Founding Fathers and Revisionary Interpretation

[Glenn P]

I guess that would be me. However, the point I was making was not false to my knowledge. The founding fathers were quite aware of, and in tune with enlightenment thinking, including Locke, and I don't see how you can deny that the consititution and the intellectual environmnet was very much influenced by that.

I never denied that.

My response was to a specific claim you made - not about the founders, but about the spirit of the enlightenment and what it entails. I consider that issue I raised to have been now finished with by myself and others who responded in this thread.

[Ratnat]

The "thereof" in, "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof," cannot refer to "religion," because the phrase, "establishment of religion" is a single concept. The prepositional phrase,"of religion" is a modifier of 'establishment,' telling us, (a) what kind of "establishment," since, as I say, it means 'a thing or enity established,' or, telling us, (b) as the 1961/1963 Supreme Court found, 'what kind of establishing.'

Under the (a) scenario, Congress must make no law concerning a thing or entity established of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of such a thing or entity established, the object referred to by "thereof."
Under the (b) scenario, Congress must make no law concerning the act of establishing religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of the act of establishing religion, the object referred to by "thereof."

The Founders may have been influenced by 'enlightened' thought, scholars they were. But, scholars that they were, they knew grammatical construction, and never dreamed that any Supreme Court would ever get it so wrong.

Although I disagree with your conclusion I do see the point you are making. If we didn't have the writings of said founders and the notes on the ratification process and such, your point would have more weight.

I interpret the term "an establishment" as a verb meaning "the setting up". I see the "thereof" referring to the subject "religion".

I am on a word search of contemporary documents of the time to see the actual usage.

[TyRockwell]

I guess that would be me. However, the point I was making was not false to my knowledge. The founding fathers were quite aware of, and in tune with enlightenment thinking, including Locke, and I don't see how you can deny that the consititution and the intellectual environmnet was very much influenced by that. Of course, I dont think the specific issue of a teacher leading prayer was taken up, but I think the notion of keeping government functions and religious functions separate was a consequence, essential of a rational pragmatism.

Its also quite possible that they weren't concerned with details such as prayer at sessions or other questions which later consideration brought to bear. They had other fish to fry. But there were known objections to, for example to having paid chaplains at that time.

One poster mention Barton, whose web site is constructed to leave the impression that the founders were all devoted Christians and didn't really want separation. I wouldn't trust
Barton as an expert since there are fabricated quotes. A number of others have debunked his propaganda web site (I think it is wallbuilders.com).

The notion that keeping the government separated absolutely from religion does not in any way restrict free exercise. In most ways it protects it. But to allow the religious community to use the government to further their religious purposes is an establishment and is inherently coercive, and calls into question the equal protection clause since the majority religion can then easily be suspected of preference, which is clearly wrong.

Just blow off the research and the documentation of wallbuilders.com, so you don't have to deal with it? I've met David Barton, and have read his evidence. Not propaganda. The propaganda is the statement you made that his documentation is propaganda. Barton is a historian. Or an historian, if you prefer to dismiss the 'h' as propaganda.

[alcibiades]

The Founders may have been influenced by 'enlightened' thought, scholars they were. But, scholars that they were, they knew grammatical construction, and never dreamed that any Supreme Court would ever get it so wrong.

This sounds to me like excruciating grammatical rationalization. The term free exercise makes most sense as applied to religion, not "establishment of religion". I completely reject your hypothesis as implausible.

As to Dan Barton, he may be an historian, but he's clearly devoted to propaganda. The presence on his site of quotes never traceable in any document to their supposed authors calls his reliablity into question.

I think far too much has been made by the semi-dominionists of the notion that the founders intended a Christian state because they were mostly Christian. Most certainly had a lot of respect for religion, not necessarily the clergy, particularly the notion that in led to moral behavior which they though necessary for democracy, but recognized that entanglement with religion by the state would be to the detriment of both.

In my view, the notion that religion promotes good behavior is undemonstrated and removes that justification. I see any involvement of religion with government, certainly in the context of the U.S. society we have no to be a dangerous, counterproductive and destructive idea. Religion should be the preserve of the religious institutions, their buildings and organizations. The state should be completely neutral and uninvolved unless some violation of law, such as ritual mutilation is practiced.

[alcibiades]

.

As to Dan Barton, he may be an historian, but he's clearly devoted to propaganda. The presence on his site of quotes never traceable in any document to their supposed authors calls his reliablity into question.

.

Actually, I should have stated it more stronly. Dan Barton is a pretend historian. He has a degree only from Oral Roberts not in history. A quick scan of the web reveals that real historians i.e those with degrees in history with teaching posts at reputable universities have been refuting his reviionism for some time.

He's actually a Republican activist and a fundamentalist driven by religion, not a scholar. He's certainly not a source to be trusted, and his site is, as I said, a pure propaganda site.

[Glenn P]

Actually, I should have stated it more stronly. Dan Barton is a pretend historian. He has a degree only from Oral Roberts not in history. A quick scan of the web reveals that real historians i.e those with degrees in history with teaching posts at reputable universities have been refuting his reviionism for some time.

He's actually a Republican activist and a fundamentalist driven by religion, not a scholar. He's certainly not a source to be trusted, and his site is, as I said, a pure propaganda site.

I don't know who Dan Barton is, so I don't care how good he is, but this post of yours, alcibiades, is BS of the worst kind.

The ad hominem argument is committed when you dismiss a person's position regardless of the arguments or evidence they provide, but because of features of the person. That's what you've just don't This man's motives and qualifications are irrelevant if he gives reasons for the claims he makes. I don't care if Dan Barton is motivated by green cheese - are his claims flawed or are they not? Or are you just too lazy to find out? Because I gotta tell you, this incredibly disappointing post of yours gives exactly that impression.

[TyRockwell]

Actually, I should have stated it more stronly. Dan Barton is a pretend historian. He has a degree only from Oral Roberts not in history. A quick scan of the web reveals that real historians i.e those with degrees in history with teaching posts at reputable universities have been refuting his reviionism for some time.

He's actually a Republican activist and a fundamentalist driven by religion, not a scholar. He's certainly not a source to be trusted, and his site is, as I said, a pure propaganda site.

You are an agnostic and a liberal. Jack Bauer is right. When you don't like the message, you don't even try to find out what is the truth, you just shoot the messenger. Typical.


As to history, there are a large number of historically verified documents that are in the possesion of David Barton and Wallbuilders. He probably has the largest collection of the actual papers, writings, and even the laws that were enacted by the Founders than anyone else in America. Colleges and seminaries have history professors who conveniently forget that the pilgrims were coming to America to get away from the Church of England, headed by the king, and the Catholic Church's dominance in the rest of Europe.. They were not fleeing religion, but the restrictions of forced adherence to the approved religion of the state. They were more a product of the Reformation than the darkness of 'enlightenment.'


So if you want to make the claim that the Founders were 'enlightened deists', you have to provide evidence, not speculation to that effect. About two-thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were members of the clergy.


Peace and Truth,

Ty

[Ratnat]

You are an agnostic and a liberal. Jack Bauer is right. When you don't like the message, you don't even try to find out what is the truth, you just shoot the messenger. Typical.


As to history, there are a large number of historically verified documents that are in the possesion of David Barton and Wallbuilders. He probably has the largest collection of the actual papers, writings, and even the laws that were enacted by the Founders than anyone else in America. Colleges and seminaries have history professors who conveniently forget that the pilgrims were coming to America to get away from the Church of England, headed by the king, and the Catholic Church's dominance in the rest of Europe.. They were not fleeing religion, but the restrictions of forced adherence to the approved religion of the state. They were more a product of the Reformation than the darkness of 'enlightenment.'


So if you want to make the claim that the Founders were 'enlightened deists', you have to provide evidence, not speculation to that effect. About two-thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were members of the clergy.


Peace and Truth,

Ty

I doubt anyone is claiming that all of them were Deists. The whole argument has to do with whether the US Government was intended to be Secular or Religious.

Even most religious people agree SECULAR.

Secular does not mean anti-religion.

[TyRockwell]

I doubt anyone is claiming that all of them were Deists. The whole argument has to do with whether the US Government was intended to be Secular or Religious.

Even most religious people agree SECULAR.

Secular does not mean anti-religion.

The antichrist judges on the left have turned argument into whether, in a secular state, it should be required that a person keep his religious beliefs outside of public speech.

Ty

[alcibiades]

I don't know who Dan Barton is, so I don't care how good he is, but this post of yours, alcibiades, is BS of the worst kind..

Really. If someone purports to expertise, their credentials are of interest. If a person has an organization which uses a web site and money from political activists to push a political agenda their impartiality is not to be taken for granted.

[QUOUTE]The ad hominem argument is committed when you dismiss a person's position regardless of the arguments or evidence they provide, but because of features of the person. That's what you've just don't This man's motives and qualifications are irrelevant if he gives reasons for the claims he makes..[/QUOTE]
He isn't in the argument so my saying that I don't think he's a reliable source isn't an ad hominem.

[QUOUTE]I don't care if Dan Barton is motivated by green cheese - are his claims flawed or are they not? Or are you just too lazy to find out? Because I gotta tell you, this incredibly disappointing post of yours gives exactly that impression.[/QUOTE]

Yes his data is flawed. His web site has been scrutinized by academics and found to contain a series of errors, misinterpretations, cherry picked data, and a series of quotes of, at the minimum, highly questionnable authenticity since they are not found in the literature or any known document.

Here is some information on this guy. He, in my opinion is a dangerous person, who seeks to undermine the constitution with other dominionist fanatics.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Barton

And there's more.

I'm terribly sorry you're disappointed, but if I find out someone is a propagandist who falsifies history I'm not going to regard him as a reliable sourcet.

[alcibiades]

TY Rockwell writes:"You are an agnostic and a liberal. "
True.

[Jack Bauer is right.]
I disagree.


[ When you don't like the message, you don't even try to find out what is the truth, you just shoot the messenger.]
False. I had already read about this revisionist non-historian. I didn't have time to get the references. I have more by the way, including articles taking apart his revisionism.


[As to history, there are a large number of historically verified documents that are in the possesion of David Barton and Wallbuilders. He probably has the largest collection of the actual papers, writings, and even the laws that were enacted by the Founders than anyone else in America.]
I'm sure you think so. I'll wait until someone with the training and background to authenticate them comes along to examine them, and not take the word of an untrained, propagandist with an axe to grind.

[Colleges and seminaries have history professors who conveniently forget that the pilgrims were coming to America to get away from the Church of England, headed by the king, and the Catholic Church's dominance in the rest of Europe.. They were not fleeing religion, but the restrictions of forced adherence to the approved religion of the state. They were more a product of the Reformation than the darkness of 'enlightenment.']
Oh, so now your are more expert that those whose profession it is to study history. I'm sure their aware of the pilgrims. They weren't the only population at the time the constitution was drafted, nor is their religious motivation particularly interesting to the debate. As it happens, there were others who also came for different religious reasons. The diversity of religious opinion at the time of the constitution was unlikely to go unnoticed by the framers, nor was the fact that Europse had just gone through a bloodbath over relious nonsense.

[So if you want to make the claim that the Founders were 'enlightened deists', you have to provide evidence, not speculation to that effect.]
Some of them were, some of them weren't. We have plenty of documentation of that.

[About two-thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were members of the clergy.]
Whether they were or weren't isn't germain to their views on how the state should interact with religion. There was, it has been recorded quite a bit of disagreement and the language was a compromise to keep everyone relatively satisified. Its pretty clear, despite the dominionist claim to the contrary. And thankfully so.

Politics is about practical solutions. It requires facts and reason to get the best results. Religion is about emotion and wishful thinking. It is eminently unuseful for practical purposes.

[TyRockwell]

The real revisionism in this debate is not on the part of David Barton, nor the many who have seen the evidence and heard the presentations. Nor is David Barton, and his research revisionist, nor is it held by just a few people.

The revisionism is in the ant-God biased arguments of people who will always accuse for their own agenda driven purposes. It should be amazing how over 200 years worth of Christian speaking, writing, praying, and public expressions of faith have been re-interpreted, in the last 45 or so years, to mean something other than what was actually said, and written and done.

And when it suits their purposes to remove the heritage of faith so consistently affirmed over that long span of years, they resort to explaining it away by claiming it was all a watered down, unfelt, shallow, hypocritical show. So they deny that the heritage is there, and when it is presented to be seen, it is said to be a 'political correctness' of another kind.

There current form of political correctness is the revision.

Love the Truth,
Ty

[Glenn P]

I'm terribly sorry you're disappointed, but if I find out someone is a propagandist who falsifies history I'm not going to regard him as a reliable sourcet.

Don't be belligerent.

You didn't supply any good reasoning or evidence int he post I replied to. You merely attacked a man's motives and association. Had you actually given some of the reasons you say you are aware of, you would not have negaged in an ad hominem argument, and I would not have posted the reply I did. That you're giving hints after the fact as to what the evidence and reasons against Barton might be is beside the point.

[Ratnat]

Don't be belligerent.

You didn't supply any good reasoning or evidence int he post I replied to. You merely attacked a man's motives and association. Had you actually given some of the reasons you say you are aware of, you would not have negaged in an ad hominem argument, and I would not have posted the reply I did. That you're giving hints after the fact as to what the evidence and reasons against Barton might be is beside the point.

After your post on Ehrman, this is laughable.

That said, I think Barton has a great collection(not the greatest)of correspondence from many of the lesser well known founders. Some of his attributions have been shown to be incorrect and he has admitted to speculation in some cases. Regardless of whether I agree with his premise or conclusion, I respect anyone who puts together a case with evidence that we can at least discuss and debate. That is how the FOUNDERS did it, after all.

[Ratnat]

The real revisionism in this debate is not on the part of David Barton, nor the many who have seen the evidence and heard the presentations. Nor is David Barton, and his research revisionist, nor is it held by just a few people.

The revisionism is in the ant-God biased arguments of people who will always accuse for their own agenda driven purposes. It should be amazing how over 200 years worth of Christian speaking, writing, praying, and public expressions of faith have been re-interpreted, in the last 45 or so years, to mean something other than what was actually said, and written and done.

And when it suits their purposes to remove the heritage of faith so consistently affirmed over that long span of years, they resort to explaining it away by claiming it was all a watered down, unfelt, shallow, hypocritical show. So they deny that the heritage is there, and when it is presented to be seen, it is said to be a 'political correctness' of another kind.

There current form of political correctness is the revision.

Love the Truth,
Ty

You make the debate out to be what it is not. It is not a pro-God, anti-God argument whatsoever. Although a few cases have gone after the generic concept, I am not aware of any winning their cases.

I do agree that political correctness is the bane of debate.

Barton and you yourself seem to be arguing for a particular God.

Evidence shows that we as a nation have no problem using money with God invoked, make pledges to our flag invoking God, allow churches, temples, mosques to be built and thrive without interference, have federal holidays on common Holy Days, etc... Where do see any rejection of the faith heritage?