Print


FTFA: A commenter on HNN's boards noted that the book "looks like an intentional attempt to mislead and decieve in the guise of history.

You don't say?
 
2012-08-09 12:09:51 PM

vernonFL: TFA:

We looked up every citation Barton said was from the Bible, but not one of them checked out.


You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim.

Deuteronomy 17:15
New International Version (NIV)
be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite.

Wait, the constitution says we have to have an Israeli king?

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-09 12:48:14 PM

impaler: vernonFL: TFA:

We looked up every citation Barton said was from the Bible, but not one of them checked out.

You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim.

Deuteronomy 17:15
New International Version (NIV)
be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite.

Wait, the constitution says we have to have an Israeli king?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 330x282]


We also don't "appoint" a "king." We buy Presidents.
 
2012-08-09 12:48:54 PM
I don't have to guess his party nor his religion. Sadly.
 
2012-08-09 01:09:40 PM
"You look at Article 3, Section 1, the treason clause," he told James Robison on Trinity Broadcast Network. "Direct quote out of the Bible. You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim. I mean, it drives the secularists nuts because the Bible's all over it! Now we as Christians don't tend to recognize that. We think it's a secular document; we've bought into their lies. It's not."

"Ergo, we need to give Christianity special rights and privileges that other religions should not have in this country. And doing so will not upend the way we've been doing things in this country for the past 200 years. And I, as a Christian, think that's perfectly fair and just, and all of the other religions can suck my ass if they don't like it."
 
2012-08-09 01:21:13 PM
Normally, one comes to a conclusion based on evidence. This guy starts with the conclusion and then goes looking for evidence.

The worst part is that it is now up to everyone else to disprove his evidence when it's his preconceptions that are wrong.
 
2012-08-09 01:31:14 PM
Black is white. I've been saying it for years. where are MY bestsellers and speaking engagements (and non-fiction book groupie sex).
 
2012-08-09 01:32:26 PM
Silly atheists. The devil has obviously modified these documents to prevent us from becoming a strong Christian nation.
 
2012-08-09 01:33:30 PM
Awesome, now where was that loon who keeps insisting that both sides are the same?
 
2012-08-09 01:34:16 PM
"I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?
 
2012-08-09 01:34:20 PM
So.....this means that EVERYONE must go to CHRISTIAN church and worship Republican Jesus or be shot on sight.
 
2012-08-09 01:34:57 PM

xanadian: We also don't "appoint" a "king." We buy Presidents.


thewisecracker.com

Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here...
 
2012-08-09 01:35:40 PM
So how long before this guy is found at a truck stop wearing a wig?
 
2012-08-09 01:36:34 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?


Huckabee? As in, Mike Huckabee?
 
2012-08-09 01:38:18 PM

TV's Vinnie: So.....this means that EVERYONE must go to CHRISTIAN church and worship Republican Jesus or be shot on sight.


Believe it or not, I was raised religious. Deep Texas religious, too. And one of the 'biggest' things that they believe in is the imminent 'Christian Tribulation'. The time when real Christians will be persecuted and hated and hunted like dogs by the government and the Anti-Christ, who will be charming and adored and loved around the world.

I've since grown up and become an adult and laughed it off and found my own spiritual way in the world, but I'd find it amazingly ironic if their own idiotic attempts at forming a Theocracy doesn't backfire on them and end up with the fundamentalists actually getting their own little self-inflicted Tribulation.
 
2012-08-09 01:38:21 PM
[younevergofullretard.jpeg]

RTFA
 
2012-08-09 01:38:26 PM
Someone send him this

Highlights:
"the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) "

"Consider this: IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing Christians, would there ever have been a revolution at all?

"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23

This passage refers to humans rebelling against god, a statement that establishes the precedence of unconditional subservience which is further illustrated, very explicitly, by the following two passages:

1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."

Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." "


And of course what Weaver already posted.
 
2012-08-09 01:38:39 PM

Somacandra: No serious historian on the right or left (including Evangelicals like Mark Noll) takes David Barton seriously. He is not a historian and has no training in history or historical methodology.


This. I'm not even really a historian at all, just properly educated and decently read, and I still know not to take anything he says seriously. In fact, when he says something that agrees with me I tend to double-check to make sure I'm not thinking something stupid.
 
2012-08-09 01:38:46 PM
The only book you need for American History

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-09 01:38:51 PM
You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim.

Deuteronomy 17:15, -If this happens, be sure to select as king the man the LORD your God chooses. You must appoint a fellow Israelite; he may not be a foreigner (many other translations has it as "brother" vice foreigner" or Isrealite).


Article 2, Clause 5 -No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


So aside from failing to grasp US history, he also has problems with the english language?


Somacandra: No serious historian on the right or left (including Evangelicals like Mark Noll) takes David Barton seriously. He is not a historian and has no training in history or historical methodology.


Unfortunately serious histoprians aren't influencing american textbooks as much as this assclown is.
 
2012-08-09 01:39:03 PM
Seeing that The Treaty of Tripoli was written between the United States and a country that no longer exists, Ottoman Tripolitania, the Treaty of Tripoli has been null and void since 1911 if not sooner.

Also, treaties do not rule The Constitution null and avoid either.
The Treaty of Tripoli is just a vague historic artifact with no meaning or power in today's US government.

Some more info if you'd like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Tripolitania
 
2012-08-09 01:40:24 PM
Inspired by Christian ideals does not equate to "Christian nation".
 
2012-08-09 01:40:41 PM
Old (2009), but still a good read: The Idiocy of Texas and the Threat of David Barton includes special guest star Michele Bachmann. I am seriously glad neither she nor Rick Perry got anywhere near the White House, and I say that as a Christian. The more I read about this guy, though, the more I find him absolutely terrifying.
 
2012-08-09 01:42:03 PM

Kurmudgeon: Also, treaties do not rule The Constitution null and avoid either.


o_O
 
2012-08-09 01:42:07 PM

FarkedOver: The only book you need for American History

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x295]


That book is grossly overated, very myopic and only important for people who have never taken a critical look at us history.

So a good choice for Mr. Barton.
 
2012-08-09 01:42:38 PM

Lando Lincoln: "You look at Article 3, Section 1, the treason clause," he told James Robison on Trinity Broadcast Network. "Direct quote out of the Bible. You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim. I mean, it drives the secularists nuts because the Bible's all over it! Now we as Christians don't tend to recognize that. We think it's a secular document; we've bought into their lies. It's not."

"Ergo, we need to give Christianity special rights and privileges that other religions should not have in this country. And doing so will not upend the way we've been doing things in this country for the past 200 years. And I, as a Christian, think that's perfectly fair and just, and all of the other religions can suck my ass if they don't like it."


My favorite part is how using the term "secularist" allows me to totally disregard anything that person has to say for the rest of eternity.
 
2012-08-09 01:42:45 PM
"According to David Barton"

I think I see your problem.
 
2012-08-09 01:43:25 PM

Kurmudgeon: Seeing that The Treaty of Tripoli was written between the United States and a country that no longer exists, Ottoman Tripolitania, the Treaty of Tripoli has been null and void since 1911 if not sooner.

Also, treaties do not rule The Constitution null and avoid either.
The Treaty of Tripoli is just a vague historic artifact with no meaning or power in today's US government.

Some more info if you'd like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Tripolitania


Yes, yes, so because the USSR no longer exists, then the treaties regarding nuclear arms reductions are no longer valid?

That's adorable.

Okay, so. No one's saying that this treaty 'binds' the US into being a secular nation. What we 'are' saying is that this Treaty demonstrates the mindset of the Founding Fathers. That it shows in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that the US was not founded to be a Christian nation. That the Founding Fathers had NO problems with people who weren't Christian and that they were secular in their thinking and their design of the government.

It effectively and completely destroys the drool-cup idea that America was designed to be a Christian nation and that the Founding Fathers meant it that way.
 
2012-08-09 01:43:41 PM

qorkfiend: Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?

Huckabee? As in, Mike Huckabee?


Huck's a hardcore Dominionist. He wants to rewrite the Constitution to reflect the Bible(well, his Bible)

The Dominionists ride along as regular Christians don't speak up loudly enough to be heard above all the FUD people like Huckabee spread.

Sad thing is, if a Huckabee style Dominionist got his way, Catholics and Mormons would probably not be welcome here.
 
2012-08-09 01:43:42 PM

Kurmudgeon: Also, treaties do not rule The Constitution null and avoid either.
The Treaty of Tripoli is just a vague historic artifact with no meaning or power in today's US government.


It's no less relevant than half the crap this guy is spewing. If we're just going to go by the Constitution by its own explicit meaning, then he has already lost his argument.
 
2012-08-09 01:44:04 PM
"You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim." emphasis mine.

New International Version (©1984)
be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite.

New Living Translation (©2007)
If this happens, be sure to select as king the man the LORD your God chooses. You must appoint a fellow Israelite; he may not be a foreigner.

English Standard Version (©2001)
you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Be sure to appoint the king the LORD your God will choose. He must be one of your own people. Never let a foreigner be king, because he's not one of your own people.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
You shall surely set him king over you, whom the LORD your God shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set king over you: you may not set a stranger over you, who is not your brother.

American King James Version
You shall in any wise set him king over you, whom the LORD your God shall choose: one from among your brothers shall you set king over you: you may not set a stranger over you, which is not your brother.

VERBATIM!!!
 
2012-08-09 01:44:31 PM
How's it go again? If you lie loud enough and long enough, people will believe you?
 
2012-08-09 01:44:52 PM

impaler: vernonFL: TFA:

We looked up every citation Barton said was from the Bible, but not one of them checked out.

You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim.

Deuteronomy 17:15
New International Version (NIV)
be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite.

Wait, the constitution says we have to have an Israeli king?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 330x282]


Was going to post this.

Verbatim.
 
2012-08-09 01:45:57 PM
David Barton is a traitor to this country and to its Constitution.

I say keelhaul the son of a b*tch.

The USS Missouri won't mind a nice energetic belly tickle.
 
2012-08-09 01:46:22 PM

liam76: You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim.

Deuteronomy 17:15, -If this happens, be sure to select as king the man the LORD your God chooses. You must appoint a fellow Israelite; he may not be a foreigner (many other translations has it as "brother" vice foreigner" or Isrealite).


Article 2, Clause 5 -No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


So aside from failing to grasp US history, he also has problems with the english language?


He knows his followers will just accept what he says and will not go an verify it. They will just parrot it back as fact, and if you show them proof this guy is wrong, they will defend him and not wish to change their minds.

Humans have a natural repugnance to being told they are wrong. I think a lot of people feel it is a direct attack on ourselves, just as violent as a punch to the gut.
 
2012-08-09 01:47:41 PM
encrypted-tbn3.google.com

Verbatim

encrypted-tbn1.google.com

Not verbatim
 
2012-08-09 01:47:52 PM

Kurmudgeon: Seeing that The Treaty of Tripoli was written between the United States and a country that no longer exists, Ottoman Tripolitania, the Treaty of Tripoli has been null and void since 1911 if not sooner.


Nice strawman you got there, the point of the Treaty of Tripoli apparently went over your head. The point is not whether it has the force of law, but rather it clearly demonstrates how the founding fathers (in this case John Adams and congress) thought about this country and religion.

You could also glean the same information from reading the Federalist Papers by the way, in which the reasoning and advocacy for the US constitution is made. In an explanation spanning a couple hundred pages, not once is there a reference to Christianity.
 
2012-08-09 01:49:00 PM

vernonFL: We looked up every citation Barton said was from the Bible, but not one of them checked out.


ohsnap.gif

Looks like he's a typical American Christian, then.
 
2012-08-09 01:49:06 PM

liam76: FarkedOver: The only book you need for American History

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x295]

That book is grossly overated, very myopic and only important for people who have never taken a critical look at us history.

So a good choice for Mr. Barton.


If you think that book is a good choice for Barton, you haven't read the book.
 
2012-08-09 01:50:35 PM

impaler: vernonFL: TFA:

We looked up every citation Barton said was from the Bible, but not one of them checked out.

You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim.

Deuteronomy 17:15
New International Version (NIV)
be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite.

Wait, the constitution says we have to have an Israeli king?


Uhhh. We're good then?
 
2012-08-09 01:51:14 PM
If you've never heard of David Barton, you must be new here. You'll remember him from the last "most influential evangelical you've never heard of" piece posted here, or the one before that. Or any of the Texas textbook derp.

What amazes me is how brazenly they can lie, and either ignore how wrong they are (comparing two sentences shouldn't be hard) or defend the lie as coming from a place of wanting everyone to find Jesus - from the same people that want "Thou shalt not bear false witness" engraved in stone in every courthouse in the land.

Barton seems to think Deuteronomy wants us to submit to Christian "kings" (rulers). I counter that since Deuteronomy was written by Jews for Jews, we need a Jewish "king". There's also the sticky wicket of a verse from Ezra (7:26) that exhorts people to follow the laws of their host countries. And, for the New Testament types, the "render unto Caesar" thing.

How is this different from taqqiyah? (Where Muslims can lie to non-Muslims for the purposes of obscuring details of the faith - I think that's what it's called, though I may be confusing terms.) How are these yahoos any different from the Taliban again?
 
2012-08-09 01:51:56 PM

impaler: Wait, the constitution says we have to have an Israeli king?


damn AIPAC.
 
2012-08-09 01:52:03 PM

brap: When I think David Barton, I think of the gym where all the insanely buff homosexuals go.


....

Well, I wasn't thinking that, BUT I AM NOW!!!
 
2012-08-09 01:52:24 PM

meat0918: Sad thing is, if a Huckabee style Dominionist got his way, Catholics and Mormons would probably not be welcome here.


That's what amazes me about the religious shiatbags in this country. Let's assume for a second that they manage to legislate away and outlaw homosexuality, dancing, drugs, evolution, global warming, Islam, abortion, etc....every single goddamn thing that they are motivated to hate.

Where do they go next? They prey upon each other. I'll give their church leaders credit--keeping a long list of enemies and an ignorant core of worshipers means you don't have a lot of people running around that remember the 30 Years War. That don't remember what REAL religious persecution feels like. That assume that when the time comes for this country to choose, it will be their version of Christ that takes the throne of this country.

One of the many reasons why they are contemptible
 
2012-08-09 01:52:24 PM

Lord_Baull: VERBATIM!!!


טו שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ: מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ, תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ--לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אָחִיךָ הוּא.

All right, that's modern-ish Hebrew (rather than the original script), and written backwards, and I'm taking the word of the internet that it's the correct passage since I don't read the language. But closer, yeah?
 
2012-08-09 01:52:59 PM

Via Infinito: My mother and I recently had a shouting match (well, she did all the shouting) when she started talking about the 10 commandments being removed from a courthouse. She was infuriated. I told her it made sense because of the 1st amendment. The courthouse is a government building, and it is inappropriate to be promoting any religion in a government building. And having a copy of the 10 commandments can absolutely be seen as promoting one particular religion. Then I quoted the 1st amendment to her, which pissed her off. And then she was stuck on the part where it says "CONGRESS shall make no law..."

Then she actually said to me, "What the hell does Congress have to do with a courthouse? Congress doesn't have anything to do with that courthouse!"

I tried to explain to her how the different branches of government work and handle different things while still being part of the same whole (making laws, vs interpreting laws etc) but she just kept yelling that this country used to have God's blessing and we've squandered it and we are/will be incurring His wrath.

After a while, I just stared at her and stopped talking. I simply could not reason with her. I don't even know why I tried.


Sometimes parents just don't understand. I've been there...In south philly where the constitution was born and raised, and viewing the sites is how I spent most of my days. I learned when the first amendment is in retreat well that's a nightmare on main street.

/got jiggy wit it
 
2012-08-09 01:53:36 PM
Who cares what political party he consults, it's the consulting school boards and education policy that's worrisome.
 
2012-08-09 01:53:48 PM

Jim_Callahan: and written backwards


Well, now you summoned the devil.
 
2012-08-09 01:53:57 PM

Dr Dreidel: How are these yahoos any different from the Taliban again?


They're Christians.

Also, they murder people on a much grander scale than the Taliban could ever dream.
 
2012-08-09 01:54:44 PM
FTFA: "Jefferson, unlike the other presidents, closes his documents: 'In the year of our Lord Christ,' " Barton said, not mentioning that this was a pre-printed form that was required by law.

"But we're always told he was such a secularist and didn't believe in religion," Huckabee protested.


No Mike, people with a knowledge of history know Jefferson was a "Deist". Jefferson had a common sense view of his faith you evangellicals will never understand. That is one reason you have to project your own religious views on Jefferson.

Truth is, if you evangellicals were so strong in your faith as you claim you wouldn't need all this reinforcement to make you feel you are correct. If your faith is true the it really doesn't matter if the U.S. is a "Christian Nation" or who the Founding Fathers chose to worship. if it bothers you really bad then you need to re-evaluate yoru faith.
 
2012-08-09 01:54:49 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?


wait, WHAT?

I gotta find this quote. All of it.
 
2012-08-09 01:55:09 PM
"You look at Article 3, Section 1, the treason clause," he told James Robison on Trinity Broadcast Network. "Direct quote out of the Bible. You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim. I mean, it drives the secularists nuts because the Bible's all over it! Now we as Christians don't tend to recognize that. We think it's a secular document; we've bought into their lies. It's not."

We have a king now?
 
2012-08-09 01:55:41 PM

Infernalist: The time when real Christians will be persecuted and hated and hunted like dogs by the government and the Anti-Christ, who will be charming and adored and loved around the world.


And this is why Real Christians (is this TM'ed like Real AmericansTM?) have the persecution complex. They want to be persecuted (or at least feel like it) to re-affirm their faith.

/Catholic
//I've been told by Baptists that I'm going to hell
///Is this something endemic to the United States?
 
2012-08-09 01:57:00 PM

Jim_Callahan: Lord_Baull: VERBATIM!!!

טו שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ: מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ, תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ--לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אָחִיךָ הוּא.

All right, that's modern-ish Hebrew (rather than the original script), and written backwards, and I'm taking the word of the internet that it's the correct passage since I don't read the language. But closer, yeah?


For the non-Hebrew speakers, this is as close to the text as I can get:

"Surely*, you shall put on you a king, chosen by god. [Chosen] from within your midst, you shall install a king - you may not put on yourselves a foreign** man who is not your brother."

* שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים usess a flowery construction where a verb is repeated to emphasize it. Literally, it translates to "Put, you put".
** נָכְרִי translates roughly to "follower of another faith".
 
2012-08-09 01:57:34 PM
να είστε βέβαιος να διορίζει πάνω από μια βασιλιάς ο Κύριος ο Θεός σου επιλέγει. Αυτός πρέπει να είναι μεταξύ τους συναδέλφους σας Ισραηλίτες. Μην τοποθετείτε πάνω από ένα αλλοδαπό σας, κάποιος που δεν είναι ένας Ισραηλίτης

Here it is in Greek.
 
2012-08-09 01:58:41 PM

Zik-Zak: Infernalist: The time when real Christians will be persecuted and hated and hunted like dogs by the government and the Anti-Christ, who will be charming and adored and loved around the world.

And this is why Real Christians (is this TM'ed like Real AmericansTM?) have the persecution complex. They want to be persecuted (or at least feel like it) to re-affirm their faith.

/Catholic
//I've been told by Baptists that I'm going to hell
///Is this something endemic to the United States?


Kinda sorta? Okay yeah, it's pretty much a Pentecostal thing that's almost confined to the southern states. Comes from our origins as a colony where they SENT ALL THE RELIGIOUS NUTBALLS THAT ENGLAND DIDN'T WANT AROUND.
 
2012-08-09 02:00:08 PM

xanadian: Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?

wait, WHAT?

I gotta find this quote. All of it.


I'm not defending the quote, since it's ridiculous, but I did hear the audio of it on NPR yesterday and it's obvious that he was joking when he said that. At least, he and his audience were laughing.
 
2012-08-09 02:00:12 PM

Zik-Zak: Infernalist: The time when real Christians will be persecuted and hated and hunted like dogs by the government and the Anti-Christ, who will be charming and adored and loved around the world.

And this is why Real Christians (is this TM'ed like Real AmericansTM?) have the persecution complex. They want to be persecuted (or at least feel like it) to re-affirm their faith.

/Catholic
//I've been told by Baptists that I'm going to hell
///Is this something endemic to the United States?


I'd like the 'prosecute' the hot christian women.

/if you know what I mean
//stick my penis in their vagina
///or go all sodom and gonorrhea
 
2012-08-09 02:01:32 PM
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
 
2012-08-09 02:01:56 PM

Erix: xanadian: Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?

wait, WHAT?

I gotta find this quote. All of it.

I'm not defending the quote, since it's ridiculous, but I did hear the audio of it on NPR yesterday and it's obvious that he was joking when he said that. At least, he and his audience were laughing.


It is a little too on the nose to be a true joke.
 
2012-08-09 02:02:04 PM
Uh.

Anyone who hasn't heard of David Barton just hasn't been paying attention. He's like a Frank Luntz for religion.
 
2012-08-09 02:02:36 PM
Oh good God. There's even a Youtube video of it.

*superfacepalm*
 
2012-08-09 02:02:49 PM

meat0918: Humans have a natural repugnance to being told they are wrong. I think a lot of people feel it is a direct attack on ourselves, just as violent as a punch to the gut.


So you're saying that instead of trying to argue with idiots, I should punch them in the gut?

/VERBATIM!
 
2012-08-09 02:03:03 PM

Erix: xanadian: Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?

wait, WHAT?

I gotta find this quote. All of it.

I'm not defending the quote, since it's ridiculous, but I did hear the audio of it on NPR yesterday and it's obvious that he was joking when he said that. At least, he and his audience were laughing.


It's always laughing and joking at first. It's never serious at first.

I'm pretty sure that most revolutions start off like that. "...and if they don't like what we're doing to save this country, well, we'll just shoot them all!" *laughter and applause*
 
2012-08-09 02:03:12 PM
Pig latin: e-bay ure-shay o-tay appoint-ay over-ay ou-ay e-thay ing-kay e-thay ORD-LAY our-yay od-Gay ooses-chay. e-hay ust-may e-bay om-fray among-yay our-yay own-yay others-bray. o-day ot-nay ace-play a-yay oreigner-fay over-ay ou-yay, one-ay o-whay is-ay ot-nay a-ay other-bray Israelite-ay.

Oppish: bope sopurope topo apoppopoinoptop ovoperop yopou tophope kopinopgop tophope LopORopDop yopourop Gopodop cophopoosopesop. Hope mopusoptop bope fopropomop amoponopgop yopourop owopnop bopropotophoperopsop. Dopo nopotop poplopacope a foporopeigopnoperop ovoperop yopou,op onope wophopo isop nopotop a bopropotophoperop Isopropaelopitope.
 
2012-08-09 02:04:24 PM
David Barton is a ridiculous idiot

His work has been soundly rejected as nonsense time and time again. He's a proven liar and a moron .

The only people on Earth stupider than david Barton are those that believe his "Lies For Jesus" to be true .

Mental giants like Newt and Huckabee...

"You've got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know . . . morons."
-----
 
2012-08-09 02:05:01 PM

Charlie Chingas: I'd like the 'prosecute' the hot christian women.


'Prosecute'? On what charges, man?

/something something 'legal briefs'
//something something 'bang the gavel'
 
2012-08-09 02:06:14 PM

Erix: xanadian: Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?

wait, WHAT?

I gotta find this quote. All of it.

I'm not defending the quote, since it's ridiculous, but I did hear the audio of it on NPR yesterday and it's obvious that he was joking when he said that. At least, he and his audience were laughing.


I heard the quote on NPR as well. They were laughing at the "at gun point" part. Huckabee has proven himself to be the type of overly religious nutjob to fall for the claptrap of another overly religious nutjob.
 
2012-08-09 02:08:13 PM

Zik-Zak: Charlie Chingas: I'd like the 'prosecute' the hot christian women.

'Prosecute'? On what charges, man?

/something something 'legal briefs'
//something something 'bang the gavel'


Well, I guess I'm not sure now. 'Hard' to put my 'finger' on it. 'Come' to your own conclusion.
 
2012-08-09 02:08:36 PM

xanadian: Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?

wait, WHAT?

I gotta find this quote. All of it.



Link
 
2012-08-09 02:08:45 PM
the Founding Fathers were deeply religious men who built America on Christian ideas

So we're admitting that slavery and denying women the vote are Christian ideas?
 
2012-08-09 02:12:49 PM
Barton says the founders... even opposed the theory of evolution.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-09 02:13:04 PM
It's stupid to argue that Judeo-Christian Ethics and ideas do not pervade the Founding Documents. It is stupid to argue that the Founding Fathers were not largely men who believed in God. It's stupid to argue that none of the Founding Fathers were Christian or that Christianity had no part whatsoever in the founding of the Country.

It's stupid to argue that the Founding Documents were based on the teachings of Christianity. It is stupid to argue that the Founding Fathers were mostly devout Christians. It's stupid to argue that Christinaity and the scriptures were the most important aspect of the founding of the country.

Both 'sides' are wrong when they try to make it balck and white. It's orange. But it's pointless to have this debate all over again.

Here's my question:
David Barton is not a historian. He has a bachelor's degree in Christian education from Oral Roberts University.

He's clearly unqualified AS A HISTORIAN, and he's an evangelist. While he's entitled to his opinions and entitled to espouse whatever he likes, and write whatever he likes, why would it be treated any differently than the Latest Dan Brown garbage?
 
2012-08-09 02:13:43 PM

Captain Darling: the Founding Fathers were deeply religious men who built America on Christian ideas

So we're admitting that slavery and denying women the vote are Christian ideas?


Yes they are. And it was CommufascialistsTM like you that changed that by allowing women to vote, setting the slaves free, workers rights, G.I. Bill of Rights, Clean Water Act, highways.
 
2012-08-09 02:13:46 PM

qorkfiend: Pig latin: e-bay ure-shay o-tay appoint-ay over-ay ou-ay e-thay ing-kay e-thay ORD-LAY our-yay od-Gay ooses-chay. e-hay ust-may e-bay om-fray among-yay our-yay own-yay others-bray. o-day ot-nay ace-play a-yay oreigner-fay over-ay ou-yay, one-ay o-whay is-ay ot-nay a-ay other-bray Israelite-ay.

Oppish: bope sopurope topo apoppopoinoptop ovoperop yopou tophope kopinopgop tophope LopORopDop yopourop Gopodop cophopoosopesop. Hope mopusoptop bope fopropomop amoponopgop yopourop owopnop bopropotophoperopsop. Dopo nopotop poplopacope a foporopeigopnoperop ovoperop yopou,op onope wophopo isop nopotop a bopropotophoperop Isopropaelopitope.


do you have that in Ermahgerd?
 
2012-08-09 02:15:13 PM

BojanglesPaladin: He's clearly unqualified AS A HISTORIAN, and he's an evangelist. While he's entitled to his opinions and entitled to espouse whatever he likes, and write whatever he likes, why would it be treated any differently than the Latest Dan Brown garbage?


Because Dan Brown's work appears in the "fiction" section, whereas Barton's should appear in the "dumpster"?
 
2012-08-09 02:15:47 PM

theknuckler_33: Barton says the founders... even opposed the theory of evolution.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 498x387]


Isn't there a kind of logical fallacy that makes an argument that can't be disproved because the source cannot answer/doesn't exist?
 
2012-08-09 02:17:02 PM
bizza shizzur to azzpoint yizzou a kinggiz Lizzord your Gizzodd choosies. Hezzey must be freezy youzza fellow Izzyraelis
 
2012-08-09 02:19:47 PM

theknuckler_33: Barton says the founders... even opposed the theory of evolution.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 498x387]


Wait, wut.

I seriously think my stupid meter just exploded. I feel my brain twitching after reading that much stupid in so short a sentence.
 
2012-08-09 02:20:03 PM

Dr Dreidel: BojanglesPaladin: He's clearly unqualified AS A HISTORIAN, and he's an evangelist. While he's entitled to his opinions and entitled to espouse whatever he likes, and write whatever he likes, why would it be treated any differently than the Latest Dan Brown garbage?

Because Dan Brown's work appears in the "fiction" section, whereas Barton's should appear in the "dumpster"?


I lol'd.
 
2012-08-09 02:21:41 PM

Isitoveryet: qorkfiend: Pig latin: e-bay ure-shay o-tay appoint-ay over-ay ou-ay e-thay ing-kay e-thay ORD-LAY our-yay od-Gay ooses-chay. e-hay ust-may e-bay om-fray among-yay our-yay own-yay others-bray. o-day ot-nay ace-play a-yay oreigner-fay over-ay ou-yay, one-ay o-whay is-ay ot-nay a-ay other-bray Israelite-ay.

Oppish: bope sopurope topo apoppopoinoptop ovoperop yopou tophope kopinopgop tophope LopORopDop yopourop Gopodop cophopoosopesop. Hope mopusoptop bope fopropomop amoponopgop yopourop owopnop bopropotophoperopsop. Dopo nopotop poplopacope a foporopeigopnoperop ovoperop yopou,op onope wophopo isop nopotop a bopropotophoperop Isopropaelopitope.

do you have that in Ermahgerd?


BER SER TER ERPERNT ERVER U A KIN DA LERD YER GERD CHERSERS. HER MAHST BER FRERM ERMAHNG YER FERLO ERSRERLERTERS. DER NERT PLERC A FERERGNER ERVER U, ERN WH ERS NERT ERN ERSRERLERT.
 
2012-08-09 02:22:22 PM

Dr Dreidel: If you've never heard of David Barton, you must be new here. You'll remember him from the last "most influential evangelical you've never heard of" piece posted here, or the one before that. Or any of the Texas textbook derp.

What amazes me is how brazenly they can lie, and either ignore how wrong they are (comparing two sentences shouldn't be hard) or defend the lie as coming from a place of wanting everyone to find Jesus - from the same people that want "Thou shalt not bear false witness" engraved in stone in every courthouse in the land.

Barton seems to think Deuteronomy wants us to submit to Christian "kings" (rulers). I counter that since Deuteronomy was written by Jews for Jews, we need a Jewish "king". There's also the sticky wicket of a verse from Ezra (7:26) that exhorts people to follow the laws of their host countries. And, for the New Testament types, the "render unto Caesar" thing.

How is this different from taqqiyah? (Where Muslims can lie to non-Muslims for the purposes of obscuring details of the faith - I think that's what it's called, though I may be confusing terms.) How are these yahoos any different from the Taliban again?


On average, they're lighter.
 
2012-08-09 02:22:35 PM
Fascism requires that the Church and State become one to maintain control of the people.
 
2012-08-09 02:22:39 PM

Dr Dreidel: Because Dan Brown's work appears in the "fiction" section, whereas Barton's should appear in the "dumpster"?


I hereby declare you the Thread Winnah! and award you one internets.
 
2012-08-09 02:23:58 PM

Zik-Zak: theknuckler_33: Barton says the founders... even opposed the theory of evolution.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 498x387]

Isn't there a kind of logical fallacy that makes an argument that can't be disproved because the source cannot answer/doesn't exist?


Not sure, but there's definitely a logical fallacy where you say someone didn't believe in something that wasn't around until a hundred years later. I think it's called the Argumentum Whatus-the-farkus.
 
2012-08-09 02:28:31 PM

Citrate1007: Fascism requires that the Church and State become one to maintain control of the people.


Fascism does not require religion. It CAN incorporate it, and has, but religion is not a componant of Fascism.

Moreover, Fascism must sublimate religion to the higher ideal of "the state", which is inherently secular. Meaning that religion in a fascist state can only exist by minimizing it's emphasis on a higher law than the law of the state.

Fascism by its nature requires the state as the absolute authority.

Totalitarianism, on the other hand can seamlessly derive authority directly from religion, and we have countless examples both historic and contemprary of Totalitarian theocracies.
 
2012-08-09 02:34:55 PM

eraser8: I've heard of that slimy c*ck hole: David Barton's The Jefferson Lies Voted the Least Credible History Book in Print


David Barton's "myths" about Jefferson, Howard Zinn's People's History, 1421, DiLorenzo's Libertarian revisionist take on Lincoln, and Bill O'Reilly's mishandling of Lincoln. That's their top five.

I'm honestly surprised about Zinn being so high. But then again, they all are guilty of stretching the truth to satisfy an agenda.
 
2012-08-09 02:39:03 PM

theknuckler_33: Zik-Zak: theknuckler_33: Barton says the founders... even opposed the theory of evolution.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 498x387]

Isn't there a kind of logical fallacy that makes an argument that can't be disproved because the source cannot answer/doesn't exist?

Not sure, but there's definitely a logical fallacy where you say someone didn't believe in something that wasn't around until a hundred years later. I think it's called the Argumentum Whatus-the-farkus.


Oh. I've been calling it argumentum e rectum all this time. I was wrong.
 
2012-08-09 02:44:55 PM

Gwyrddu: You could also glean the same information from reading the Federalist Papers by the way, in which the reasoning and advocacy for the US constitution is made. In an explanation spanning a couple hundred pages, not once is there a reference to Christianity.


Not true!

"The first which presents itself is the Germanic body. In the early ages of Christianity, Germany was occupied by seven distinct nations, who had no common chief. The Franks, one of the number, having conquered the Gauls, established the kingdom which has taken its name from them blah blah blah blah blah..."


It does say this on religion though:
The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State. Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people.
 
2012-08-09 02:46:45 PM
pagead2.googlesyndication.com

It's a Fark conspiracy!
 
2012-08-09 02:48:40 PM
www.christian-myspace-layouts.com

VERBATIM
 
2012-08-09 02:51:13 PM

max_pooper: I heard the quote on NPR as well. They were laughing at the "at gun point" part.


Ahhh... Conservative humor.
 
2012-08-09 02:51:31 PM

Kittypie070: David Barton is a traitor to this country and to its Constitution.

I say keelhaul the son of a b*tch.

The USS Missouri won't mind a nice energetic belly tickle.


Indeed. After reading TFA, I don't think I've ever wanted to punch someone in the throat harder than this asshole. I see that HE'S the farking guy leading the charge to destroy what's left of the Texas education system. I'd laugh him off if there weren't several sitting members of Congress that hinge on this lying charlatan's every word.
 
2012-08-09 02:55:23 PM

BojanglesPaladin: It's stupid to argue that Judeo-Christian Ethics and ideas do not pervade the Founding Documents. It is stupid to argue that the Founding Fathers were not largely men who believed in God. It's stupid to argue that none of the Founding Fathers were Christian or that Christianity had no part whatsoever in the founding of the Country.

It's stupid to argue that Judeo-Christian Ethics and ideas pervade the Founding Documents. It's stupid to argue that the Founding Documents were based on the teachings of Christianity. It is stupid to argue that the Founding Fathers were mostly devout Christians. It's stupid to argue that Christinaity and the scriptures were the most important aspect of the founding of the country.


FTFY. Now I get that you're saying both sides are bad, and the article clearly shows a person with influence that is of the "founded on Christianity" side, but who says the founding fathers didn't believe in God, and none were Christian?
 
2012-08-09 03:04:12 PM

heavymetal: FTFA: "Jefferson, unlike the other presidents, closes his documents: 'In the year of our Lord Christ,' " Barton said, not mentioning that this was a pre-printed form that was required by law.

"But we're always told he was such a secularist and didn't believe in religion," Huckabee protested.

No Mike, people with a knowledge of history know Jefferson was a "Deist". Jefferson had a common sense view of his faith you evangellicals will never understand. That is one reason you have to project your own religious views on Jefferson.

Truth is, if you evangellicals were so strong in your faith as you claim you wouldn't need all this reinforcement to make you feel you are correct. If your faith is true the it really doesn't matter if the U.S. is a "Christian Nation" or who the Founding Fathers chose to worship. if it bothers you really bad then you need to re-evaluate yoru faith.


That's the thing that always gets me with these people. Jefferson and other Deists believed in a God that started the universe, then left it alone to run, not engaging in any sort of personal relationships with human beings, but leaving it up to us to discover His will and thoughts by exploring the intricacies of this universe. As a product of the Enlightenment, it was a faith that was very conducive to the practice of science.
 
2012-08-09 03:12:50 PM

impaler: Not true!

"The first which presents itself is the Germanic body. In the early ages of Christianity, Germany was occupied by seven distinct nations, who had no common chief. The Franks, one of the number, having conquered the Gauls, established the kingdom which has taken its name from them blah blah blah blah blah..."

it does say this on religion though:
The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State. Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people.



I stand corrected.

My point was that the Federalist Paper's made clear that the reasoning behind the Constitution wasn't religious motivated. The second paragraph you quoted also ties nicely into the no religious test for office and the egalitarian idealism of the founding fathers, good find.
 
2012-08-09 03:14:18 PM
I fully support combining church and state and enacting religious doctrine into law. That's why we need to immediately implement the doctrines of my church. The one with the gay pastor. Who supports abortion rights.

Oh, you meant YOUR church? Well, we may have a problem here.
 
2012-08-09 03:19:18 PM
Wow, this nutfark is so consistently wrong, I'm starting to doubt that this Thomas Jefferson guy ever existed at all, simply because Barton talks about him.
 
2012-08-09 03:20:12 PM
www.fishink.us

All depends on which Jesus you can imagine
 
2012-08-09 03:20:28 PM

heavymetal: FTFA: "Jefferson, unlike the other presidents, closes his documents: 'In the year of our Lord Christ,' " Barton said, not mentioning that this was a pre-printed form that was required by law.

"But we're always told he was such a secularist and didn't believe in religion," Huckabee protested.

No Mike, people with a knowledge of history know Jefferson was a "Deist". Jefferson had a common sense view of his faith you evangellicals will never understand. That is one reason you have to project your own religious views on Jefferson.

Truth is, if you evangellicals were so strong in your faith as you claim you wouldn't need all this reinforcement to make you feel you are correct. If your faith is true the it really doesn't matter if the U.S. is a "Christian Nation" or who the Founding Fathers chose to worship. if it bothers you really bad then you need to re-evaluate yoru faith.



I'm not 100% on this, but on a trip to Monticello (Jefferson's farm) I feel I remember one of the tour guides talking about how Thomas Jefferson took the Bible and would tear out pages or cross out sections he thought were false or dumb.
 
2012-08-09 03:24:43 PM
"And you get Thomas Paine, who's the least religious Founding Father saying, 'You've GOT to teach creation science in the classroom. Scientific method demands that.'"

No, dumbass, scientific method requires you to study scientific solutions, not fairy tales.
 
2012-08-09 03:26:31 PM

Lord_Baull: VERBATIM!!!


This is totally meme-ready, any picture of two totally different things, and the word VERBATIM!!! at the bottom...
 
2012-08-09 03:27:59 PM

Mikey1969: "And you get Thomas Paine, who's the least religious Founding Father saying, 'You've GOT to teach creation science in the classroom. Scientific method demands that.'"

No, dumbass, scientific method requires you to study scientific solutions, not fairy tales.


Barton's brain is so dense, I'm surprise it hasn't collapsed into itself.
 
2012-08-09 03:28:20 PM
Is this the yahoo who was complaining on NPR that people not listening to his alternate history was akin to religious persecution and taking away his 1st amendment rights?
 
2012-08-09 03:29:05 PM

Mikey1969: Lord_Baull: VERBATIM!!!

This is totally meme-ready, any picture of two totally different things, and the word VERBATIM!!! at the bottom...


And it doesn't even require photoshop skills...

www.insidedgw.com
 
2012-08-09 03:29:10 PM

Zik-Zak: Barton's brain is so dense, I'm surprised it hasn't collapsed into itself.


/I am disappoint
 
2012-08-09 03:29:28 PM
He says that he consults for the federal government and state school boards, that he testifies in court as an expert witness, that he gives a breathtaking 400 speeches a year.

That's 7.69 per week, that's more than once a day if he NEVER took a day off, EVER, yet he also supposedly is an "expert" witness and consults for various school boards?

Did he steal the farking TARDIS or something? The Doctor will NOT be amused.
 
2012-08-09 03:30:10 PM

buster_v: [www.christian-myspace-layouts.com image 400x300]

VERBATIM


Verbatim... it's the new "literally".
 
2012-08-09 03:41:15 PM

qorkfiend: Huckabee? As in, Mike Huckabee?


Ding.

BojanglesPaladin: While he's entitled to his opinions and entitled to espouse whatever he likes, and write whatever he likes, why would it be treated any differently than the Latest Dan Brown garbage?


A very good question. One conjecture is that what he's saying is appealing to politically conservative/reactionary types, who take him seriously in a form of confirmation bias reasoning.

However, that's secondary to the detail that conservative politicians (particularly the more conservative members of the Texas State Board of Educatioin) do appear to consider him a serious historian, as opposed to an author of historical-setting fiction like Dan Brown.

tnpir: I see that HE'S the farking guy leading the charge to destroy what's left of the Texas education system.


Debatable. He's definitely the leader among those posing as academics working in the field of history.

buckler: Jefferson and other Deists believed in a God that started the universe, then left it alone to run, not engaging in any sort of personal relationships with human beings, but leaving it up to us to discover His will and thoughts by exploring the intricacies of this universe.


They're better characterized as "providentialists" -- a deity not necessarily having personal relationships with individuals, but willing to tinker here and there, thereby providing hints on the right direction.

HellRaisingHoosier: I'm not 100% on this, but on a trip to Monticello (Jefferson's farm) I feel I remember one of the tour guides talking about how Thomas Jefferson took the Bible and would tear out pages or cross out sections he thought were false or dumb.


Wouldn't surprise me too much, but I think he was neater about it than that; he used two copies and a sharp razor for making the Jefferson Bible.
 
2012-08-09 03:44:31 PM

Mikey1969: He says that he consults for the federal government and state school boards, that he testifies in court as an expert witness, that he gives a breathtaking 400 speeches a year.

That's 7.69 per week, that's more than once a day if he NEVER took a day off, EVER, yet he also supposedly is an "expert" witness and consults for various school boards?

Did he steal the farking TARDIS or something? The Doctor will NOT be amused.


It is possible to give 2 speeches a day, 10/week if he skips weekends (and we assume he Remembers the Sabbath to Keep it Holy) = 520/year. Example: give a speech at the DC Convention Center at 10am, be in Baltimore for a dinnertime speech.

Seems like a lot, but especially considering he likely has a small handful of versions of the same speech, it's not like he has to write 400/year.

Also, none of that is to suggest any of those are worthy of being listened to.
 
2012-08-09 03:53:12 PM
As many of you know, my mother, Judy Jennings, recently ran for Texas State Board of Education. Fark helped her out with donations and spreading the word, but unfortunately she lost her race :(

During the campaign, she and her fellow Democratic SBoE nominee from another district ran a commercial about David Barton (I can't remember the exact reasoning. Barton was an adviser for both their opponents or something). During this commercial, it was claimed that Barton spoke at a white supremacist rally. Barton is now suing my mother and her fellow candidate, claiming the commercial is slander. His defense is (quite literally) "Yes, I spoke at a white supremacist rally, but I didn't know they were white supremacists at the time."

If you'd like more information, or if you'd like to know how you can help, please look up Judy Jennings on the Facebook. She is running for State Board of Education again in 2012, and we would appreciate any support.
 
2012-08-09 03:57:52 PM
When Paine wrote, "The Age of Reason," he was complaining about guys like David Barton.

"It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?"
 
2012-08-09 03:58:57 PM
Some more information for you:

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/12300/rebecca-bellmetereau-jud y -jennings-and-a-brief-history-of-the-texas-state-board-of-education

http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2011/09/21/i-want-david-barton-to-s u e-me/

http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/09/lawsuit-by-gop-activist-a g ainst-democrats-draws-criticism/

And here's a link to her Facebook. PLEASE "like" her and spread the word!

http://www.facebook.com/votejudyjennings
 
2012-08-09 04:00:51 PM
Some more information for you:

Link

Link

Link

And here's a link to her Facebook. PLEASE "like" her and spread the word!

Link

(mods/admins, please delete my previous post!)
 
2012-08-09 04:04:05 PM

Nobodyn0se: During this commercial, it was claimed that Barton spoke at a white supremacist rally. Barton is now suing my mother and her fellow candidate, claiming the commercial is slander. His defense is (quite literally) "Yes, I spoke at a white supremacist rally, but I didn't know they were white supremacists at the time."


Wow, we need to get him a dictionary with just the words 'verbatim' and 'slander' in it...

What a moron
 
2012-08-09 04:04:52 PM
This thread seems surprisingly derp free, but if there are any lurkers out there who are thinking "Man, that David Barton is a genius and all you Farkers are just ignorant", please please please read Warren Throckmorton. He's an actual historian who knows what he's talking about and skewers Barton's crap very well, including the "verbatim" nonsense.
 
2012-08-09 04:08:09 PM

Dr Dreidel: Mikey1969: He says that he consults for the federal government and state school boards, that he testifies in court as an expert witness, that he gives a breathtaking 400 speeches a year.

That's 7.69 per week, that's more than once a day if he NEVER took a day off, EVER, yet he also supposedly is an "expert" witness and consults for various school boards?

Did he steal the farking TARDIS or something? The Doctor will NOT be amused.

It is possible to give 2 speeches a day, 10/week if he skips weekends (and we assume he Remembers the Sabbath to Keep it Holy) = 520/year. Example: give a speech at the DC Convention Center at 10am, be in Baltimore for a dinnertime speech.

Seems like a lot, but especially considering he likely has a small handful of versions of the same speech, it's not like he has to write 400/year.

Also, none of that is to suggest any of those are worthy of being listened to.


I still think that rate would kill a normal man. This guy must truly be touched by God to keep up that rate of spreading the Word...

I would guess his average per speech of people who were new listeners is maybe 7?
 
2012-08-09 04:09:29 PM

Mikey1969: Dr Dreidel: Mikey1969: He says that he consults for the federal government and state school boards, that he testifies in court as an expert witness, that he gives a breathtaking 400 speeches a year.

That's 7.69 per week, that's more than once a day if he NEVER took a day off, EVER, yet he also supposedly is an "expert" witness and consults for various school boards?

Did he steal the farking TARDIS or something? The Doctor will NOT be amused.

It is possible to give 2 speeches a day, 10/week if he skips weekends (and we assume he Remembers the Sabbath to Keep it Holy) = 520/year. Example: give a speech at the DC Convention Center at 10am, be in Baltimore for a dinnertime speech.

Seems like a lot, but especially considering he likely has a small handful of versions of the same speech, it's not like he has to write 400/year.

Also, none of that is to suggest any of those are worthy of being listened to.

I still think that rate would kill a normal man. This guy must truly be touched by God to keep up that rate of spreading the Word...

I would guess his average per speech of people who were new listeners is maybe 7?


Number of speeches not yelled from street corners: 12.
 
2012-08-09 04:20:33 PM

BSABSVR: Warren


Well, it appears that Barton's publisher has pulled the book from publication, due to "historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported". In other words, due to fabrications.

Link.
 
2012-08-09 04:23:29 PM

max_pooper: Mikey1969: Dr Dreidel: It is possible to give 2 speeches a day, 10/week if he skips weekends (and we assume he Remembers the Sabbath to Keep it Holy) = 520/year. Example: give a speech at the DC Convention Center at 10am, be in Baltimore for a dinnertime speech.

Seems like a lot, but especially considering he likely has a small handful of versions of the same speech, it's not like he has to write 400/year.

Also, none of that is to suggest any of those are worthy of being listened to.

I still think that rate would kill a normal man. This guy must truly be touched by God to keep up that rate of spreading the Word...

I would guess his average per speech of people who were new listeners is maybe 7?

Number of speeches not yelled from street corners: 12.


I was actually thinking that this self-important prick probably counts his Sunday sermons (including the pre-recorded videos) as "speaking".
 
2012-08-09 04:24:15 PM

imashark: BSABSVR: Warren

Well, it appears that Barton's publisher has pulled the book from publication, due to "historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported". In other words, due to fabrications.

Link.

FTFA:
======================
Gus says:
August 9, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Wait for the outrage for the loss of freedom of speech. He will get another publisher and more sales.
======================

No, Gus, he won't need to. They've just opened up a new position at Fox News.
 
2012-08-09 04:28:54 PM

Dr Dreidel: If you've never heard of David Barton, you must be new here. You'll remember him from the last "most influential evangelical you've never heard of" piece posted here, or the one before that. Or any of the Texas textbook derp.

What amazes me is how brazenly they can lie, and either ignore how wrong they are (comparing two sentences shouldn't be hard) or defend the lie as coming from a place of wanting everyone to find Jesus - from the same people that want "Thou shalt not bear false witness" engraved in stone in every courthouse in the land.

Barton seems to think Deuteronomy wants us to submit to Christian "kings" (rulers). I counter that since Deuteronomy was written by Jews for Jews, we need a Jewish "king". There's also the sticky wicket of a verse from Ezra (7:26) that exhorts people to follow the laws of their host countries. And, for the New Testament types, the "render unto Caesar" thing.

How is this different from taqqiyah? (Where Muslims can lie to non-Muslims for the purposes of obscuring details of the faith - I think that's what it's called, though I may be confusing terms.) How are these yahoos any different from the Taliban again?


Right term, wrong usage. Muslims aren't allowed to "obscure the faith" willy-nilly. Their life must be threatened, or be in some other danger. If someone pointed a gun at their head and told them they were going to shoot them unless they renounced Muhammad and accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, THEN they get to lie about their faith, by 'renouncing' Muhammad and 'accepting' Jesus Chirst as their 'Lord and Savior'. IIRC, they have to say a prayer about it later or something, too. But they aren't allowed to capriciously lie about Islam to make it look good. It's why you almost never (to my knowledge) hear muslims say "Muhammad never said that" or "X said this about Muhammad/Islam", when it's demonstrable that that statement is a lie.
 
2012-08-09 04:32:51 PM

imashark: BSABSVR: Warren

Well, it appears that Barton's publisher has pulled the book from publication, due to "historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported". In other words, due to fabrications.

Link.


Update: Thomas Nelson Publishers have announced they have come to an agreement with David Barton over his book The Jefferson Lies. With removal of the second word in the title, the book will continue to be published.
 
2012-08-09 04:35:13 PM
Guess which political party he consults with?

Don't care. He's incorrect, even if he's a Whig.
 
2012-08-09 04:42:05 PM

gameshowhost: Guess which political party he consults with?

Don't care. He's incorrect, even if he's a Whig.


I wouldn't care if he was a Whig. Unfortunately, it's for one of the two parties that exist in the US.

/yes other parties technically exist
 
2012-08-09 04:42:30 PM
He;s from Texas so that probably means he will be writing and editing the school system's history textbooks.
 
2012-08-09 04:42:47 PM

friday13: Right term, wrong usage.


Hat-tip.

// always good to learn a lil' something
// even if I will forget it in 10 minutes
 
2012-08-09 04:47:52 PM

runwiz: He;s from Texas so that probably means he will be writing and editing the school system's history textbooks.


Been there, done that. Barton was an adviser to the Texas Board of Education when they revamped their textbook standards in 2010.
 
2012-08-09 04:54:07 PM

Dr Dreidel: friday13: Right term, wrong usage.

Hat-tip.

// always good to learn a lil' something
// even if I will forget it in 10 minutes


Glad I could return the favor (finally).
 
2012-08-09 05:12:31 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Uh.

Anyone who hasn't heard of David Barton just hasn't been paying attention. He's like a Frank Luntz for religion.


The problem is that in general normal moderate people go about their daily lives; occasionally hear about fanatics and know they're crazy. They may mention it at the dinner table as a nutty thing they ran across but in general don't spend a lot of time on it.

The fanatics meanwhile are spending 24/7/365 spreading their lies, fear, hatred and insanity. on whatever media channel they can get, and their own media channels if they can't get.

That's why Hitchens and Dawkins have done good service, even if I don't agree 100% with them. They've actually gone and met the religious fanatics on the field of battle and drawn blood. So to speak.
 
2012-08-09 05:24:56 PM

friday13: Dr Dreidel: friday13: Right term, wrong usage.

Hat-tip.

// always good to learn a lil' something
// even if I will forget it in 10 minutes

Glad I could return the favor (finally).


Eh? Was I suffering an overabundance of intellectual/educational karma that I wasn't aware of?
 
2012-08-09 06:53:11 PM

BojanglesPaladin: It's stupid to argue that Judeo-Christian Ethics and ideas do not pervade the Founding Documents. It is stupid to argue that the Founding Fathers were not largely men who believed in God. It's stupid to argue that none of the Founding Fathers were Christian or that Christianity had no part whatsoever in the founding of the Country.

It's stupid to argue that the Founding Documents were based on the teachings of Christianity. It is stupid to argue that the Founding Fathers were mostly devout Christians. It's stupid to argue that Christinaity and the scriptures were the most important aspect of the founding of the country.

Both 'sides' are wrong when they try to make it balck and white. It's orange. But it's pointless to have this debate all over again.

Here's my question:
David Barton is not a historian. He has a bachelor's degree in Christian education from Oral Roberts University.

He's clearly unqualified AS A HISTORIAN, and he's an evangelist. While he's entitled to his opinions and entitled to espouse whatever he likes, and write whatever he likes, why would it be treated any differently than the Latest Dan Brown garbage?


the really bad part about barton and his schtick, is not only is he NOT a historian but a theologian in historian's clothing. a historian looks at primary sources and evidence and formulates a conclusion based on those facts. a theologian already has the conclusions and cherry picks the evidence to support his hypothesis. barton is a SUPERDOUCHE because he buys as many original documents as he can, locks them away in his private collection and then butchers what they say to fit his message and suppresses the rest. introduce people like glenn beck and the EchoChamber tm and you now you have the perfect murder.

the truth never stood a chance
 
2012-08-09 08:37:06 PM
According to reality, everything David Barton knows about American history is wrong.
 
2012-08-09 08:57:01 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?


No, no, our country would be better for it. We would have a mass revolution and completely wipe out 'those assholes telling US WHAT TO DO!!11!'. It wouldn't exactly be pleasant, but we'd have a while before the next try at this by the next religion.
 
2012-08-09 09:53:04 PM

Infernalist: No one's saying that this treaty 'binds' the US into being a secular nation. What we 'are' saying is that this Treaty demonstrates the mindset of the Founding Fathers. That it shows in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that the US was not founded to be a Christian nation. That the Founding Fathers had NO problems with people who weren't Christian and that they were secular in their thinking and their design of the government.

It effectively and completely destroys the drool-cup idea that America was designed to be a Christian nation and that the Founding Fathers meant it that way.


Only if you're willing to believe that John Adams is the only Founding Father. However your contempt only shows your prejudice and unwillingness to see the truth. BTW, drool cup does not need to be hyphenated
 
2012-08-09 10:17:14 PM

Kurmudgeon: It effectively and completely destroys the drool-cup idea that America was designed to be a Christian nation and that the Founding Fathers meant it that way.

Only if you're willing to believe that John Adams is the only Founding Father. However your contempt only shows your prejudice and unwillingness to see the truth. BTW, drool cup does not need to be hyphenated


Huh? Adams was far more religious than the other well-known founders, and "drool-cup" was appropriately hyphenated.
 
2012-08-09 11:13:37 PM

Gwyrddu: Nice strawman you got there, the point of the Treaty of Tripoli apparently went over your head. The point is not whether it has the force of law, but rather it clearly demonstrates how the founding fathers (in this case John Adams and congress) thought about this country and religion.


Talking about straw men, the Treaty of Tripoli is only the opinion of those who signed it.
However, I am quite impressed with your super psychic powers.
Oh, and that force of law thing is pretty important, thanks for playing.
 
2012-08-09 11:17:57 PM
One last thing, the Treaty of Tripoli ended the war between the US and Tripoli.
That was it's purpose and only function.
Copy/paste and scroll down to 1796.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties
 
2012-08-09 11:19:55 PM
In another 60 years "historians" will be revealing that Lincoln was a vampire and that they found the evidence in an old movie.

About as relevant as what Barton has done.....
 
2012-08-10 01:26:31 AM

Infernalist: TV's Vinnie: So.....this means that EVERYONE must go to CHRISTIAN church and worship Republican Jesus or be shot on sight.

Believe it or not, I was raised religious. Deep Texas religious, too. And one of the 'biggest' things that they believe in is the imminent 'Christian Tribulation'. The time when real Christians will be persecuted and hated and hunted like dogs by the government and the Anti-Christ, who will be charming and adored and loved around the world.

I've since grown up and become an adult and laughed it off and found my own spiritual way in the world, but I'd find it amazingly ironic if their own idiotic attempts at forming a Theocracy doesn't backfire on them and end up with the fundamentalists actually getting their own little self-inflicted Tribulation.


Well stated. I have a similar background and feel the same way.
 
2012-08-10 02:37:17 AM
Ahh... his point of view... I can almost see it from here...

i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-10 03:18:19 AM

Kurmudgeon: Talking about straw men, the Treaty of Tripoli is only the opinion of those who signed it.
However, I am quite impressed with your super psychic powers.
Oh, and that force of law thing is pretty important, thanks for playing.


You mean the force of law of the first amendment? The one that pretty much says the same thing that the Treaty of Tripoli does about religion, except not singling out Christianity?

The Treaty of Tripoli merely makes clear the intention of the founders what should have still been obvious from the Constitution and other writings of the time, that the US is not and has never intended to be a Christian nation (or any other religious nation for that matter).

I don't have to be a psychic because I am able to read stuff dead people wrote where they clearly explain what their intentions were concerning religion and government when they made the US government in the first place.
 
2012-08-10 03:27:06 AM

Kurmudgeon: Gwyrddu: Nice strawman you got there, the point of the Treaty of Tripoli apparently went over your head. The point is not whether it has the force of law, but rather it clearly demonstrates how the founding fathers (in this case John Adams and congress) thought about this country and religion.

Talking about straw men, the Treaty of Tripoli is only the opinion of those who signed it.
However, I am quite impressed with your super psychic powers.
Oh, and that force of law thing is pretty important, thanks for playing.


It was signed unanimously by congress, dipshat.
 
2012-08-10 03:30:39 AM

Kurmudgeon: One last thing, the Treaty of Tripoli ended the war between the US and Tripoli.
That was it's purpose and only function.


So? The founders still clearly stated that Christianity was the foundation of of government, in any sense.

growlersoftware.com

growlersoftware.com

growlersoftware.com
 
2012-08-10 03:32:52 AM

impaler: was the foundatio


wasn't the foundation.

Damn it.

But that was obvious from context.
 
2012-08-10 03:34:05 AM

impaler: It was signed unanimously by congress, dipshat.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
"The treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to submit to the Pasha's demands for increased payments"
It is no longer law, melon head.
 
2012-08-10 03:55:14 AM

Kurmudgeon: impaler: It was signed unanimously by congress, dipshat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
"The treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to submit to the Pasha's demands for increased payments"
It is no longer law, melon head.


Others in the thread have pointed out many times that the Treaty of Tripoli, while no longer lawfully binding, is an insight into the thoughts and design by the founding fathers of our nation's foundations. Either you are not bothering to read or you are being purposefully obtuse.

This country isn't for Christians alone; it is for people of all faiths and religions, including those with no religion at all. The constitution and the laws based on it protect this fundamental right. Deal with it.
 
2012-08-10 04:08:11 AM

Legio Minervia: Others in the thread have pointed out many times that the Treaty of Tripoli, while no longer lawfully binding, is an insight into the thoughts and design by the founding fathers of our nation's foundations. Either you are not bothering to read or you are being purposefully obtuse.

This country isn't for Christians alone; it is for people of all faiths and religions, including those with no religion at all. The constitution and the laws based on it protect this fundamental right. Deal with it.


Never said the country was for "Christians alone". Just pointing out that this treaty does not have the force that anti-theists attempt to give it. By the way, the Arabic version of the Treaty does NOT contain the words in Article 11. So if their version did not have the text, then they could not ratify that on their side. Yet more reason to not give this treaty any more credence, though if one is prejudiced towards people and items of faith, they probably won't like that explanation either.
It's an obscure, poorly written treaty to a dead nation, and long defunct..
http://www.usconstitution.net/tripoli.html
 
2012-08-10 04:23:23 AM

Kurmudgeon: "The treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to submit to the Pasha's demands for increased payments"
It is no longer law, melon head.


Wow, so in 1801 Jefferson pulled a Romney and retroactively made our government founded on Christianity in 1789! And who says batshat insane theocrats are bad at critical thinking?

It's funny, for the longest time I've read how disparities between the Arabic and English versions of that treaty means it wasn't binding. Being a non-retard I never conceived how that was relevant. Now I know you fuking idiots think that if the statement signed by every single member of congress, and Thomas Jefferson's administration, isn't legally binding, then you can the US was founded on the religion of Christianity.

The stupidity would be amusing if it wasn't so damaging and evil.
 
2012-08-10 04:28:27 AM

Kurmudgeon: Never said the country was for "Christians alone". Just pointing out that this treaty does not have the force that anti-theists attempt to give it. By the way, the Arabic version of the Treaty does NOT contain the words in Article 11. So if their version did not have the text, then they could not ratify that on their side. Yet more reason to not give this treaty any more credence,


Ah ha ha ha ha! I didn't even read this drivel before I posted: " for the longest time I've read how disparities between the Arabic and English versions of that treaty means it wasn't binding"

Jesus fuking Christ. The founders, in no uncertain terms, declared the government wasn't founded on Christiantity, and you want to argue if the text it was in was legally binding? I bet your stupid lying arse quotes Jefferson's use of "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence too, without a single hint of irony.
 
2012-08-10 04:37:15 AM

Kurmudgeon: One last thing, the Treaty of Tripoli ended the war between the US and Tripoli.
That was it's purpose and only function.

Kurmudgeon: Never said the country was for "Christians alone". Just pointing out that this treaty does not have the force that anti-theists attempt to give it. By the way, the Arabic version of the Treaty does NOT contain the words in Article 11


Let me spell this out for you since you're clearly an idiot. The fact the Arabic version doesn't have " As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" (if that's even true, you lying fuksticks are known to lie), it means it wasn't put in there for diplomatic reasons (how would Tripoli know, it wasn't in theirs? It means congress and the Jefferson administration knew what they were signing. This fact works AGAINST you. Not for you.

How can you be so fuking obtuse?
 
2012-08-10 04:42:46 AM

Kurmudgeon: Just pointing out that this treaty does not have the force that anti-theists attempt to give it.


BTW you lying sack of shat. It isn't just "anti-theists" that point out this indisputable fact, it's also theists that want nothing of a government mixed with religion. Now I know you can't conceive of a theist that doesn't want the binding force of the law to be able to tell others what to do (that's just psychological projection on your part), but that doesn't mean someone that doesn't want the binding force of the law to be able to tell others what to do is anti-theist.
 
2012-08-10 04:49:29 AM

Kurmudgeon: Never said the country was for "Christians alone". Just pointing out that this treaty does not have the force that anti-theists attempt to give it. By the way, the Arabic version of the Treaty does NOT contain the words in Article 11. So if their version did not have the text, then they could not ratify that on their side. Yet more reason to not give this treaty any more credence, though if one is prejudiced towards people and items of faith, they probably won't like that explanation either.
It's an obscure, poorly written treaty to a dead nation, and long defunct..
http://www.usconstitution.net/tripoli.html


Once again, you are either not reading the posts countering your claims, or you are outright lying and misrepresenting them.

The legality of the treaty is irrelevant. No one is making the claim that the treaty itself is a legally-binding document that carries any legal force in modern law. That point is a red herring. As far as matters of law go, the constitution protects the rights of its citizens to practice religion (or abstain) at their discretion. That's the end of that discussion.

The significance of the treaty is the language insight it provides in how the founders of our country intended for religion to play in our laws and custom. The fact that John Adams drew up this document and had it unaminously ratified by the Senate is evidence enough that:

a) even one of our founders thought that the law should not just reflect Christian religion and custom, and

b) he wasn't alone. Clearly he had the agreement of at least some of the other founders.

I think that implication is far more powerful than any legal ramifications the treaty had and may or may not still have. You cannot dismiss that significance even if it doesn't agree with your viewpoint.
 
2012-08-10 04:56:35 AM

Legio Minervia: You cannot dismiss that significance even if it doesn't agree with your viewpoint


Sure he can. He's an Authoritarian.
 
2012-08-10 08:22:50 AM

qorkfiend: Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?

Huckabee? As in, Mike Huckabee?


I'll just leave this here.
 
2012-08-10 09:00:20 AM

HellRaisingHoosier: heavymetal: FTFA: "Jefferson, unlike the other presidents, closes his documents: 'In the year of our Lord Christ,' " Barton said, not mentioning that this was a pre-printed form that was required by law.

"But we're always told he was such a secularist and didn't believe in religion," Huckabee protested.

No Mike, people with a knowledge of history know Jefferson was a "Deist". Jefferson had a common sense view of his faith you evangellicals will never understand. That is one reason you have to project your own religious views on Jefferson.

Truth is, if you evangellicals were so strong in your faith as you claim you wouldn't need all this reinforcement to make you feel you are correct. If your faith is true the it really doesn't matter if the U.S. is a "Christian Nation" or who the Founding Fathers chose to worship. if it bothers you really bad then you need to re-evaluate yoru faith.


I'm not 100% on this, but on a trip to Monticello (Jefferson's farm) I feel I remember one of the tour guides talking about how Thomas Jefferson took the Bible and would tear out pages or cross out sections he thought were false or dumb.


You are correct. Jefferson Bible
 
2012-08-10 11:04:45 AM

Kurmudgeon: Only if you're willing to believe that John Adams is the only Founding Father.


You seemed to have missed the words "and Congress"; William Blount, John Langdon, and George Read were signatories to the Constitutional and members of the senate who also voted for ratification.

impaler: It was signed unanimously by congress, dipshat.


Technically, a unanimous vote of the 23 senators present.

Kurmudgeon: By the way, the Arabic version of the Treaty does NOT contain the words in Article 11.


True. However, the English version was what was ratified by the Senate.

impaler: Sure he can. He's an Authoritarian.


Particular evidence he is? The most damning thing I've found is a img.fark.neting inability to understand how sample-based polling works.

heavymetal: You are correct.


Part correct; he didn't cross out or tear for that, he used a nice neat razor blade for carving out the diamonds from the dunghill.
 
2012-08-10 12:05:47 PM

abb3w: impaler: Sure he can. He's an Authoritarian.

Particular evidence he is? The most damning thing I've found is a ing inability to understand how sample-based polling works.


Traits of authoritarians:

Compartmentalized Thinking: RWAs accept what they are told; lock, stock, and barrel, and file it away in their memory; this is a function of taking their lead from their Social Dominator Authoritarian leaders. Many of these positions end up being contradictory with each other or with reality, but, that is OK, because all of the ideas, since they are not processed mentally and only memorized, are not integrated in that persons thinking.

A Lack of Critical Thinking:This characteristic is central to the RWA type for if a person exhibited critical thinking regarding what they were being told regardless of source, including the Social Dominators, then they would less likely be blind followers of Authority figures. One of the most stark exemplars of this is that most Tea Parteyers, who are middle class, absolutely believe their taxes have been raised under President Obama when, in fact, they have been noticeably reduced. The only reason for this unreasonable belief is their total, unthinking reliance on what they are told by their SD leaders. If the "Teachers" in Milgram's experiment had really thought about the implications of what they were doing, most would not have kept increasing the voltage when told to by the scientist.


Kurmudgeon has been told that the "treaty isn't binding in law today, so therefore we can ignore it." He repeats this, and clearly hasn't mentally processed the idea. He will also believe quotes in the founder's private letters that praise Christianity is evidence for a theocracy.

His compartmentalized thinking prevents him from seeing the hypocrisy of saying a treaty's contents can be ignored, because it isn't legally binding, and at the same time say private correspondence is relevant, despite the fact it was never legally binding, much less intended for public digestion.

His lack of critical thinking skills prevents him from realizing that no amount of praise for Christianity from the founders is evidence for a theocracy. These are completely separate concepts. One can be a Christian, and want a secular government. The idea these quotes support theocracy is because they instill the belief that the founders are just like him, and he wants theocracy, therefore they must of wanted it to.
 
2012-08-10 12:06:55 PM
must have wanted it too. Rather.
 
2012-08-10 12:12:21 PM
Thanks impaler, I've never had anyone make 7 posts after a response to insult me.
/feels special
//will go on with my day enjoying how meaningless the Treaty of Tripoli really is.
///not really, it is meaningless after all. It just doesn't matter, like all meaningless things.
 
2012-08-10 12:14:26 PM
Sorry for cussing at you Kurmudgeon. I was drunk.
 
2012-08-10 07:17:15 PM

Kurmudgeon: Seeing that The Treaty of Tripoli was written between the United States and a country that no longer exists, Ottoman Tripolitania, the Treaty of Tripoli has been null and void since 1911 if not sooner.

Also, treaties do not rule The Constitution null and avoid either.
The Treaty of Tripoli is just a vague historic artifact with no meaning or power in today's US government.

Some more info if you'd like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Tripolitania


Erm...actually, it's a good rule of thumb in international law that if a state ceases to exist that its successor states would generally fall under the treaty provisions--that's generally how it's been held for (to give a recent modern example) the states comprising the former USSR and in particular Russia.

The putative successor states of Ottoman Tripolitania in general would frankly include most of the Middle East and in particular Turkey (the seat of the old Ottoman Empire), Libya (the most obvious successor state to Ottoman Tripolitania that is recognised by the US as a state) and quite possibly Tunisia and Algeria as well (being the former states of Tunis and Algiers in Ottoman Tripolitania, much as Libya was the former state of Tripoli in Ottoman Tripolitania).

The big question on whether the Treaty of Tripoli is in force has to do with two biggies:

a) Whether one or another of the parties to the treaty has engaged in an act of war violating the treaty, and/or

b) whether the actual constituent states are considered to have ceased to exist at all; even in some cases where the state has ceased to exist and has become an integral part of another state, certain treaties are held to carry over to the successor state including matters of maritime law.

These generally include peace treaties not involving a power hostile to the successor state, of which the Treaty of Tripoli was one of a series of no less than four separate treaties with Ottoman Empire sub-countries also involving the present-day Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria and all of which were re-signed and re-negotiated multiple times.

(If folks are curious--basically the "Barbary Peace Treaties" (including the Treaty of Tripoli) were peace treaties with the Barbary Coast states promising no aggression so long as vessels under that flag were not targeted for piracy--basic maritime law nonaggression treaties of the sort that WOULD be considered to carry over to a successor state, of note. One area where Article 11 ESPECIALLY came into play--particularly later--was that the Barbary Pirates were in fact raiding ships for not only goods but slaves, including specifically "Christian slaves".)

There is a good argument that the Treaty of Tripoli isn't in force anymore, but NOT from Ottoman Tripolitania no longer existing--it turns out the peace treaty got violated very early on after its signing by the Barbary Coast states, which led to not one but two separate "Barbary Wars" against piracy operations by the US Navy. By all standards, the treaty ceased to be in operation after 1801, certainly so after 1805 (by the peace treaty signed after the First Barbary War) and definitively so after 1815 (when the peace treaty ending the Second Barbary War was signed by the US--British and French operations kept on until 1816 including rescues of POWs captured to be sold into slavery).

(And yes, it's pretty much that provision that has nullified a LOT of treaties with First Nations people, that is, in cases where the US government decided to keep recognising them at all--there are still a number of legitimate, non-Wannabe-Tribe First Nations that basically had their treaties with the US annuled by virtue of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the US government no longer recognising them as "Dawes Act" Indians. Some have been successful in fighting for (and getting) federal recognition, some not so much--you tend to see this a lot in the Northeast and Southeast US particularly, where there had been a real pattern of "de-recognising" or simply refusing to recognise remnant bands or small First Nations groups to prevent land claims.)
 
2012-08-10 07:38:24 PM

Dr Dreidel: If you've never heard of David Barton, you must be new here. You'll remember him from the last "most influential evangelical you've never heard of" piece posted here, or the one before that. Or any of the Texas textbook derp.

What amazes me is how brazenly they can lie, and either ignore how wrong they are (comparing two sentences shouldn't be hard) or defend the lie as coming from a place of wanting everyone to find Jesus - from the same people that want "Thou shalt not bear false witness" engraved in stone in every courthouse in the land.

Barton seems to think Deuteronomy wants us to submit to Christian "kings" (rulers). I counter that since Deuteronomy was written by Jews for Jews, we need a Jewish "king". There's also the sticky wicket of a verse from Ezra (7:26) that exhorts people to follow the laws of their host countries. And, for the New Testament types, the "render unto Caesar" thing.

How is this different from taqqiyah? (Where Muslims can lie to non-Muslims for the purposes of obscuring details of the faith - I think that's what it's called, though I may be confusing terms.) How are these yahoos any different from the Taliban again?


Actually, I'd go one further and note that in this way they may well be worse than the Taliban--they're actually engaging in frank historical revisionism, of the sort that has been associated with totalitarian governments around the world (most notably fascist and "Communist" governments operating under de facto state religions centered around a personality cult).

Seriously, their rewriting of American history smacks of stuff straight out of Orwell's finest nightmare fuel and comes rather frighteningly close to some of the literal god-emperor-complex stuff re the Kims out of North Korea; it also is extremely reminiscent of three rather infamous totalitarian groups in the mid-twentieth-century, but I risk invoking Godwin...

Oh, who the fark am I kidding--the dominionists have already invoked Godwin, seeing as one of the most powerful dominionist orgs in the US (the American Family Association) WHOLEHEARTEDLY EMBRACES an anti-LGBT version of FRANK HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM...to the point you can take the average Aryan Nations derpfest or old-school anti-Semitic literature, replace all occurences of the word "Jew" with "Homosexual", and it reads straight up like 99 percent of the writing of Scott Lively and the AFA public press. (They at least had the good taste to keep that shiat behind the "membership doors" back in the 90s!)

No, they're not the Taliban. Think more of what happens when, oh, a certain bunch of goose-stepping Heil-Hitlering asstards like the Aryan Nations have hatesex with the Taliban, and you'll get a good idea what dominionism is actually like at its nastiest and derpiest. The whole "Rewrite of American history as some sort of Divine Mission By Really Uber-Dominionist Founding Fathers Who Intended The US To Be A Theonomic State--And Who Were Somehow Also Members Of Joel's Army Despite Being Born Some One Hundred And Fifty Years Before Pentecostalism, Much Less The New Apostolic Reformation, EXISTED" is NOT shocking when you compare SIMILAR coercive groups...

/we really, really, really need to stop treating dominionism as a political movement with religious overtones
//we really, really, really need to start treating them as an extremely dangerous coercive religious group with political and world-domination aspirations rivaling that of Certain Austrians Who Will Not Be Mentioned Lest We Invoke Godwin
///how the hell do you do deprogramming of a third of the US, most of whom will NOT voluntarily leave and knowing that involuntary exit counseling does not farking work and is coercive in and of itself? Damned if I know :P
 
2012-08-10 07:55:07 PM

DeusMeh: BojanglesPaladin: It's stupid to argue that Judeo-Christian Ethics and ideas do not pervade the Founding Documents. It is stupid to argue that the Founding Fathers were not largely men who believed in God. It's stupid to argue that none of the Founding Fathers were Christian or that Christianity had no part whatsoever in the founding of the Country.

It's stupid to argue that the Founding Documents were based on the teachings of Christianity. It is stupid to argue that the Founding Fathers were mostly devout Christians. It's stupid to argue that Christinaity and the scriptures were the most important aspect of the founding of the country.

Both 'sides' are wrong when they try to make it balck and white. It's orange. But it's pointless to have this debate all over again.

Here's my question:
David Barton is not a historian. He has a bachelor's degree in Christian education from Oral Roberts University.

He's clearly unqualified AS A HISTORIAN, and he's an evangelist. While he's entitled to his opinions and entitled to espouse whatever he likes, and write whatever he likes, why would it be treated any differently than the Latest Dan Brown garbage?

the really bad part about barton and his schtick, is not only is he NOT a historian but a theologian in historian's clothing. a historian looks at primary sources and evidence and formulates a conclusion based on those facts. a theologian already has the conclusions and cherry picks the evidence to support his hypothesis. barton is a SUPERDOUCHE because he buys as many original documents as he can, locks them away in his private collection and then butchers what they say to fit his message and suppresses the rest. introduce people like glenn beck and the EchoChamber tm and you now you have the perfect murder.

the truth never stood a chance


Even describing him as a theologian is seriously pushing things--he's a graduate of ORU, which is (for all intents and purposes) an ordination mill for neopentecostal "Prosperity Gospel" promoters. It even manages to make steeplejacked Southern Baptist seminaries look legitimate in comparison, and that's something.

Hell, the only reason ORU still exists as a body is because the founder of Hobby Lobby--who never found a NARasitic "Prosperity Gospel"-pimping dominionist cause he DIDN'T like and who is ALSO a major corporate sponsor of David Barton's group Wallbuilders--bailed them out after a major embezzlement scandal that nearly bankrupted the university and involved most of the board...who are a veritable who's who of holy-roller "Prosperity Gospel" hucksterdom in the post-Jim Bakker/Jimmy Swaggart era.

(Seriously, read the article--it's one of many reasons why I will NEVER give a thin dime to Hobby Lobby's business (yes, they're actually higher on the boycott list than Chick-Fil-A is) and why ORU alumni status is pretty much a red flag pointing to "FREAKING NARasite".)
 
2012-08-11 11:49:33 PM

Weaver95: Article 11. 'nuff said.

Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, &x2015; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims], ― and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

book it/done.


No, not 'nuff said.

Cross-reference that with Article VI ¶2 of the U.S. Constitution. Then it's 'nuff said.

Article VI ¶2 aka the Supremacy Clause states that all ratified Treaties are absolutely equal to the Constitution itself, making them jointly the Supreme Law of the Land!

So, that's the Supreme Law of the Land saying that! Nothing trumps the Supreme Law of the Land! Nothing!!

Game, set, match, Barton!
Game over, man. Game over.
 
2012-08-12 12:09:49 AM

Infernalist: Kurmudgeon: Seeing that The Treaty of Tripoli was written between the United States and a country that no longer exists, Ottoman Tripolitania, the Treaty of Tripoli has been null and void since 1911 if not sooner.

Also, treaties do not rule The Constitution null and avoid either.
The Treaty of Tripoli is just a vague historic artifact with no meaning or power in today's US government.

Some more info if you'd like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Tripolitania

Yes, yes, so because the USSR no longer exists, then the treaties regarding nuclear arms reductions are no longer valid?

That's adorable.

Okay, so. No one's saying that this treaty 'binds' the US into being a secular nation. What we 'are' saying is that this Treaty demonstrates the mindset of the Founding Fathers. That it shows in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that the US was not founded to be a Christian nation. That the Founding Fathers had NO problems with people who weren't Christian and that they were secular in their thinking and their design of the government.

It effectively and completely destroys the drool-cup idea that America was designed to be a Christian nation and that the Founding Fathers meant it that way.


SacriliciousBeerSwiller: It's no less relevant than half the crap this guy is spewing. If we're just going to go by the Constitution by its own explicit meaning, then he has already lost his argument.


Gwyrddu: Nice strawman you got there, the point of the Treaty of Tripoli apparently went over your head. The point is not whether it has the force of law, but rather it clearly demonstrates how the founding fathers (in this case John Adams and congress) thought about this country and religion.

You could also glean the same information from reading the Federalist Papers by the way, in which the reasoning and advocacy for the US constitution is made. In an explanation spanning a couple hundred pages, not once is there a reference to Christianity.


Kurmudgeon: Talking about straw men, the Treaty of Tripoli is only the opinion of those who signed it.
However, I am quite impressed with your super psychic powers.
Oh, and that force of law thing is pretty important, thanks for playing.


Kurmudgeon: One last thing, the Treaty of Tripoli ended the war between the US and Tripoli.
That was it's purpose and only function.


Gwyrddu: You mean the force of law of the first amendment? The one that pretty much says the same thing that the Treaty of Tripoli does about religion, except not singling out Christianity?

The Treaty of Tripoli merely makes clear the intention of the founders what should have still been obvious from the Constitution and other writings of the time, that the US is not and has never intended to be a Christian nation (or any other religious nation for that matter).

I don't have to be a psychic because I am able to read stuff dead people wrote where they clearly explain what their intentions were concerning religion and government when they made the US government in the first place.


impaler: It was signed unanimously by congress, dipshat.


impaler: So? The founders still clearly stated that Christianity wasn't the foundation of of government, in any sense.


Kurmudgeon, et al, see my post to Weaver above.
 
2012-08-12 11:58:19 AM
Who.

Got.

Told.


Great Porno Dragon and COMAliteJ FTW.

Best thing.....forever.
 
2012-08-12 10:47:02 PM

Great Porn Dragon: ///how the hell do you do deprogramming of a third of the US, most of whom will NOT voluntarily leave and knowing that involuntary exit counseling does not farking work and is coercive in and of itself? Damned if I know :P


I've been thinking along the lines of using the rantings of a guy I used to converse with online over a decade ago, a loon by the name of Vince Diehl who calls himself "Bands," and actually thinks that he's one of the Two Witnesses of Revelation.

He actually makes a decent Biblical case that the USA, far from being a nation blessed by God and set up to be under Christian rule, is none other than the evil Babylon of Revelation!

Also that the First Beast (mis-called "the Antichrist" though John never actually uses that term in Revelation, despite being the only Bible writer to use it at all [he uses it in two of his three Epistles, and then only in a generic sense, not referring to any specific person ― he never uses, and the Bible never once contains, the phrase "the Antichrist"]) and Second Beast (the False Prophet) are not any individual persons (he makes the case that the term "Beast" never refers to individuals in Bible prophecy), but rather represent entities that can do some of what persons can do, and are seen as persons, but which are not actually human beings.

In other words, the First Beast is corporations (all of them ― the concept of corporations) via Corproate Personhood (Citizens United could be seen as the actual coming of the First Beast!), and the Second Beast, which deceives people into worshiping the First Beast, is modern right-wing Christianity, especially the NARasites, Dominionists, Prosperity Gospel types, and their ilk, who deceive people into thinking that they're Christian while teachign the 180° diametric opposite of everything He actually stood for and taught, and boy howdy do they get people to practically worship corporations these days!

If you're interested, I could Email you more details on this. He even details a method by which God will allegedly indirectly cause the entire North American continent to be destroyed, having "laid a trap" for Babylon that will look to the world to be a horrific natural disaster combined with the effects of our own greed, not a miraculous divine judgment thing. And no, it would not be nuclear in nature (though our underground nukes would exacerbate such a disaster). He says that the destroyed North America will become the Lake of Fire that Satan, his demons, the Beasts, and all who aren't in the Book of Life, will be cast into. It's junk science, but could be quite persuasive to those who don't know real science.


Kittypie070: Who.

Got.

Told.

Great Porno Dragon and COMAliteJ FTW.

Best thing.....forever.


Thanks!
 
Displayed 178 of 178 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report