***
[Government agencies not aggressive enough on oil spill]
DAR
I very much agree. This is a fair criticism of Obama. He should have been much more aggressive about getting rid of Bush installed cronies and incompetents. I guess his only excuse could be that this takes time and he has been busy with even bigger Bush legacy problems.
D.
-------------
"Interior Department Still Filled With Anti-Science Bush-Era Managers
Jeff Ruch, the head of the public-employee whistleblowing group, said that as in many other regulatory agencies, Obama political appointees in the Interior Department's notoriously troubled Minerals Management Service (MMS) have not taken enough steps to reverse the anti-environmental and anti-science policies of the Bush years.
"For the most part, the Obama team is still the Bush team," Ruch told HuffPost, noting that beyond a thin layer of political appointees, offices like MMS are run by managers who were "promoted during the Bush years -- In many instances, promoted for basically violating the law. And from what we can tell, their conduct hasn't changed."
<a href="viewtopic.php?p=21421#p21421">Link</a>.
***
FRAN: "“progressives” — a word they chose as a label only after “liberal” became radioactive —">>
DAR
Those in Francis' camp have a long and cherished tradition of trying to smear any notion of liberalism. Used to be it was the facists and goosesteppers who were most challenged by the terrible threat liberalism presented. With the neo-con lurch to the right they find themselves similarly terrified of what it represents. This makes sense, after all, it is a rather radical notion:
liberal: "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded” --American Heritage
Nothing strikes more fear into the heart of the modern day Tea Party neo-con than something like that!
D.
----------------
"Long ago, there was a noble word, LIBERAL, which derives from the word FREE. Now a strange thing happened to that word. A man named Hitler made it a term of abuse, a matter of suspicion, because those who were not with him were against him, and liberals had no use for Hitler. And then a man named McCarthy cast the same opprobrium on the word. Indeed, there was a time --a short but dismaying time-- when many Americans began to distrust the word which derived from FREE. One thing we must all do. We must cherish and honor the word FREE or it will cease to apply to us.”
--Eleanor Roosevelt
***
[Wall Builders]
DAR
Yes Victoria, I am very familiar with the Wall Builders and especially their devotion to bogus quotes and the most blatant misinformation. Try using their info and see how it holds up. No scholars take those clowns seriously, and with good reason.
Their founder admitted they had been peddling bogus quotes for years. I have an excellent article about this but you probably wouldn't read it, so I won't waste our time.
D.
***
Bigd: If you are using the word orthodox in the generic then you have a point.>>
DAR
That was the point of the Britannica quote.
Bigd: However, all of the religions (including Unitarian) are Christian religions>>
DAR
I was a Unitarian. They have roots in Christianity but they aren't Christians. They have no creed. As I said, 3/4 of our local fellowship was atheist/agnostic. They are also the highest educated religious group in the US (last I checked).
Bigd: Jefferson who attended church regularly and professed he was a Christian.">>
DAR
You are being as deceptive with his quote as those who didn't give all of McCain's context. Jefferson SPECIFICALLY said, in the quote you gave:
"...to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.”
Let me explain. Jefferson did not believe Jesus to be divine, or that he claimed to be divine, he didn't believe any of the miracles or miracle claims (he cut all of that "dung" our of his Jefferson Bible), but he thought Jesus had most excellent moral precepts and is saying here that he is Christian ONLY IN THE SENSE he thinks Jesus meant anyone to be a Christian, and that is, by following his moral precepts.
It's complicated, I know. You might not get it unless you have read a lot of Jefferson. He was purposely sneaky in regard to his religious beliefs (as was Washington and Adams). For rather obvious reasons.
Bigd: where you cut and paste an encyclopedia.">>
DAR
What a hypocrite. Your cut and paste above, from an encyclopedia, is far larger than anything I have posted! (and it was a good quote). I quoted ONE sentence from an encyclopedia.
Bigd: these people came from a place where folks were executed for not following the state religion.">>
DAR
Exactly! And some states were well on their way to doing that. Cutting peoples ears off etc.
D.
***
DAR
If you are going to accuse me of an "untruth" you should have the decency of stating what it is. You don't.
Bigd: "Why would so called deists have to “hide” in a Christian church?">>
DAR
Because it was politically damaging to not be considered a Christian. Look what they did to Paine who didn't play the game. This still goes on today.
Bigd: "There is no religious test for office in this country...">>
DAR
Wrong.
"Arkansas is one of half a dozen states that still exclude non-believers from public office. Article 19 Section 1 of the 1874 Arkansas Constitution states that "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erb ... iously">US News</a>.
***
I haven't targeted Christianity in this thread. Not once. There is nothing wrong with telling the truth and being accurate with regard to the beliefs of the founders.
This is in contrast to Victoria's little group of myth makers.
D.
----------------
Wallbuilders Shoddy Workmanship
David Barton's
"Christian Nation" Myth Factory
Admits Its Products Have Been Defective
<a href="http://www.members.tripod.com/candst/boston2.htm">Read here</a>.
***
Bigd: "claim about the first 6 presidents as if they were the only Founders.">>
DAR
Nonsense. The one sentence quote specified the first six presidents to inform that it only refers, to the first six presidents. Couldn't be clearer. Pretty curious for a "Christian nation" eh?
Bigd: lot of people who founded this country... were Christians.">>
DAR
Of course they were. Easily the majority of them. And no one said otherwise.
Bigd: We were founded as a Judeo-Christian nation...>>
DAR
It's just that no one remembered to mention that in any of the founding documents.
Amazing!
D.
-----------
“The obvious first step in seeking out our nation’s origins is to read its founding doc**ents. In doing so, one is struck immediately by the total absence of any mention of Jesus, Christ or Christianity.” –Judith Hayes
***
Bigd: "You called miracles by Jesus DUNG in this thread">>
DAR
No, you are confused. I mentioned that Jefferson referred to the Bible as a dunghill with a few diamonds in it. Also, he didn't believe in the miracle claims in the Bible.
*I* didn't call the Bible, or miracles, or anything "dung" in this thread.
D.
---------------
"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."
--Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
***
Bigd: "...how is the onus on the presenter rather than the denier?">>
DAR
It is not possible to disprove such a negative. If someone says Washington said X, THEY have the burden of giving evidence for their claim and showing legitimate provenance of any such documents.
It is not possible for someone to prove that someone DID NOT say something 200+ years ago. But this is not anyone's problem but the one making the assertion. The burden is upon the person claiming someone said X, centuries ago.
Think of it this way. If someone were to assert that Washington said: "I am not a Christian" would you have the burden of proving that claim wrong? Of course not.
Rightwing Christians have been lying, and caught lying, about Washington, for centuries. For instance with the <a href="http://americancreation.blogspot.com/20 ... tml">bogus Washington prayer journals</a> someone concocted.
D.
***
Bigd: Care to provide a copy of that letter where Jefferson used dunghills.">>
DAR
Of course. I don't make claims I can't back up. Thanks for asking.
See here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_ ... efferson's Bible</a>.
Better than a letter, it was in the introduction of a book he made known as the Jefferson Bible. This is where he took a Bible and cut all of the stuff he didn't believe in (miracles etc.). He distributed this book to all members of Congress.
Bigd: "You did indeed call it dung which is a misquote...">>
DAR
I'm sorry, you misunderstand. My only reference to dung in this thread was in reference to Jefferson's use of it. I was referring to Jefferson's Bible, as I stated, which is where he compared the Bible to dunghill with some diamonds in it.
Bigd: "...you referred to Christianity as the reason they did not allow a specific religion.">>
DAR
Is this not really really obvious? What religion, pray, would they have been concerned about becoming entrenched with state power and leading to the abuses the founders of America were trying to escape in Europe?!
Let me know if you would to be buried in specific referenced examples of the founders specifically referring to this.
D.
---------------
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
-- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
***
Bigd: "Jefferson said that finding something would be like finding diamonds in a dunghill, not that the Bible was a dunghill.">>
DAR
Wrong. In letter I first referred to Jefferson said:
"In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
–Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
In his analogy Jefferson is clearly using "dunghills" in the above to represent the Bible, and using "diamonds" to represent the parts of the Bible that he thinks "have proceeded from an extraordinary man."
He took his scissors and cut out the dung, what was left is known as "The Jefferson Bible." How much poo did he cut out of the New Testament? About 90%. That left 10% diamond.
Bigd: "you did not dig up the letter to Adams.">>
DAR
Yes I did. You were too lazy to even look at the link I gave you.
Bigd: "Jefferson’s Bible, an interesting concept but that is no the letter.">>
DAR
You can read the entire letter I quoted from (Jan. 24, 1814), <a href="http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/j ... l">here</a>.
Here is the quote again, worded slightly different, from another letter to Adam's, (two months earlier) from the top of the wiki link I <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible">already gave you</a>:
***
He described it in a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813:
“[Big SNIP] I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines."
D.
***
DAR"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." --John Adams
And what are those "general principles" he is talking about? Ask a different Christian, get a different answer. Ask a deist, get a very different answer.
Based on his writings, I think the "general principles" he is referring to are the basic moral questions most of humanity agree on regardless of religion. Don't murder, steal, "do unto to others" etc. How did nearly all societies figure this out and why did they all make rules against these things? Because people don't like to be murdered or have their stuff stolen. The golden rule as stated by Jesus is very nice, but it wasn't remotely original. Most Christians don't know that it was said by nine other people centuries before Jesus borrowed and repeated it (or his anonymous biographer attributed it to him).
That Adams, like his buddy Jefferson, would like to pick out what he thinks are the "general principles" of Christianity (however defined) and then think they are good, is no surprise. I would probably agree with them too. But we don't know what they are. He didn't give them in your quote.
We know John Adam's did not consider the United States **in any sense** founded on the Christian religion because he personally signed a treaty that said so (and treaties have the same force as law).
The Treaty of Tripoli:
"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 tranquillity, of Musselmen
[Muslims]; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."
--Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, ratified by the U.S. Senate June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli">LINK</a>
D.
-------------
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
--John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
Jefferson cut 90% out of his Bible. Looks like Adams would have cut most of it out too.
***
DAR
OOPS, I should have checked more thoroughly. Turns out Bigd's quote from John Adama's is a very sneaky patchwork concoction. Bogus. What a wonderful example of what I have been talking about, the importance of accuracy, and how common these corrupted things get passed around (this one is all over).
See the very thorough explanation of this here:
<a href="http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... ty/">Adams and the General Principles of Christianity</a>
Excerpts:
"This is a patchwork of three phrases taken from a letter (28 June 1813) to Thomas Jefferson juxtaposed to give a misleading impression of Adams’ meaning:
...The omissions here are easily significant enough to give this extract the red designation.
[snip]
...What did he mean by “the general principles of Christianity”? He doesn’t spell them out in the letter, but they are principles held in common by a diverse range of beliefs, including “Roman Catholics, … Presbyterians, Methodists, … Universalists, … Deists and Atheists ….” In other words, Adams had in mind the common system of morals held by all humankind throughout history. And far from giving it the unique status implied by the patchwork quotation, he couples “the general principles of Christianity” throughout with “the general principles of English and American liberty”.
DAR
Wow. Exactly as I said earlier, without knowing the full quote from Adams and how this quote was a complete distortion.
Thanks for helping me learn something new today Bigd.
D.
***
Bigd: "I have to admit that when I put this quote up I did not put in the ellipses (it was unintentional)...">>
DAR
You took the ellipses out of someone elses hacked up version, or you didn't know you were being fooled? I'm guessing the latter.
Bigd: "...and the ellipses are in the appropriate places where there is a break in the words.">>
DAR
Your quote *has no* ellipses! You took them out or copied a crook who patched this together. And it's not like you were reading this whole thing in context. Give me a break. You were passing along someone elses hackwork.
Bigd: "However, I have read the entire paragraph and the meaning is not changed.">>
DAR
You've read it now because you've been busted passing along a doctored quote with no indication of the vast swathes of context removed.
I didn't think you would read the extensive examination of this quote and the expose' of how Christians are dishonestly and disgracefully distorting what Adams said here. And quite honestly I didn't think you would understand it if you did read it. But I am rather surprised at how blatant you are about defending this doctored quote.
So you think it is honest to provide a two sentence quote from Adams, ripped from context, punctuation played with, phrases ripped out of sentences, without any indication whatsoever that 81 words have been removed? Unbelievable!
Your quote with deletions noted:
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were [40 words removed] the general principles of Christianity. [41 words removed] I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
As <a href='http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... nity/">the expose' pointed out:</a>
"If the passage as given above can really be considered a fair summary of the entire passage, then so can this version, emphasizing the other elements Adams gave as the “general principles on which the fathers achieved independence”:
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were … the general principles of English and American liberty … I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that … those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system."
"Obviously neither version is a fair representation of the original. Each leaves out one essential element in the original mix so that even though these extracts are made up of Adams’ own words, the overall quotation (particularly sans ellipses) is as dishonest as the Patrick Henry “religionists” misattribution or the Washington “impossible to govern without the Bible” concoction." --ibid
This is what you get when you dishonestly cherry-pick, remove material and then patch together what's left. A disgraceful misrepresentation of what the person said.
Bigd: "As anyone with a brain can see, the omitted words do not change the meaning.">>
DAR
Well this excludes you then because this very changes the meaning. If it didn't Christians wouldn't be playing such games.
Bigd: "Jefferson took the miracles out in his bible because he did not believe that they happened.">>
DAR
Jefferson removed 90% of the New Testament from his Bible (I would have probably left a little more in). He referred to this process as removing diamonds from dunghills.
Bigd: "So was Jefferson a deist?">>
DAR
Pretty much. He didn't like, and knew the limits, of labels. He hated the clergy and thought the idea of the trinity, and most other creeds and doctrines, absurd. It's hard to have any semblance of Christianity when you don't think Jesus is God.
Here is what he hoped for the US. Notice "Freedom of thought."
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated Reformer of human errors."
--Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, 1787. This is almost identical to a letter to John Adams, 11, April 1823, as quoted by E.S. Gaustad, "Religion," in Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: A Reference Biography, New Yourk: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1986, p. 287)
D.
--------------
I think Jefferson may have been referring to your condition here:
"He proves also that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullability which they call faith takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck."
--Jefferson to James Smith, Monticello, 8 December 1822.
<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... ">Original handwritten copy</a>.
***
[Accuses Dar of name calling]
DAR
Careful readers may notice that the only name I called Mr. Radigan above, is "Radigan." I hope that's not inappropriate or getting too rough for him.
Especially careful readers will also notice the irony in the fact that while there has been naming calling in this little thread, it has been done exclusively by (as usual) Mr. Radigan.
D.
-------------
<a href="viewtopic.php?p=21530#p21530">Acting</a>.
***
Bigd: "I understand your frustration Adam, you backed a loser.">>
DAR
One just marvels at the audacity of a McCain/Palin supporter, saying this to an Obama supporter.
D.
-------------
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/0 ... .html">Two Top McCain Campaign Staffers Quit</a>.
Looks like someone may have more time to hang out in however many homes they happen to own?
***
[More government involvement in oil spill]
DAR
I don't know why Bigd suddenly wants big government interfering in the free market and the right of this private company to do as it wishes with the ocean. The market knows what is right and will figure it out, right? Where does it say in the constitution that people have a right to ocean water without oil in it? Doesn't.
<a href="viewtopic.php?p=21534#p21534">Cartoon</a>.
D.
***
BLK: "There are “progressive” Republicans also- McCain and Graham come to mind.">>
DAR
Graham "has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 89.79. Graham is an ACU “Senate Standout,” among the 20 most conservative U.S. Senators in 2008!" <a href="http://www.acuratings.org/">Link</a>.
Blake is so far to the unglued right he would like to purge the party of anything less than the top 10% most extreme nose bleed conservative. I truly wish him and his the very best in this effort. Once they are successful perhaps they can then hold the republican party convention at a Holiday Inn in Oklahoma.
The Tea Partiers are the GOP's Naderites. Chances are this won't dawn upon them until they get three more election spankings. A little good luck in the next one will only serve to encourage them to be even more silly in the following two.
D.
------------------
More Americans Want Democrats To Control Congress (POLL) (May 7-11)
"People want Democrats to control Congress after this fall's elections, a shift from April, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released Saturday...
The tenuous 45 percent to 40 percent preference for a Democratic Congress reverses the finding a month ago on the same question: 44 percent for Republicans and 41 percent for Democrats."
Congressional Democratic approval: 37%
Congressional Republican approval: 31%
***
MAY 23, 2010
