Barton: Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin?!?

| 166 Comments

Mother Jones has the news in this article from June 9th:

On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview [David] Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn’t even published until 1859. Barton declared, “As far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, they’d already had the entire debate over creation and evolution, and you get Thomas Paine, who is the least religious Founding Father, saying you’ve got to teach Creation science in the classroom. Scientific method demands that!” Paine died in 1809, the same year Darwin was born.

Here’s the clip:

Discuss.

166 Comments

Is this Barton a right-winger or a wing-nut? Is the man well educated enough to read and interpret dates?

I heard that the founding fathers were against the Wright Brothers to. Said man wasn’t meant to fly and stuff like that. Better close all the airports.

well, if Earth’s history is only 6000 yrs (not 14 billion) what’s the differnce if something happend in 1775 or 1849 it’s all practically yesterday anyway\\ -end snark

Even if they were, somehow, aware of and convinced evolution is false, that doesn’t mean it is. They weren’t infallible, and if they were clearly wrong about something, we wouldn’t have to follow it – like slavery, for instance. Why would he pursue this reasoning, even if it wasn’t absolutely ludicrous and anachronistic? Barton should only go to doctors that practice medicine as it was practiced in Thomas Paine’s time.

I haven’t seen the context of the ‘historian’ s statement, it’s wrong on so many levels - is he saying that the founding fathers rejected the enlightenment? or humanism? or science? - if so he is so full of it he exhales flies

Don Luigi said: Is this Barton a right-winger or a wing-nut?

“Is the Bear Catholic? Does a pope live in the woods?”

I suppose you could make an argument that since creationism was the effective default in the 18th century it would have been taught in the classroom, but in the absence of a serious alternative at the time, there was no “debate” involved. To be sure, vague ideas about evolution had been around for a long time, but the same could be said about atomic theory, and there was no more a credible atomic theory in 1776 than there was a credible evolutionary theory.

“And where, Mr. Barton, did the Founding Fathers stand on the teaching of atomic theory?”

Science demands that we move on to better explanations as they arise.

I’m not at all certain about what Paine wrote about creationism, but clearly the actual principle in Barton’s version of Paine is that we should follow the science.

That is true. And science demands that we not teach old rot as science.

Glen Davidson

Don Luigi said:

Is this Barton a right-winger or a wing-nut?

Yes.

Is the man well educated enough to read and interpret dates?

He appears to be well educated in the same sense that holocaust deniers are often well educated; using what they know to corrupt the historical record for ideological purposes. In Barton’s case, he’s a secularism denier (or maybe an anything-but-christianity-denier).

Don Luigi said:

Is this Barton a right-winger or a wing-nut? Is the man well educated enough to read and interpret dates?

Barton is doing exactly the same thing with history that the ID/creationists do with science. They selectively quote out of context from various sources, and then form a pastiche of a narrative that supports their sectarian world view.

Sarah Palin does more clumsily and obviously what Barton does with a practiced appearance of honest scholarship.

DB referred to “creation science”, which is a mid-20th century interpretation of the Bible as if it supported something scientific in the denial of evolution, and as such, it is an anachronism in the 18th century. (I’m actually surprised that anybody still refers to “creation science”, as I thought that that had gone out of favor. Anti-evolutionists in the 21st century seem to prefer other expressions.)

Thomas Paine was an 18th century deist, and as such denied revelation as a source of knowledge, so it would seem unlikely that he would have any interest in teaching the Bible.

However, I would not be surprised that an 18th century deist would accept the “clock-maker” image of god. I know that Voltaire used the analogy.

But without a citation, it would take some effort to determine what DB was referring to.

” … if so he is so full of it he exhales flies”

I’m so stealing that line. :)

I hate to cite this, but Barton does go into detail on his ideas:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissu[…].asp?id=7846

“And where did the Founding Fathers stand on old versus young Earth, Mr. Barton?” The idea of a old Earth isn’t anything all that new, either.

Barton is closely associated with one of the leading Republican candidates for president, who is, within the Republican Party, considered by some to be too “moderate”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mwGYr0OWzw

I don’t care how conservative you are. The United States Republican Party is now grounded in outright denial of physical and historical reality, and that’s a fact.

They are also limit testers. It’s impossible to tell how far they will go. And they are to a large degree negatively motivated. That is, although some of their policy is based on naked self-interest, a lot of it is based on demonizing everyone else and reflexively attacking anything that is remotely associated with those they hate and resent. It is axiomatic that policy decisions that are not grounded in actual thought or concern, but are merely oppositional defiant disorder type contradictions of everything that “outsiders” seem to support, will tend to be very bad. (Even signs of hope can be deceptive. For example, some current Republicans express anti-war views. Unfortunately, this is probably only because they “oppose everything Obama supports”, not a consistent position.)

It borders on being a national emergency that one of our major parties has taken on these characteristics. The track record of extremist reality denying political parties is not a good one. This is especially true when such a party has a very slick propaganda operation and is good at riling up mobs. And this is very especially true when a population is feeling “humiliated” by bad military outcomes and a bad economy, and willing to listen to demagogues.

“Only” 30% or so of Americans are hard core say-anything-and-do-anything-to-support-the-Republicans-no-matter-what cult members (there is a near perfect overlap between these and hard core creationism supporters). However, many Americans just aren’t sophisticated enough to see what is going on, which may not be surprising given that most print and television media outlets, with some exceptions, push the message that any Republican policy is “respectable” and “serious”.

As I recall from Rudwick’s magisterial tomes on the early history of the earth sciences, the first movement analogous to Creationism was the so-called biblical geology of the first part of the 19th Century, which fought the historical geology of Smith, Hutton, Murchison, Sedgwick, and Lyell over the age of the Earth. There were certainly people who opposed some of the earlier versions of evolutionary thinking, but the nature of the debate over geology was different because by 1820 there was scientific consensus about the antiquity of the Earth and trying to take the timeline of Genesis literally was already a crank stance like contemporary creationism. There was nothing like agreement about what to think about the origins of animals and plants so there really wasn’t much to protest on that front. (Incidentally, the biblical geologists were also at war with the historians since the old Bible-based chronology of early kingdoms in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China had been rejected by serious scholars during the Enlightenment.)

None of this matters in the current debate, of course, since for the folks who follow Barton, the era of the American Revolution might as well be the dreamtime of the Australian aborigines, a zone in which wishes are facts.

mrg -

The “Founding Fathers” frequently made use of vague terms like “the Author” or “the Creator”. They treated a vague, non-denominational Deism as the universal default position. This position was meant to be inclusive. The early United States may not have been very nice to women, slaves, and pre-existing native populations, but it was very much founded on principles of freedom of religion and conscience.

The Constitution of the United States never permitted or advocated taxpayer funding of specifically sectarian science denial.

Modern ID/creationism actively denies scientific reality. It denies scientific reality on a purely religious/magical rationale (I am not saying that the motivation is sincerely religious, but that the advanced rationale advanced is always that one interpretation of the Bible is “literally true” or that magic is required for things that can be explained scientifically).

It denies scientific reality that is accepted by many religious people. It is purely sectarian.

Barton is arguing that a nation founded on freedom of religion should not have freedom of religion.

Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda’s book. His American history seems limited to combining through every document he can find searching for some reference he can interpreted as being Christian (even when it isn’t) and American (even when it isn’t). He doesn’t seem to have made up his mind whether Jefferson was anti-Christian and therefore evil, or devoutely Christian because they all were!

Oh, and as far as the underlying history goes, this isn’t really emphasized or organized into any coherent narrative. The point of his “history” books is to create a misleading impression of the founders’ beliefs for theological purposes, and any actual history is irrelevant.

As Dawkins wrote, “there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence.”

Jim Harrison said:

As I recall from Rudwick’s magisterial tomes on the early history of the earth sciences, the first movement analogous to Creationism was the so-called biblical geology of the first part of the 19th Century, which fought the historical geology of Smith, Hutton, Murchison, Sedgwick, and Lyell over the age of the Earth.

The main early 20th century proponent of Flood geology was George McCready Price, a 7th Day Adventist self-taught (!) creationist geologist. Much of young-earth geology today grew directly out of Price’s stuff. (It’s of some interest that the Wikipedia article I linked doesn’t mention Price’s Adventist beliefs, which were the main stimuli for his ‘geology’.)

Thanks, mrg.

So, it seems that DB thinks that 18th century deism represents “creation science”. At least when it suits his purposes.

My guess is that DB would not be satisfied with 18th century deism representing the alternative to evolutionary biology in public school classes.

harold said:

The Constitution of the United States never permitted or advocated taxpayer funding of specifically sectarian science denial.

You’re preaching to the choir, sport.

Jefferson for one made fun of the myth of Noah’s Deluge in his “Notes on the State of Virginia” in Query 6. http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/moden[…]JefVirg.html So he certainly did not accept Biblical creation though like his contemporaries was creationist because, well, he was living in the 18th Century so it should not be surprising that he had 18th Century views.

Flint said:

Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda’s book. …

As mentioned earlier here on PT, Rodda’s book Liars for Jesus is now available in its entirety online.

Flint said:

Oh, and as far as the underlying history goes, this isn’t really emphasized or organized into any coherent narrative. The point of his “history” books is to create a misleading impression of the founders’ beliefs for theological purposes, and any actual history is irrelevant.

From how that article he wrote read, he doesn’t even care about history, he has no story to tell. What he’s got is a legal brief based on historical quote-mining.

mrg said:

harold said:

The Constitution of the United States never permitted or advocated taxpayer funding of specifically sectarian science denial.

You’re preaching to the choir, sport.

Of course. Just a clarifying response to Barton’s ravings that you linked to.

It is not necessary to claim that the founding fathers were atheists to note the reality that they created a constitution which protects freedom of religion and prohibits taxpayer funded teaching of favored sects as “science”.

Claiming that they were aware of the modern theory of evolution, but conflating it with non-equivalent earlier ideas is just plain lying, but is also logically irrelevant. The constitution they created permits teaching of science in public schools, but does not permit favoritism of some religious sects in publicly funded schools.

I realize you agree with all this, you just happened to be the one to set me off with a specific link to Barton.

Facepalm just doesn’t convey the level of sheer disbelief and utter astonishment I have at seeing this. How can anyone listen to this Barton guy and buy into anything he’s saying or offering. It utterly amazes me that there are actually people out there that will listen to this kind of tripe and nod in agreement.

Robin said: How can anyone listen to this Barton guy and buy into anything he’s saying or offering?

Easy. He’s telling them what they want to hear.

Barton is wrong about this. The Founding Fathers were for the most part fake Christians who used Christian rhetoric to manipulate true Christians for their own ends–that is, hanging on to their property! The Gospel had stopped informing American politics when property requirements started replacing religious requirements for suffrage.

“Paine”??? He meant to say “Palin”.

Wait, didn’t George Washington have an authographed first edition of Darwin’s book? That’s something Barton should follow up on.

Now remember, Mike Huckabee said people should be forced to listen to Barton, at GUNPOINT if necessary, to hear the “truth” he spews forth. That the right-wing republican candidates listen to this jibberish is in keeping with their anti-science agenda, though they don’t know any science to begin with. Woe is the U.S. if these people continue to infiltrate public office.

It is always fascinating to watch Christians lie, and lie badly, for their god, especially when their holy book says not to do this. It underlines just how little actual belief they have and how much religion is just a selfish and childish desire to need a divine boogeyman to agree with them.

Speaking of gibberish, the dishonesty institute is saying the Texas science curriculum is filled with bloopers:

http://www.discovery.org/a/16981

Perhaps they would like to update the curriculum with mouse traps?

Indeed. I really don’t think if the marvelous Mr. Franklin, by 18th-century standards an outstanding scientist, was around today to be brought up to speed on what we’ve learned since his time, he’d have much respect for “Creation Science”.

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Dave Thomas said:

Flint said:

Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda’s book. …

As mentioned earlier here on PT, Rodda’s book Liars for Jesus is now available in its entirety online.

Did you watch the 31 second video? The Mother Jones article is misleading because Barton did not say the Founding Fathers rejected Darwin.

Even if what you were saying is true (and you’re a creationist, so you’re most likely a pathological liar), how does it change the fact that Barton is a shameless fraud? He makes his living by bearing false witness! How is that acceptable behavior for a christian? Why does your cult not merely tolerate this dishonesty, but celebrate it? Why do creationists need to lie constantly?

This is what rightwingwatch.org posted as the headline, “Barton: Founding Fathers Were Against Teaching Evolution…”

This is what Mother Jones’ headline said, “The Right’s Favorite Historian: Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin”

At least, PT’s headline had question marks, but it’s still misleading.

The words in question are within the first 10 seconds of the video clip. Somehow, that shouldn’t be difficult to verify, especially since you don’t trust my words.

Henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Dave Thomas said:

Flint said:

Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda’s book. …

As mentioned earlier here on PT, Rodda’s book Liars for Jesus is now available in its entirety online.

Did you watch the 31 second video? The Mother Jones article is misleading because Barton did not say the Founding Fathers rejected Darwin.

Even if what you were saying is true (and you’re a creationist, so you’re most likely a pathological liar), how does it change the fact that Barton is a shameless fraud? He makes his living by bearing false witness! How is that acceptable behavior for a christian? Why does your cult not merely tolerate this dishonesty, but celebrate it? Why do creationists need to lie constantly?

This is what rightwingwatch.org posted as the headline, “Barton: Founding Fathers Were Against Teaching Evolution…”

This is what Mother Jones’ headline said, “The Right’s Favorite Historian: Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin”

At least, PT’s headline had question marks, but it’s still misleading.

The words in question are within the first 10 seconds of the video clip. Somehow, that shouldn’t be difficult to verify, especially since you don’t trust my words.

So, Henry, you see something wrong with Mother Jones allegedly exaggerating something Barton was recorded saying, but you can’t bring yourself to object to Barton making up quotes out of whole cloth and blatantly, publicly LYING by claiming them to be from the founding fathers, even after being repeatedly informed that what he was saying was not true. Now, I could maybe see someone with no capacity for comprehending nuance equally condemning both those actions. But to screech and whine about the former, while treating the latter as perfectly okay, even praiseworthy? Face it, Henry, you don’t give a flying fuck what really happened, all you care about is defending one of your fellow Liars For Jesus.

Actually, I don’t think Barton is really a Liar For Jesus. He’s just lying for money, and knowing that gullible, brainwashed death cultists like you will keep paying him as long as you find his lies convenient.

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Dave Thomas said:

Flint said:

Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda’s book. …

As mentioned earlier here on PT, Rodda’s book Liars for Jesus is now available in its entirety online.

Did you watch the 31 second video? The Mother Jones article is misleading because Barton did not say the Founding Fathers rejected Darwin.

Even if what you were saying is true (and you’re a creationist, so you’re most likely a pathological liar), how does it change the fact that Barton is a shameless fraud? He makes his living by bearing false witness! How is that acceptable behavior for a christian? Why does your cult not merely tolerate this dishonesty, but celebrate it? Why do creationists need to lie constantly?

This is what rightwingwatch.org posted as the headline, “Barton: Founding Fathers Were Against Teaching Evolution…”

This is what Mother Jones’ headline said, “The Right’s Favorite Historian: Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin”

At least, PT’s headline had question marks, but it’s still misleading.

The words in question are within the first 10 seconds of the video clip. Somehow, that shouldn’t be difficult to verify, especially since you don’t trust my words.

So, Henry, you see something wrong with Mother Jones allegedly exaggerating something Barton was recorded saying, but you can’t bring yourself to object to Barton making up quotes out of whole cloth and blatantly, publicly LYING by claiming them to be from the founding fathers, even after being repeatedly informed that what he was saying was not true. Now, I could maybe see someone with no capacity for comprehending nuance equally condemning both those actions. But to screech and whine about the former, while treating the latter as perfectly okay, even praiseworthy? Face it, Henry, you don’t give a flying fuck what really happened, all you care about is defending one of your fellow Liars For Jesus.

Actually, I don’t think Barton is really a Liar For Jesus. He’s just lying for money, and knowing that gullible, brainwashed death cultists like you will keep paying him as long as you find his lies convenient.

I wonder, how much value do you place on Mother Jones? If this is an example of the quality of it’s journalism, then the journalists can be called Liars Against Jesus.

Henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Dave Thomas said:

Flint said:

Barton is featured quite prominently in Chris Rodda’s book. …

As mentioned earlier here on PT, Rodda’s book Liars for Jesus is now available in its entirety online.

Did you watch the 31 second video? The Mother Jones article is misleading because Barton did not say the Founding Fathers rejected Darwin.

Even if what you were saying is true (and you’re a creationist, so you’re most likely a pathological liar), how does it change the fact that Barton is a shameless fraud? He makes his living by bearing false witness! How is that acceptable behavior for a christian? Why does your cult not merely tolerate this dishonesty, but celebrate it? Why do creationists need to lie constantly?

This is what rightwingwatch.org posted as the headline, “Barton: Founding Fathers Were Against Teaching Evolution…”

This is what Mother Jones’ headline said, “The Right’s Favorite Historian: Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin”

At least, PT’s headline had question marks, but it’s still misleading.

The words in question are within the first 10 seconds of the video clip. Somehow, that shouldn’t be difficult to verify, especially since you don’t trust my words.

So, Henry, you see something wrong with Mother Jones allegedly exaggerating something Barton was recorded saying, but you can’t bring yourself to object to Barton making up quotes out of whole cloth and blatantly, publicly LYING by claiming them to be from the founding fathers, even after being repeatedly informed that what he was saying was not true. Now, I could maybe see someone with no capacity for comprehending nuance equally condemning both those actions. But to screech and whine about the former, while treating the latter as perfectly okay, even praiseworthy? Face it, Henry, you don’t give a flying fuck what really happened, all you care about is defending one of your fellow Liars For Jesus.

Actually, I don’t think Barton is really a Liar For Jesus. He’s just lying for money, and knowing that gullible, brainwashed death cultists like you will keep paying him as long as you find his lies convenient.

I wonder, how much value do you place on Mother Jones? If this is an example of the quality of it’s journalism, then the journalists can be called Liars Against Jesus.

So, Henry, do you have the courage to admit that you think it’s okay for Barton to lie, as long as he’s doing so in the holy name of jesus christ? Or are you going to dodge and weave and whine forever to hide from the truth? Barton is a liar. He has made his living by telling lies. And you can’t seem to bring yourself to find anything wrong with that.

Now, I think that malicious misquoting of Barton would be poetic justice. He’s devoted his life to bearing false witness, so he’s pretty much declared himself fair game on that score. If someone were to start a rumor that Barton publicly admitted to raping, killing, and eating three-year-old girls, then I’d think the effects of that rumor on his life would just be him reaping what he’s been sowing. I’d laugh, just like I’d laugh if Bernie Madoff got mugged or the CEO of BP was drowned in crude oil. But nobody has done that. Nobody has even come close to doing that. Even in all your lying for jesus you have not claimed that anyone has done anything remotely like that.

Barton is a con man. He ran a con, claiming the Founding Fathers rejected evolution, even though the theory of evolution had not been formulated until after they were long dead. Barton, like you, is a member of a delusional cult that pretends all modern science is a vast conspiracy orchestrated by Charles Darwin, who they constantly bear false witness against and accuse of things that happened long before his birth, or long after his death, or that he explicitly and publicy opposed, in writing, in the very book the cultists quote-mine to slander him. Barton did not actually use the word “Darwin”, but since he is a memeber of a delusional death cult that is incapable of separating facts about the world from authority figures, it was quite obvious what he was talking about. And Mother Jones called him out on it. Barton claimed that the Founding Fathers rejected evolution, even though they died before they could hear about it, and that they supported his cult’s absurd, dishonest form of creationism, even though several of them explicitly rejected the dogma of said death cult. Barton lied, Henry. And you love him for it. Mother Jones told the truth, and you despise them for it.

phantomreader42 said:

Barton lied, Henry. And you love him for it. Mother Jones told the truth, and you despise them for it.

It’s not that Henry loves and admires Barton specifically because he Lies For Jesus, or that he hates Mother Jones for exposing the truth.

Henry loves and admires Barton because Barton is reaffirming party dogma, and Henry attacks Mother Jones because because he perceives Mother Jones as attacking party dogma.

That Barton can only reaffirm party dogma through lying, and that Mother Jones is pointing out that Barton is a liar are irrelevant to Henry.

apokryltaros said:

phantomreader42 said:

Barton lied, Henry. And you love him for it. Mother Jones told the truth, and you despise them for it.

It’s not that Henry loves and admires Barton specifically because he Lies For Jesus, or that he hates Mother Jones for exposing the truth.

Henry loves and admires Barton because Barton is reaffirming party dogma, and Henry attacks Mother Jones because because he perceives Mother Jones as attacking party dogma.

That Barton can only reaffirm party dogma through lying, and that Mother Jones is pointing out that Barton is a liar are irrelevant to Henry.

You guys are beyond funny.

While you, Henry, are merely tired.

Henry said:

You guys are beyond funny.

Yet, the fact remains that you love Barton for reaffirming party dogma by Lying For Jesus, and that you despise and attack Mother Jones for pointing that out.

Seversky said:

From the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the US Senate on 7 June 1797 and signed into law by President John Adams on 10 June 1797:

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,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

Seems clear enough. Any questions?

This was only in the first treaty–subsequent ones omitted this article. Apparently, it wasn’t relevant later in the later versions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Henry said:

Seversky said:

From the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the US Senate on 7 June 1797 and signed into law by President John Adams on 10 June 1797:

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,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

Seems clear enough. Any questions?

This was only in the first treaty–subsequent ones omitted this article. Apparently, it wasn’t relevant later in the later versions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

So, Henry, are you saying that the later versions, by removing that clause (which you admit was there, for the record, though I’m sure you’ll deny it was ever there the instant it becomes inconvenient for you), somehow magically converted this country into a theocracy under your delusional death cult?

Why do you hate freedom and the truth so much, Henry? Why can’t you and your fellow cultists stop lying? Why are you so desperate to hijack the government and force your idiotic dogma on other people’s children? Is christianity really so pitifully weak that it can’t survive any other way?

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Seversky said:

From the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the US Senate on 7 June 1797 and signed into law by President John Adams on 10 June 1797:

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,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

Seems clear enough. Any questions?

This was only in the first treaty–subsequent ones omitted this article. Apparently, it wasn’t relevant later in the later versions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

So, Henry, are you saying that the later versions, by removing that clause (which you admit was there, for the record, though I’m sure you’ll deny it was ever there the instant it becomes inconvenient for you), somehow magically converted this country into a theocracy under your delusional death cult?

Why do you hate freedom and the truth so much, Henry? Why can’t you and your fellow cultists stop lying? Why are you so desperate to hijack the government and force your idiotic dogma on other people’s children? Is christianity really so pitifully weak that it can’t survive any other way?

Actually, what I’m saying is the Tripoli treaty of 1797 is a very weak argument for proving that the United States was not a Christian nation since Article 11 was later dropped, showing that it wasn’t important enough to retain in the later treaties or even true. America’s been a Christian theocracy since it’s founding. It obviously doesn’t resemble a Islamic theocracy which some tends to confuse the two.

Henry said:

Actually, what I’m saying is the Tripoli treaty of 1797 is a very weak argument for proving that the United States was not a Christian nation since Article 11 was later dropped, showing that it wasn’t important enough to retain in the later treaties or even true.

Or maybe it was so obvious it didn’t need restating. Similar to there being a big fuss about Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, versus the total lack of fuss over later female judges (Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan).

America’s been a Christian theocracy since it’s founding.

Sorry, you’re not allowed to pull stuff out your ‘arse here. That’s baloney.

It obviously doesn’t resemble a Islamic theocracy which some tends to confuse the two.

I have no idea what you’re saying here. I bet you don’t, either.

Henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Seversky said:

From the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the US Senate on 7 June 1797 and signed into law by President John Adams on 10 June 1797:

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,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

Seems clear enough. Any questions?

This was only in the first treaty–subsequent ones omitted this article. Apparently, it wasn’t relevant later in the later versions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

So, Henry, are you saying that the later versions, by removing that clause (which you admit was there, for the record, though I’m sure you’ll deny it was ever there the instant it becomes inconvenient for you), somehow magically converted this country into a theocracy under your delusional death cult?

Why do you hate freedom and the truth so much, Henry? Why can’t you and your fellow cultists stop lying? Why are you so desperate to hijack the government and force your idiotic dogma on other people’s children? Is christianity really so pitifully weak that it can’t survive any other way?

Actually, what I’m saying is the Tripoli treaty of 1797 is a very weak argument for proving that the United States was not a Christian nation since Article 11 was later dropped, showing that it wasn’t important enough to retain in the later treaties or even true. America’s been a Christian theocracy since it’s founding. It obviously doesn’t resemble a Islamic theocracy which some tends to confuse the two.

Wow, Henry, I knew you were batshit crazy, but I didn’t think you’d be this open about it!

The Constitution forbids establishment of religion, restrictions on religious freedom, and religious tests for office, all of which are required to sustain a theocracy. You utter fucking moron, this country is not, and never has been a theocracy. And anyone who seeks to turn it into one is a traitor. Treason is a capital crime.

Of course, you don’t have the slightest fucking idea what the Constitution says, because you haven’t read the damn thing. Much like your cult claims to put so much faith in the bible, when all you know about it is a tiny selection of cherry-picked verses your cult leaders programmed you with.

John Kwok said:

mrg said:

SLC said: Former Governor Huckabee has decided not to run in 2012.

No way he could win. Basically, he would wrap up the fundy vote, and automatically lose the vote of everyone who regards fundies as enemies – that is, everyone who isn’t a fundy.

Not necessarily so, since he has come across as far more reasonable than others of his ilk (e. g. Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin). However, even I, a Republican, would not support him as the 2012 Republican party Presidential candidate for reasons that have been mentioned alreadly here and elsewhere.

Remember the Republican landslide of 2010? Look for another one in 2012.

Remember the Republican landslide of 2010? Look for another one in 2012.

If your grasp of politics is as solid as your grasp of history and science, perhaps you shouldn’t be too smug about a Republican landslide just yet.

Anyway, Henry, I’m pulling the plug. You’ll have to find another entry to pollute with inaccurate “facts”. It’s been fun, folks, but it’s time to move on.

Dave

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on June 9, 2011 11:16 AM.

Fulton County, GA, public schools to eliminate good church/state policy? was the previous entry in this blog.

We get mail is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter