History Reconstuctionist Revealed
cody...@yahoo.com
name for this bunch) I was amazed that grown men and women find time
to argue about colonial American history details, especially as to
whether religion in the colonies was 'a' factor or 'the overwhelming'
factor behind the founders of these United States. For several months
I naively did not understand the underlying cause of this conflict. I
only felt indignation from such a group being able to invade several
NG's, including alt.history.colonial, where content of their many long
threads is SPAM, being off-topic and excessively crossposted.
Fortunately, Mr. Jeff Sinclair's postings (listed below) helped me to
now understand. This group is not debating history details to improve
their collective knowledge, they are engulfed in an ideological
struggle to establish whether Mr. Gardiner should be allowed to
reconstruct history to meet his needs, viz. the founding fathers were
'orthodox Christians' with 'religion coursing through their veins' --
which simply is not supported by the evidence presented.
Coincidentally(?), it seems that Mr. Gardiner's attempt to reconstruct
history falls in step with similar reconstructionist activities by
Christian Right activist groups -- in order for them to (falsely)
proclaim the United States was founded with intentions for it to be a
'Christian nation'...to justify their manipultation of Christian
voters (and politicians) toward placing their nominees in many elected
offices...in order for the Christian Right to control government at
all levels...thereby 'returning' our nation to its 'intended'
Christian control. Some might say "What's wrong with that, wouldn't
we be better off with more leaders having high moral standards?" The
danger is that our United States would be controlled by an intolerant
religious theocracy, the very thing our nation's founders rightfully
took so much care to prevent.
Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon
his reconstructionist efforts, he has lost. Short of this I call for
him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
SPAM. If he decides to continue my perspective says he should
restrict himself to a political-religion type news-group. I call for
Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
no purpose for those who battle against him. The resulting space at
alt.history.colonial, for example, may then be used by subscribers
having broad general interests in colonial American history.
Introduction to my above understanding is contained in Mr. Jeff
Sinclair's 4-part posting, all dated 1/9/2000, sub-entitled "Setting
the Record Straight." Mr. Sinclair's postings in general seem to be
well documented with great respect for the logical critical-thinking
process. I hope many will investigate his thought provoking work:
>]Message-ID: <85br7b$fmb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 1 11:37 PM
>]Message-ID: <85br7l$fmd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 2 11:37 PM
>]Message-ID: <85br82$fmh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 3 11:38 PM
>]Message-ID: <85br8c$fmm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 4 11:38 PM
These postings may be found under a thread entitled
"The Founders Were Deists? (Part II)" started 1/8/2000 at:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,sci.skeptic,alt.deism
I will appreciate an experienced subscriber converting the above
message ID's to URL addresses for easier access by readers.
Btw, I at first had trouble with message URL's referenced in Jeff
Sinclair's postings. I was successful only by copying/pasting the
first line into my browser's URL- address pane, then the second line
(with no space between) before clicking the 'enter' key to access the
URL. By following these links and from exploring other web-links for
Christian Right activist groups I believe most who investigate will
agree with my understanding and concerns. Even a disagreeing reader
will be better informed.
mscu...@my-deja.com
cody...@yahoo.com wrote:
[snip]
> Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon
> his reconstructionist efforts, he has lost. Short of this I call for
> him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
> propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
> SPAM.
Pardon me for jumping in, but I reject calls for censorship also. In
the market place of ideas Mr. Gardiner is entitled to present his
arguments and those of us who disagree may disagree. I would call on
Mr. Gardiner to discuss the arguments we are making about colonial
society and not redesign our arguments in his own fashion. Discussion
is not spam. The content of posts addressing Mr. Gardiner's arguments
are not spam. I consider posts to be spam if one is posting colonial
history to alt.islam and other places. When Mr. Gardiner decided to use
David Irving as a source I directed my response to alt.revisionism
since David Irving (and Hitler) haven't much to do with colonial
history. That's how these things happen. Your post here is going to
historical groups and to a skeptic group. Okay, I understand the
relationship between skepticism and the battle against pseudo-history
and pseudo-science.
> If he decides to continue my perspective says he should
> restrict himself to a political-religion type news-group. I call for
> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
> no purpose for those who battle against him. The resulting space at
> alt.history.colonial, for example, may then be used by subscribers
> having broad general interests in colonial American history.
Also I find it difficult to discuss colonial history without there
being a religious facet. It is nearly impossible to discuss colonial
New England without it. Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland,
Pennsylvania and several others are difficult discussions without
having religion come into the history. My concern is emphasis and
perspective. EVen the Indian Wars had a religious aspect in
Massachusetts-Bay.
I do not think these aspects should be shunted aside. I also think that
Mr. Gardiner needs to understand the perspective and place emphasis
where it belongs. That he does not do so is why I consider him to be
nothing more than a propagandist and have told him so.
[snip]
> Btw, I at first had trouble with message URL's referenced in Jeff
> Sinclair's postings. I was successful only by copying/pasting the
> first line into my browser's URL- address pane, then the second line
> (with no space between) before clicking the 'enter' key to access the
> URL.
What news reader are you using?
--
Mike Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jim Elbrecht
>When first encountering the religion-in-history group last year (my
>name for this bunch)
I think you're too kind.
-snip-
> I
>only felt indignation from such a group being able to invade several
>NG's, including alt.history.colonial, where content of their many long
>threads is SPAM, being off-topic and excessively crossposted.
Both sides have already managed to alienate me since they seem to
dominate soc.history.war.us-revolution , now, too.
I've been just using my killfiles to kill them off by thread as they
appear. It makes s-h-w-u look a little quiet, but my blood pressure
is lower.
I've even considered upgrading to W98 just so I can utilize a utility
which will actually kill them off by crossposted newsgroup.
[ Hamster is the utility, it works with Forte's 32bit Agent]
With his utility, they can use whatever subject line or email address
they want-- but if they crosspost to a religious group I'll be spared.
I doubt I'd ever miss an interesting post.
jim
Richard A. Schulman
Cody Ann, is that you?
>...This group is not debating history details to improve
> their collective knowledge, they are engulfed in an ideological
> struggle to establish whether Mr. Gardiner should be allowed to
> reconstruct history to meet his needs, viz. the founding fathers were
> 'orthodox Christians' with 'religion coursing through their veins' --
> which simply is not supported by the evidence presented.
Nor is Mr. Gardiner's position so unnuanced. He certainly has not presented
Franklin and Jefferson as have been orthodox Christians. You have
maliciously represented his views.
> Coincidentally(?), it seems that Mr. Gardiner's attempt to reconstruct
> history falls in step with similar reconstructionist activities by
> Christian Right activist groups -- in order for them to (falsely)
> proclaim the United States was founded with intentions for it to be a
> 'Christian nation'...to justify their manipultation of Christian
> voters (and politicians) toward placing their nominees in many elected
> offices...in order for the Christian Right to control government at
> all levels...thereby 'returning' our nation to its 'intended'
> Christian control.
Rick Gardiner has offended a wolf pack of left-liberal secularists --
including, obviously, yourself -- who are the real revisionists. His posts
have not been part of a Christian Right agenda. He's a historian who's had
much of interest to say and who has created a useful Web site -- more than I
can say for his opponents. The wolf-pack has been drowning four newsgroups,
including the one I participate in (soc.history.war.us-revolution) in
diatribe, name-calling, repetitious multikilobyte cut-and-pasting, featuring
a minimum of solid historical scholarship or even wit. I've stopped reading
most of this crap (I'm referring to Sinclair and Curtis, principally).
You, Cody, aren't performing a useful service by setting up your own
gratuitous howling. Take your polemic against the Christian Right elsewhere.
It's off topic in alt.history.colonial and soc.history.war.us-revolution.
> Short of this I call for
> him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
> propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
> SPAM.
ROTFL. Cody, please explain your qualifications and contributions to the
field of American colonial history. Incidentally, I haven't done the
research on this in Deja Vu, but I'll stick my neck out and bet you that the
cross-postings to sci.skeptic and alt.deism were the work of Mr. Gardiner's
opponents, not himself.
--
Richard Schulman
(for email reply, remove the anti-spamming 'XYZ')
BillyTCox
etc., extremely tiresome.
I keep updating filters to my preferences for this board, but they change
subject lines words and so continue to slip in.
Sometimes, I wish that this board was monitored and directed so we wouldn't be
subjected to such hair-splitting and arcane rants.
Their discussions would best be conducted by e-mail between themselves, but
they are obviously to boorish to do this, and subsequently subject those of us
truly interest in discussions of topics germane to this site.
The entire subject of their ranting has been explored, especially since none of
them wish to do anything more than nit-pick others opinions.
>Jim Elbrecht elbr...@mindspring.com
>Date: 1/13/2000 1:31 PM Central
(snip)
William T. Cox
Dan Cyr
past year, I have been at times totally confused as to what was even being
argued, let alone why. I was amazed to see the many posts on this subject,
both for and against on this ng, as well as others (virtually identical at
that).
Frankly, other than to attempt to mislead others, this argument has no where
to go. Lets return to the subject of this ng, and discuss the US revolution
(1st), and colonial history in general.
Dan Cyr
cody...@yahoo.com wrote:
<<large snip>>
Rick Gardiner
I never knew that sci.skeptic even existed until someone else crossposted to
that group. I'm quite sure that Robert Johnson is the source of the alt.deism
post, although I would agree that most of the subject matter of the discussion
is appropriate for a deism group.
Rick Gardiner
>
> In article <387bcd09...@news.arthur.k12.il.us>,
> cody...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon
> > him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
> > propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
> > SPAM.
>
> the market place of ideas Mr. Gardiner is entitled to present his
> arguments and those of us who disagree may disagree.
It seems that Curtis and Alison have at least read enough of the likes of
Locke, Madison, and Jefferson to at least appreciate the freedoms that they championed.
Yes, we see here who "talks" about the emphasis of the american
revolutionaries' commitment to liberty of conscience and freedom of speech,
and who actually embraces these principles in practice.
Second, Cody's pigeon-holing me as a "reconstructionist" demonstrates that he
doesn't know me very well. The few reconstructionists whom I have come across
in this world have rejected me as a communist liberal.
> Discussion
> is not spam. The content of posts addressing Mr. Gardiner's arguments
> are not spam. I consider posts to be spam if one is posting colonial
> history to alt.islam and other places. When Mr. Gardiner decided to use
> David Irving as a source I directed my response to alt.revisionism
> since David Irving (and Hitler) haven't much to do with colonial
> history.
Mike, this is a misrepresentation. The first time this issue came up was in
alt.atheism. It was an entirely different issue and different discussion. Go
back and check the records. What you are talking about had to do with the
claim that an atheist had made in alt.atheism that hitler was a Christian. I
responded with http://www.calweb.com/~kwdavids/hitler.html
which relies heavily on the Table Talk (which many scholars, one of which is
Irving, says is the best source for understanding Hitlers religion).
> > If he decides to continue my perspective says he should
> > restrict himself to a political-religion type news-group. I call for
> > Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
> > no purpose for those who battle against him. The resulting space at
> > alt.history.colonial, for example, may then be used by subscribers
> > having broad general interests in colonial American history.
>
> Also I find it difficult to discuss colonial history without there
> being a religious facet. It is nearly impossible to discuss colonial
> New England without it.
Gosh, Mike, aren't you afraid of being categorized as a right-wing fanatic for
making such a common sense assertion?
> Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland,
> Pennsylvania and several others are difficult discussions without
> having religion come into the history. My concern is emphasis and
> perspective.
That's a fair concern.
> EVen the Indian Wars had a religious aspect in
> Massachusetts-Bay.
Should you be accused of seeing religion in fenceposts?
> I do not think these aspects should be shunted aside. I also think that
> Mr. Gardiner needs to understand the perspective and place emphasis
> where it belongs. That he does not do so is why I consider him to be
> nothing more than a propagandist and have told him so.
Yes, you have, and that is fine by me. I do appreciate your defense of free
speech and your rejection of censorship, although, in truth, I have to wonder
about your motive. I suspect the reason why you don't want me to leave is not
because you enjoy the free exchange of ideas, but rather because you enjoy
insulting me.
That's fine by me too. You are a moody, but loveable fellow. You've said many
things which I think are unconscionable, and you've said a few very good
things (the latest of which is that American deism didn't exist until the late
1790's and had nothing to do with Paine; which, logically, rules American
deism out as the root of the DOI).
Well, I don't intend to go too far. Cody and the other discontents can learn
to operate his mail filter the same way I have learned to operate mine.
Thanks.
Rick Gardiner
>
> Coincidentally(?), it seems that Mr. Gardiner's attempt to reconstruct
> history falls in step with similar reconstructionist activities by
> Christian Right activist groups -- in order for them to (falsely)
> proclaim the United States was founded with intentions for it to be a
> 'Christian nation'...to justify their manipultation of Christian
> voters (and politicians) toward placing their nominees in many elected
> offices...in order for the Christian Right to control government at
> all levels...thereby 'returning' our nation to its 'intended'
> Christian control.
What in the world are you talking about? The last thing I would want is for
any religious institution to have "control" of the civil government. That is
entirely in opposition to the will of the founders. The United States of
America does not and should not have an established religion.
> Some might say "What's wrong with that, wouldn't
> we be better off with more leaders having high moral standards?"
Some might say that, but I sure wouldn't. A good number of the founders of the
U.S. did not have very high moral standards.
> The
> danger is that our United States would be controlled by an intolerant
> religious theocracy, the very thing our nation's founders rightfully
> took so much care to prevent.
Exactly. So where is this great disagreement you think you have with me.
Apparently you have been duped by Alison and Sinclair's nonsense that I am
somehow in a conspiracy with the 700 club to get Pat Robertson into the White House.
I'll probably do a write in vote for Ted Koppel.
> Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon
> his reconstructionist efforts, he has lost. Short of this I call for
> him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
> propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
> SPAM. If he decides to continue my perspective says he should
> restrict himself to a political-religion type news-group.
My interest is in the socio-cultural milieu of the American colonial and
revolutionary periods. If you, Alison, or Sinclair sees in this some
"right-wing conspiracy," well, you can keep on fantasizing with Hilary.
> I call for
> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
> no purpose for those who battle against him.
Supporters? LOL.
If you take a studied look at who has been dragging "supporters" into the
colonial group who are not primarily interested in colonial history, the
record will show that it has been everyone EXCEPT me.
Do you remember a guy named Stevens who posted in here for a few weeks?? He
was a recruit from alt.jewish. Who do you think lured Sinclair into this
group? His initial introduction to this group was a series of posts about the
Ancient Israelites--entirely off subject for this group.
Have you ever noticed that a number of posters in here have "atheist #1415" as
part of their signature? and one who claimed to be the president of
Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas (CLIT). Guess who attracted them to the fray? Do
you think they were a natural part of the colonial history group, or do you
think it is more likely that they were lured in here with a cross post by one
of the leftist ideologues?
There are a number of persons in the group who have been interested in
colonial history. As much as I think Modacc was erroneos, the conversation was
appropriate for colonial history. Mr. Tree, Mr. Schulman, and even Mr. Curtis
(occasionally), have demonstrated a sincere interest in colonial American
discussions. Alison is simply an ideologue who uses the forum to grind his
political axe.
I would be curious to know what you think colonial america was all about?
> The resulting space at
> alt.history.colonial, for example, may then be used by subscribers
> having broad general interests in colonial American history.
You speak as if there is a limited amount of memory on the newsgroup server.
Perhaps you need to take a basic course in computer science in this regard.
You might be surprised to find out that alt.history.colonial is not in danger
of losing all its memory, even in light of Alison dumping the entire contents
of his hard drive on this server.
> Introduction to my above understanding is contained in Mr. Jeff
> Sinclair's 4-part posting, all dated 1/9/2000, sub-entitled "Setting
> the Record Straight." Mr. Sinclair's postings in general seem to be
> well documented with great respect for the logical critical-thinking
> process. I hope many will investigate his thought provoking work:
I haven't seen these posts. Sinclair is filtered out by my browser. This was a
decision I made as a result of his refusal to cease with vulgarities and
immature inuendoes about the holocaust. If you find that sort of tactic to be
respectable, then by all means enjoy.
> By following these links and from exploring other web-links for
> Christian Right activist groups I believe most who investigate will
> agree with my understanding and concerns. Even a disagreeing reader
> will be better informed.
Exactly which "Christian Right" activist group do you think I represent or am
in conspiracy with?? The principal ecclesiastical organizations I have been
affiliated with in the last 8 years are Princeton Seminary and the liberal
wing of the Presbyterian Church. I don't attend church often any more.
I now teach high school history at an non-religious college prep school.
Gary Amos is a friend. So what? Most of my friends are Marxist-leaning
academicians. So what?
Jim Kennedy liked my book. So what? A few of my liberal professors at
Princeton liked my book. So what?
As Mr. Schulman has rightly observed, you have made a rather hasty and
superficial assessment of me and my "position."
Mike Curtis
>> I do not think these aspects should be shunted aside. I also think that
>> Mr. Gardiner needs to understand the perspective and place emphasis
>> where it belongs. That he does not do so is why I consider him to be
>> nothing more than a propagandist and have told him so.
>
>Yes, you have, and that is fine by me. I do appreciate your defense of free
>speech and your rejection of censorship, although, in truth, I have to wonder
>about your motive. I suspect the reason why you don't want me to leave is not
>because you enjoy the free exchange of ideas, but rather because you enjoy
>insulting me.
1. Gardiner, very few of my posts are insults to you.
2. You can go or stay of your own free will and I don't care which
choice you make.
>That's fine by me too. You are a moody, but loveable fellow. You've said many
>things which I think are unconscionable, and you've said a few very good
>things (the latest of which is that American deism didn't exist until the late
>1790's and had nothing to do with Paine; which, logically, rules American
>deism out as the root of the DOI).
With the exception that Jefferson was in vast agreement with Hutcheson
who was a deist. Having said that we must bear in mind that the DoI is
a lengthy document and isn't simply deist, christian or exclusively
anything else.
Mike Curtis
Richard Tree
news:387bcd09...@news.arthur.k12.il.us...
<snip>
I disagree with your conclusion most emphatically. Although I wish some of
the content in the posts were more substantive and less focused on the
finger pointing, I have learned an enormous amount. I think Mr. Gardiner
tries to answer objectively; however, we are all predisposed to argue our
side based on our beliefs -- you have just demonstrated this yourself.
Personally, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Gardiner.
You can not defend a position that Christianity was *not* a dominant
influence in Colonial America. To do so is to deny history. You can argue,
influentially, that the founders disagreed with various elements of
Christianity. People that claim to be Christians today do the same thing --
and a future critique of our religious makeup will undoubtedly categorize
people contrary to what they really believe.
That said, we all have a right to our views. Moreover, we all have a right
to argue them. Humanism and materialism are profound influences in our
institutions of "higher learning." Frankly, I believe the Secular
Humanist's agenda is deeper than just denying Christianity in Colonial
America.
R/
Richard
buc...@exis.net
>:| and you've said a few very good
>:|things (the latest of which is that American deism didn't exist until the late
>:|1790's and had nothing to do with Paine; which, logically, rules American
>:|deism out as the root of the DOI).
On Thursday, 4 July 1776, the Declaration was read, and agreed to.
hy Congress:
We hold these truths to be selfevident; that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
that among these are life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness. -- That
to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriv
ing their power from the consent of the governed . . .
The words are Jefferson's, the sentiments those of men who had dared
to turn the world upside-down: of Rainborough and Winstanley, of Locke,
Voltaire, Rousseau and Thomas Paine. Forty years on, William Cobbett
asserted that, whoever wrote the Declaration, its author was the Thet-
ford Quaker -- though, on that Thursday morning of 1776, he was two
days' journey from Philadelphia, serving with Washington's army on the
approaches to New York.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Paine, the greatest exile, by David powell, St.
Martin's Press N.Y. (1985) pp 75-76)
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
buc...@exis.net
>:|<cody...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|news:387bcd09...@news.arthur.k12.il.us...
>:|<snip>
>:|
>:|I disagree with your conclusion most emphatically. Although I wish some of
>:|the content in the posts were more substantive and less focused on the
>:|finger pointing, I have learned an enormous amount. I think Mr. Gardiner
>:|tries to answer objectively; however, we are all predisposed to argue our
>:|side based on our beliefs -- you have just demonstrated this yourself.
>:|Personally, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Gardiner.
>:|
>:|You can not defend a position that Christianity was *not* a dominant
>:|influence in Colonial America. To do so is to deny history. You can argue,
>:|influentially, that the founders disagreed with various elements of
>:|Christianity. People that claim to be Christians today do the same thing --
>:|and a future critique of our religious makeup will undoubtedly categorize
>:|people contrary to what they really believe.
I have to wonder if you have understood the argument, then
The argument has never been to try and show or claim that religion was not
a influence, nor even a dominate one.
The arguments have been addressing gardiner's claims that Religion (meaning
Protestant Christianity) was THE MOSt IMPORTANT INFLUENCE.
It simply was not the most important influence.
Numerous people, myself included have presented a vast amount of documented
historical information, from a wide variety of sources over the l;ast 10
months supporting our claims that it was not the most important influence.
Do you understand that among the various things that Gardiner has claimed
or implied is:
The real founders of American were not the founding fathers, but rather
were Luther and Calvin?
Most if not all of the institutions of this country were founded, created
or established in New England, and are based in some form on Luther and
Calvin? (the rest of what was to become America was peopled by uneducated
backwoods bumpkins, basically)
That New England was more then half of the country
That when asked to show the religious evidence in the Constitution stated
that the whole idea of a **federal** constitution, **federal** government,
etc was based on Religion because the word federal means compact with God.
The list goes on. What gardier has posted over the past ten months does
show a person who is in love with the New England that may have once
existed, blindly so, perhaps, and has a tunnel vision regarding certain men
of history and events of history.
It isn';t to be nasty or mean that people say Gardiner sees religion, or
Calvin or Luther, etc in fence posts.
As was posted today by Jeff Sinclair
=============================================================
Gardiner is strangely silent about religious intolerance by Puritans
and Calvinists groups. He did the same thing when he claimed that 3/4
of the ideas in the Bill of Rights came from “the ideas embedded in the
1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties, a Puritan document that came
complete with Bible verses attached to each of the rights” he then
added that “(Conference participants
gasped in horror when they realized that for their cherished liberties
they were indebted to the hated Puritans, folks they considered
repressive, religious zealots.)” He also did this with the “Vidiciae
Contra Tyrannos: A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants” of 1579 which
was also formulated by (you guessed it) Calvinists. And so on. He
virtually ignores the English Constitution of 1689 (not quite of
course; this he merely says was _influenced_ by Calvinists), the
influence of Whig political thought (which he traces back to, you got
it, the Puritan Calvinists in England), and the corruption of the
British crown in influencing government by colonial governors and
legislatures (but, he says the motivations of the Colonists for adding
checks and balances to control this was based on, you got it, Calvinist
pessimism).
When it is mentioned to him that the New England Puritans built up a de
facto religious theonomy, and that the history of the Calvinists as
they influenced governments was that of some of the most intolerant in
history, Gardiner either ignores this, attacks the scholar as not
being “the final authority” on these matters (such as Gordon Wood and
Bernard Bailyn who won recognition from their fellow historians for
their work ), or just simply enters into a straight out personal attack
on the person posting.
============================================================
If his case is so good, why does he have this need to misrepresent the
facts so consistently and turn blind eyes to all the facts that do not
support his claims?
He has made some pretty strong claims about James Madison over the past ten
months. I took the time and effort to take most of those claims and
research them. The result has been a set of approx 35 posts refuting those
claims. Refuting them with evidence and commentary produced by scholars
that are experts on Madison.
What has been the result? He has elected to go into his ignoring mode of
operations. But, rest assured, you will se gardiner making the same claims
about Madison he has made all along, in the future.
You can side with him if you want, you asked me about some things and I
provided you with information that answered your question. You then stated
you were casting your lot with Gardiner. That's kewl but do know the man
you have decided to cast your lot with, do know what he is really saying.
One further item:
If religion was the most important influence back then,
why is it that beginning almost at once,
with the very first state constitutions written in 1776
and continuing with each additional state constitution revision,
and with the federal constitution
all the various alliances, unions, etc between religion and government that
had been present in all those original charters
Gardiner likes to talk about and mention
were eliminated, repealed, done away with
and in a period of approx 171
we went from what was written in those various charters to
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another.
Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from
church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in
any religion.
No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16] or professing
religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any
religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and
vice versa.
In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by
law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and
State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.
{Everson v Bd of Ed 1947]
From required attendance in church, to required support of religion, to
required public worship, to blasphemy laws to Sunday laws, to required
prayer and Bible reading in schools, etc to the above
That didn't happen by accident, it didn't happen without the willingness
and blessing of the people, during that approx 171 year period of time.
There were four possibly five major influences working together, sometimes
at odds even, that played a role in the creation of this nation. All were
important, and no one single one was THE MOST INFLUENTIAL
>:|That said, we all have a right to our views. Moreover, we all have a right
>:|to argue them. Humanism and materialism are profound influences in our
>:|institutions of "higher learning." Frankly, I believe the Secular
>:|Humanist's agenda is deeper than just denying Christianity in Colonial
>:|America.
>:|
Secular Humanist?
Care to elaborate?
The reference to such does give a bit of a handle on where you are coming
from and does give some explanation why you tend to side with Gardiner.
buc...@exis.net
>:|Exactly. So where is this great disagreement you think you have with me.
>:|Apparently you have been duped by Alison and Sinclair's nonsense that I am
>:|somehow in a conspiracy with the 700 club to get Pat Robertson into the White House.
>:|
Gardiner is having an argument with himself again.
Wonder which side of his personality is going to win this one..
The poster gardiner gives far too much credit to me, and others he claims
are like me, and seems to devalue the intelligence of all others.
He doesn't seem to understand that it is his own words that define him, not
what I or anyone else, including those who agree with him might say.
He doesn't seem to understand that his connection to and with his
co-author, and especially when he has claimed to call this co-author on
several occasion to get information for his arguments says a few things
about him.
There is information on the web about this co-authoir that very much places
that person well within the framework of the far religious right.
No one has to explain Gardiner to anyone else, he does it all by himself.
>:|My interest is in the socio-cultural milieu of the American colonial and
>:|revolutionary periods. If you, Alison, or Sinclair sees in this some
>:|"right-wing conspiracy," well, you can keep on fantasizing with Hilary.
if the above was so true, then I wonder why he frequently moves out beyond
that period in his posting.
>:|
>:|> I call for
>:|> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
>:|> no purpose for those who battle against him.
>:|
>:|Supporters? LOL.
>:|
>:|If you take a studied look at who has been dragging "supporters" into the
>:|colonial group who are not primarily interested in colonial history, the
>:|record will show that it has been everyone EXCEPT me.
Really? Hmmmmmm, what is your defender Childress doing here?
In the five years I have run into him on the net I have never known him to
frequent the history NGs
>:|
>:|Have you ever noticed that a number of posters in here have "atheist #1415" as
>:|part of their signature?
How many? Who? What does that mean and how does that alter anything about
you?
Do you think it is impossible for others to drop in by themselves.
Do you think it is impossible for others to have a variety of interests?
I have been surprised at finding people in various NGs. I found a guy in
the WWII NG that is also in the Cleveland Browns NGs which I frequent.
>:|and one who claimed to be the president of
>:|Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas (CLIT). Guess who attracted them to the fray? Do
>:|you think they were a natural part of the colonial history group, or do you
>:|think it is more likely that they were lured in here with a cross post by one
>:|of the leftist ideologues?
Leftist ideologies?
How interesting, you claim innocence to rightist ideologies yet make
unproven clams about leftist ideologies of others. In short, you are guilty
of the very thing you claim others are guilty of regarding you. How
interesting. LOL
Nice demonstration of your own biases.
Just to set the record straight, until you confine your posts to one NG you
are also reaching out to people in other NGs to read what you post, wanting
people to read what you want, so remember, as you point the finger at other
at least three fingers point back at you.
I have seen times back in the spring and early summer when you had begun a
thread and you had 5-6-7 or more NGs listed in the heading. There were
times I would respond and delete one or two, only to find you had added
them back when you responded.
So get off your self-rightous soapbox, all you accuse others of you have
done at some time or other as well.
>:|
>:|There are a number of persons in the group who have been interested in
>:|colonial history. As much as I think Modacc was erroneos, the conversation was
>:|appropriate for colonial history. Mr. Tree, Mr. Schulman, and even Mr. Curtis
>:|(occasionally), have demonstrated a sincere interest in colonial American
>:|discussions. Alison is simply an ideologue who uses the forum to grind his
>:|political axe.
Well, as I recall, I ran across your first post in alt politics usa
constitution.
I have no idea who put it there.
I really don't care what NG it might be in, I have been posting to your
inaccurate information that you have been posting. One can go back and
review that history to find that you have sure done enough posting back to
me and others that go past the 1600 to 1776 periods of time.
>:|
>:|You speak as if there is a limited amount of memory on the newsgroup server.
>:|Perhaps you need to take a basic course in computer science in this regard.
>:|You might be surprised to find out that alt.history.colonial is not in danger
>:|of losing all its memory, even in light of Alison dumping the entire contents
>:|of his hard drive on this server.
LOL the entire contents of my hard drive?
Hardly, not even close
I haven't even hit you with the 1400 or 1500 pages of material I have on it
involved in my project.. Actually, some of it does get into the colonial
period, and it is 99.9% historical documents, very little, next to no
commentary. And no, it isn't a bunch of URLs to other sites for documents,
it is the real Mccoy (BTW u ever hear the story behind that phrase? its
pretty interesting)
>:|
>:|> Introduction to my above understanding is contained in Mr. Jeff
>:|> Sinclair's 4-part posting, all dated 1/9/2000, sub-entitled "Setting
>:|> the Record Straight." Mr. Sinclair's postings in general seem to be
>:|> well documented with great respect for the logical critical-thinking
>:|> process. I hope many will investigate his thought provoking work:
>:|
>:|I haven't seen these posts. Sinclair is filtered out by my browser. This was a
>:|decision I made as a result of his refusal to cease with vulgarities and
>:|immature inuendoes about the holocaust. If you find that sort of tactic to be
>:|respectable, then by all means enjoy.
As if you are the perfect model of proper behavior.
Fact is, the man trashes you, i. e. meets insult from you with insult, and
posted argument and evidence that sets each of your claims in their proper
context, thus properly altering your incorrect/overstatement, or offering
data that shows yours to be completely incorrect.
But Cody provided you the opportunity to review what he (Jeff) had to say
about your claims, what he provided from the web regarding Amos and his
book and his associations with certain far right groups, etc.
All you have to do is click on each of those message numbers.
it is interesting that this is the first guy I know of you have "killfiled"
Wonder what the real reason is
You had a bit of an advantage in the past in that only Mike and myself
argued against you. Now I don't have the interest or knowledge regarding
European History and whole Mike was better versed in that, but his
interest and area of knowledge was more the colonial Mass and N E .
Therefore we weren't able to dissect some of your arguments and correct
them as well as we would have liked to
But wonder of wonders, some one who knows these areas well enough to show
the various flaws in your arguments and your facts show up and you kill
file them, LOL how interesting..
Kill file just means they get to make their arguments and you don't
respond. Therefore, any readers only get their side. Doesn't bode well for
you, does it? :o)
>:|
>:|Exactly which "Christian Right" activist group do you think I represent or am
>:|in conspiracy with?? The principal ecclesiastical organizations I have been
>:|affiliated with in the last 8 years are Princeton Seminary and the liberal
>:|wing of the Presbyterian Church. I don't attend church often any more.
>:|
>:|I now teach high school history at an non-religious college prep school.
>:|
>:|Gary Amos is a friend. So what? Most of my friends are Marxist-leaning
>:|academicians. So what?
>:|
>:|Jim Kennedy liked my book. So what? A few of my liberal professors at
>:|Princeton liked my book. So what?
>:|
>:|As Mr. Schulman has rightly observed, you have made a rather hasty and
>:|superficial assessment of me and my "position."
>:|
(1) Your arguments define your position far better then anything anyone
else has ever said about you.
(2) who endorses your book defines your position.
(3) your co-author defines your position
I haven't seen anything in ten months, from you, that are out of step with
what conclusions reasonable people could and probably would form about your
position based on the three things above.
Kenneth Childress
<buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>"Richard Tree" <rjtre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
>>:|That said, we all have a right to our views. Moreover, we all have a right
>>:|to argue them. Humanism and materialism are profound influences in our
>>:|institutions of "higher learning." Frankly, I believe the Secular
>>:|Humanist's agenda is deeper than just denying Christianity in Colonial
>>:|America.
>
>Secular Humanist?
Religious Right?
>Care to elaborate?
Why don't you elaborate on the definition of relgious right? You like
to throw it about frequently.
>The reference to such does give a bit of a handle on where you are coming
>from and does give some explanation why you tend to side with Gardiner.
Mr. Pot calling Mr. Kettle black again and looking like a hypocrit.
--
Kenneth Childress
<buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
[...]
>>:|> I call for
>>:|> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
>>:|> no purpose for those who battle against him.
>>:|
>>:|Supporters? LOL.
>>:|
>>:|If you take a studied look at who has been dragging "supporters" into the
>>:|colonial group who are not primarily interested in colonial history, the
>>:|record will show that it has been everyone EXCEPT me.
>
>Really? Hmmmmmm, what is your defender Childress doing here?
Getting some amusement. Are you implying Mr. Gardiner alerted me to
your antics in this hideaway?
>In the five years I have run into him on the net I have never known him to
>frequent the history NGs
So? You know little about me.
>>:|Have you ever noticed that a number of posters in here have "atheist #1415" as
>>:|part of their signature?
>
>How many? Who? What does that mean and how does that alter anything about
>you?
>
>Do you think it is impossible for others to drop in by themselves.
>Do you think it is impossible for others to have a variety of interests?
Maybe the same is true of those who side more with Mr. Gardiner than
they do you. Ever think of that?
Maybe if you would answer your own questions in light of your actions
you'd look a trifle less silly when you do post.
[...]
--
Henry Bariteau III
Christians???
cody...@yahoo.com wrote:
> When first encountering the religion-in-history group last year (my
> name for this bunch) I was amazed that grown men and women find time
> to argue about colonial American history details, especially as to
> whether religion in the colonies was 'a' factor or 'the overwhelming'
> factor behind the founders of these United States. For several months
> I naively did not understand the underlying cause of this conflict. I
> only felt indignation from such a group being able to invade several
> NG's, including alt.history.colonial, where content of their many long
> threads is SPAM, being off-topic and excessively crossposted.
>
> Fortunately, Mr. Jeff Sinclair's postings (listed below) helped me to
> now understand. This group is not debating history details to improve
> their collective knowledge, they are engulfed in an ideological
> struggle to establish whether Mr. Gardiner should be allowed to
> reconstruct history to meet his needs, viz. the founding fathers were
> 'orthodox Christians' with 'religion coursing through their veins' --
> which simply is not supported by the evidence presented.
> Coincidentally(?), it seems that Mr. Gardiner's attempt to reconstruct
> history falls in step with similar reconstructionist activities by
> Christian Right activist groups -- in order for them to (falsely)
> proclaim the United States was founded with intentions for it to be a
> 'Christian nation'...to justify their manipultation of Christian
> voters (and politicians) toward placing their nominees in many elected
> offices...in order for the Christian Right to control government at
> all levels...thereby 'returning' our nation to its 'intended'
> Christian control. Some might say "What's wrong with that, wouldn't
> we be better off with more leaders having high moral standards?" The
> danger is that our United States would be controlled by an intolerant
> religious theocracy, the very thing our nation's founders rightfully
> took so much care to prevent.
>
> Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon
> his reconstructionist efforts, he has lost. Short of this I call for
> him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
> propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
> SPAM. If he decides to continue my perspective says he should
> restrict himself to a political-religion type news-group. I call for
> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
> no purpose for those who battle against him. The resulting space at
> alt.history.colonial, for example, may then be used by subscribers
> having broad general interests in colonial American history.
>
> Introduction to my above understanding is contained in Mr. Jeff
> Sinclair's 4-part posting, all dated 1/9/2000, sub-entitled "Setting
> the Record Straight." Mr. Sinclair's postings in general seem to be
> well documented with great respect for the logical critical-thinking
> process. I hope many will investigate his thought provoking work:
>
> >]Message-ID: <85br7b$fmb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 1 11:37 PM
> >]Message-ID: <85br7l$fmd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 2 11:37 PM
> >]Message-ID: <85br82$fmh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 3 11:38 PM
> >]Message-ID: <85br8c$fmm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 4 11:38 PM
>
> These postings may be found under a thread entitled
> "The Founders Were Deists? (Part II)" started 1/8/2000 at:
> soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,sci.skeptic,alt.deism
>
> I will appreciate an experienced subscriber converting the above
> message ID's to URL addresses for easier access by readers.
>
> Btw, I at first had trouble with message URL's referenced in Jeff
> Sinclair's postings. I was successful only by copying/pasting the
> first line into my browser's URL- address pane, then the second line
> (with no space between) before clicking the 'enter' key to access the
> URL. By following these links and from exploring other web-links for
Richard Tree
>
>I have to wonder if you have understood the argument, then
>
Thank you for addressing my response. I would like to think I
understand the argument, however, it is possible that I do not have a
full grasp. Particularly since I came to this NG in the middle of the
debate.
I am a man of faith. I have a deep love of Christ and the Church.
However, I too *do not* believe that Christianity was the most
important influence -- directly. I simply view the most important
influence was the desire for liberty. But, I am inclined to believe
that Christianity -- Protestant Christianity to a large degree --
shaped the fundamental views of Liberty. Perhaps this is "splitting
hairs"
So when I see Mr. Gardiner argue a position, I see a person that
attempts to argue that Christian beliefs and Church influence shaped a
person's thoughts. When you argue, I see a position that all but
eliminates religious influence in the thought. However, I also learn
a great deal from your references and views regarding the construction
of government. Nevertheless, as you have said, the argument is not
that religion was a dominant influence but whether it was the most
important one. I consider it to be the most important, but not in as
obvious a manner.
>Secular Humanist?
Secular -- Worldly rather than spiritual.
Humanist -- One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of
human beings.
In other words: One that denies a spiritual influence that is
concerned with the welfare of human beings.
In my humble and not as well learned opinion, all founders were
influenced by Christianity -- whether they knew it or not.
R/
Richard
dr...@panix.com
> When first encountering the religion-in-history group last year (my
> name for this bunch) I was amazed that grown men and women find time
> to argue about colonial American history details, especially as to
> whether religion in the colonies was 'a' factor or 'the overwhelming'
> factor behind the founders of these United States. For several months
Here's an easy way to cut down on the noise:
killfiel any thread with the word deis* in it.
Very simple. Filters out 99% of the crap, and retains the
interesting stuff.
Andrew
mscu...@my-deja.com
Henry Bariteau III <h...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Were not the original settlers of this country, (that is the
Pilgrims) overt
> Christians???
They were Brownists and admitted seperatists. They also came here from
Holland where there was religious freedom. The majority of those coming
over on the Mayflower were "adventurers." Some were servants. Most all
were farmers. The reasons for leaving Holland can be found in William
Bradford's History.
The Puritans of 1630 came here for mostly religious reasons but they
claimed to not be spearating from the Church of England.
Plymouth and Massachusetts-Bay were at odds with each other more often
than not.
Just because those settling here happen to be from Western Europe and
mostly Christians is a no-brainer. However, saying that says nothing
for the reasons people came here.
buc...@exis.net
>:|Were not the original settlers of this country, (that is the Pilgrims) overt
>:|Christians???
Original settlers?
Hmmmmm, well what are now called native Americans were here before the
pilgrims, and they settled parts of the country.
In fact, they did a pretty good job in some areas, so good a job that some
have even stated that there is some strong evidence that some of the ideas
that were being lived out among the eastern Indians nations actually might
have made their way into our Constitution.
You see, there were several indian nations living in harmony in a sort of
confederacy in the east, and actually practiced forms of democracy and
maybe even a tad bit republicanism too.
A settlement was estqablished on Roanoke Island off the Coast of North
Carolina in 1587, but ultimately became famous for becoming the lost colony
of Roanoke (though in the last few years some additional information has
been uncovered pertaining to this colony and its people's fate.)
Along about 1607 Jamestown was established here in Virginia and thus began
the settlement of Virginia. (this is all very generalized and not detailed,
things didn't always go smoothly etc., but it was the beginning of the
settlement of North American by the white man.)
I think you will find that your Pilgrims didn't arrive in North America
until about 1620. By 1624 Virginia was firmly established and beginning to
prosper.
The Pilgrims were not really the original settlers. The original white
settlers of New England perhaps, but not of North America.
As far as being religious, yep, spect they qualify in that department,. but
it was more along the lines of religious freedom for them, not for all.
Gardiner
>
> In article <387F5C24...@sprintmail.com>,
> Henry Bariteau III <h...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> > Were not the original settlers of this country, (that is the
> Pilgrims) overt
> > Christians???
>
> Holland where there was religious freedom. The majority of those coming
> over on the Mayflower were "adventurers." Some were servants. Most all
> were farmers. The reasons for leaving Holland can be found in William
> Bradford's History.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Now let's look at a piece of Bradford's history in this regard:
"a great hope and inward zeal they had of laying some good foundation, or at
least to make some way hereunto, for the propagating and advancing the gospel of
the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world; yea, though they
should be but even as stepping-stones unto others for the performing of so great
a work.
These and some other like reasons moved them to undertake this resolution of
their removal; the which they afterward prosecuted with so great difficulties,
as by the sequel will appear."
> The Puritans of 1630 came here for mostly religious reasons
Yes indeed.
> Plymouth and Massachusetts-Bay were at odds with each other more often
> than not.
Evidence?
> Just because those settling here happen to be from Western Europe and
> mostly Christians is a no-brainer. However, saying that says nothing
> for the reasons people came here.
Perhaps it make sense to accept what these men said about "the reasons they came
here:"
"We all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim,
namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the
liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace"
Gardiner
>
> Henry Bariteau III <h...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> >:|Were not the original settlers of this country, (that is the Pilgrims) overt
> >:|Christians???
>
> settlers of New England perhaps, but not of North America.
>
> As far as being religious, yep, spect they qualify in that department,. but
> it was more along the lines of religious freedom for them, not for all.
Mr. Bariteau has the intuitive sentiments of the American founders such as
Samuel Adams. Alison has the sentiments of a typical frustrated 20th century
revisionist.
One of the more prominent signers of the Declaration spoke of the American
Revolutionary cause with reference to these "pilgrims," and his assessment of
their view of liberty is quite at odds with Alison's view. From Adams' view the
revolutionary conflict revolved around--
"the danger we are in, of the utter loss of those religious Rights, the
enjoyment of which our good forefathers had more especially in their intention,
when they explored and settled."
(S. Adams, Boston Gazette, April 4, 1768).
Adams said of the relationship of the revolutionaries to the first New England
settlers:
"We are the Descendants of Ancestors remarkable for their Zeal for true Religion
& Liberty: When they found it was no longer possible for them to bear any Part
in the Support of this glorious Cause in their Native Country England, they
transplanted themselves at their own very great Expence, into the Wilds of
America... this new world."
(Adams, Writings, I., p. 27).
Gardiner
>
> He doesn't seem to understand that his connection to and with his
> co-author, and especially when he has claimed to call this co-author on
> several occasion to get information for his arguments says a few things
> about him.
I called Amos about Gary Wills' critique of a footnote buried in the back of his
book, DEFENDING THE DECLARATION. I wanted to know if he was aware of it since it
was an argument which Curtis was leveling against Amos. I was not surprised to
find that Amos was quite aware of it, and also quite aware that Wills was dead
wrong on the publication date of Jefferson's "The Philosophy of Jesus."
I've never called Amos "to get information for my arguments." Perhaps I should
do as you do and tell you where to blow it.
Na. The vulgarities are your department. Or is that Sinclair's dept.
> There is information on the web about this co-authoir that very much places
> that person well within the framework of the far religious right.
There is information on the web that places Alison within the framework of the
Wiccan Pagan cult. (http://members.aol.com/Talendear/whoidx.html)
> No one has to explain Gardiner to anyone else, he does it all by himself.
Alison is unquestionably associated with American Atheists
http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt
> >:|My interest is in the socio-cultural milieu of the American colonial and
> >:|revolutionary periods. If you, Alison, or Sinclair sees in this some
> >:|"right-wing conspiracy," well, you can keep on fantasizing with Hilary.
>
> if the above was so true, then I wonder why he frequently moves out beyond
> that period in his posting.
If that happens, it is usually in response to someone else bringing up a modern
Supreme Ct. case or something (like you have done frequently in alt.colonial)
> >:|> I call for
> >:|> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
> >:|> no purpose for those who battle against him.
> >:|
> >:|Supporters? LOL.
> >:|
> >:|If you take a studied look at who has been dragging "supporters" into the
> >:|colonial group who are not primarily interested in colonial history, the
> >:|record will show that it has been everyone EXCEPT me.
>
> Really? Hmmmmmm, what is your defender Childress doing here?
>
> In the five years I have run into him on the net I have never known him to
> frequent the history NGs
You'll have to ask him why he is here. Two things are absolutely a fact: 1)
Childress was definitely not contacted by me to come post in alt.colonial, quite
frankly, I have no clue as to how he came across these threads, and 2) Childress
has been rather "unsupportive" of me in some respects (e.g., abrasive tactics),
which is a quite different and respectable posture than one sees coming from the
ideological leftists.
> >:|Have you ever noticed that a number of posters in here have "atheist #1415" as
> >:|part of their signature?
>
> How many? Who? What does that mean and how does that alter anything about
> you?
Well, in the last two weeks we've had Jeff, Nash, and Pastor Stevo. In the past
we've been blessed with the occasional trolling of Maff91 and his ilk.
What it means is that the attacks on an honest history which acknowledges the
centrality of religion in early America are largely rooted in an antagonistic
disposition to religion in general. It is not a balanced critique.
> I haven't even hit you with the 1400 or 1500 pages of material I have on it
> involved in my project.. Actually, some of it does get into the colonial
> period, and it is 99.9% historical documents, very little, next to no
> commentary. And no, it isn't a bunch of URLs to other sites for documents,
> it is the real Mccoy (BTW u ever hear the story behind that phrase? its
> pretty interesting)
IIRC it had to do with smuggling liquor during Prohibition. Now who is "posting"
outside of the parameters of 1600-1800?
> Kill file just means they get to make their arguments and you don't
> respond. Therefore, any readers only get their side. Doesn't bode well for
> you, does it? :o)
I followed your lead in this regard:
On 12/27/99, ALISON WROTE:
"To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't even read his
posts/replies. I delete them."
I guess Schulman's incisive remarks were just too much for you. Doesn't bode
well for you, does it? :o)
> >:|Exactly which "Christian Right" activist group do you think I represent or am
> >:|in conspiracy with?? The principal ecclesiastical organizations I have been
> >:|affiliated with in the last 8 years are Princeton Seminary and the liberal
> >:|wing of the Presbyterian Church. I don't attend church often any more.
> >:|
> >:|I now teach high school history at an non-religious college prep school.
> >:|
> >:|Gary Amos is a friend. So what? Most of my friends are Marxist-leaning
> >:|academicians. So what?
> >:|
> >:|Jim Kennedy liked my book. So what? A few of my liberal professors at
> >:|Princeton liked my book. So what?
> >:|
> >:|As Mr. Schulman has rightly observed, you have made a rather hasty and
> >:|superficial assessment of me and my "position."
> >:|
>
> (1) Your arguments define your position far better then anything anyone
> else has ever said about you.
This is very true.
> (2) who endorses your book defines your position.
The group that you call "we" defines your position (WICCANS)?
> (3) your co-author defines your position
Those who endorse your writing defines your position
(http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt)
> I haven't seen anything in ten months, from you, that are out of step with
> what conclusions reasonable people could and probably would form about your
> position based on the three things above.
I haven't seen anything from you in ten months that is out of step with Wiccans,
Atheists, and other radical groups who claim you.
RG
Nathan McClean
Thanks for the tips regarding your plans to use killfiles.
Personally, I think I'll hang on for awhile. I'm more of a pragmatist
than acedemic and won't have scholarly contributions -- but now that I
understand the ideological struggle that's going here I find it rather
interesting. A positive for this group is their presentation of many
historical documents that I probably would not have read in detail
otherwise. However, I still believe that Gardiner's propaganda is
off-topic in the sense that its obvious purpose is to further
Protestant Religious Right (extremist) interests of politico-religious
nature, therefore being a political/religion topic -- having nothing
to do with true and accurate contributions to the knowledge base of
American colonial history or the Revolutionary War.
I add 'extremist' above to recognize that many supporters of Religious
Right causes undoubtedly are unaware of behind-the-scenes activities
to reconstruct history, or are unaware of the dangers to American
freedom that could result from such endeavors. I lean to the right on
many issues myself but was appalled to recently learn of such
so-called 'stealth' activities by the extremists. (Re: info from
postings by Jeff Sinclair listed in my intital article of this
thread.)
So...I must apoligize for following Gardiner's lead in being off-topic
and crossposting until his decision to quit or leave the history NG's.
But please note that I restricted my posting to 'only' four NG's, far
less than Gardiner's. Crossposting to more than four NG's is SPAM per
Usenet rules, Re: Deja.com web page, where the 'four' pertains to a
'need,' not meant to be routinely abused.
Nathan McClean (cody...@yahoo.com)
Nathan McClean
[snip]
>]Pardon me for jumping in, but I reject calls for censorship also. In
>]the market place of ideas Mr. Gardiner is entitled to present his
>]arguments and those of us who disagree may disagree. I would call on
>]Mr. Gardiner to discuss the arguments we are making about colonial
>]society and not redesign our arguments in his own fashion. Discussion
>]is not spam. The content of posts addressing Mr. Gardiner's arguments
>]are not spam. I consider posts to be spam if one is posting colonial
>]history to alt.islam and other places. When Mr. Gardiner decided to use
>]David Irving as a source I directed my response to alt.revisionism
>]since David Irving (and Hitler) haven't much to do with colonial
>]history. That's how these things happen. Your post here is going to
>]historical groups and to a skeptic group. Okay, I understand the
>]relationship between skepticism and the battle against pseudo-history
>]and pseudo-science.
My intent is not to censor, it is to challenge him to leave the
history NG's voluntarily. Some might say this is a type of censorship
but I say that Gardiner's propaganda is off-topic in the sense that
its obvious purpose is to further Protestant Religious Right
(extremist) interests of politico-religious nature, therefore being a
political/religion newsgroup topic -- his propaganda has nothing to do
with true and accurate contributions to the knowledge base of American
colonial history including the American Revolutionary War. Followers
and contesters of Gardiner subscribe to the history NG's primarily
because he does.
As to SPAM this is also defined as crossposting an article or response
to more than four newsgroups regardless of the discussion or response
content, with 'four' being based on an occasional 'need,' not to be
constantly abused. Re: Deja.com web page.
I posted to two history NG's along with two others only to follow
Gardiner's lead, I'm not prould of it. To further demonstrate
SPAMMING within the religion-topic group, RL Johnson posted an article
on 1/3/2000 *only* to the alt.history.colonial NG. Gardiner's
immediate 'response' went out to seven (7) different NG's under a new
title, see Message-ID: <387179E2...@pitnet.net> . Gardiner then
used the same posting by Johnson to start yet another thread on
1/11/2000, sending it out to two history NG's which had already been
recipients of his first 'response.' Re: Message-ID:
<387C1666...@pitnet.net>
This again demonstrates that Gardiner is more interested in spreading
his propaganda tale to as large an audience that he thinks he can get
away with -- rather than being truly interested in contributing to a
particular topic.
[snip]
>]Also I find it difficult to discuss colonial history without there
>]being a religious facet. It is nearly impossible to discuss colonial
>]New England without it. Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland,
>]Pennsylvania and several others are difficult discussions without
>]having religion come into the history. My concern is emphasis and
>]perspective. EVen the Indian Wars had a religious aspect in
>]Massachusetts-Bay.
Some if not many threads by this group have gone far afield of
colonial American history topics: ancient Hebrew history, biblical
interpretations and dogs being a few I recall off hand. Religion (and
politics) can be read into many topics, religion is the entire world
to some people, but I don't believe this makes it right or courteous
of Mr. Gardiner to overwhelm the colonial history and US Rev War
newsgroups with obiously religion-only topics when there are religion
or other applicable newsgroups available.
[snip]
>]> Btw, I at first had trouble with message URL's referenced in Jeff
>]> Sinclair's postings. I was successful only by copying/pasting the
>]> first line into my browser's URL- address pane, then the second line
>]> (with no space between) before clicking the 'enter' key to access the
>]> URL.
>]
>]What news reader are you using?
I'm using Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243. Any advice will be
appreciated.
Nathan (cody...@yahoo.com)
Nathan McClean
<Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>]mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>]>
>]> In article <387bcd09...@news.arthur.k12.il.us>,
>]> cody...@yahoo.com wrote:
>]>
>]> [snip]
>]>
>]> > Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon
>]> > his reconstructionist efforts, he has lost. Short of this I call for
>]> > him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
>]> > propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
>]> > SPAM.
>]>
>]> Pardon me for jumping in, but I reject calls for censorship also. In
>]> the market place of ideas Mr. Gardiner is entitled to present his
>]> arguments and those of us who disagree may disagree.
>]
>]It seems that Curtis and Alison have at least read enough of the likes of
>]Locke, Madison, and Jefferson to at least appreciate the freedoms that they championed.
>]
>]Yes, we see here who "talks" about the emphasis of the american
>]revolutionaries' commitment to liberty of conscience and freedom of speech,
>]and who actually embraces these principles in practice.
I may not be your scholarly type but your inferring that I don't
appreciate my country's freedom is trashy on your part, typical of
your reaction to anyone who does not agree with you.
>]
>]Second, Cody's pigeon-holing me as a "reconstructionist" demonstrates that he
>]doesn't know me very well. The few reconstructionists whom I have come across
>]in this world have rejected me as a communist liberal.
Mr. Gardiner, I know plenty about your beliefs and characteristics
from reading your many, many postings. An attempt to disguise your
pigeon-hole is noted.
[snip, not addressed to me.]
>]
>]Well, I don't intend to go too far. Cody and the other discontents can learn
>]to operate his mail filter the same way I have learned to operate mine.
>]
>]Thanks.
>]
>]RG
Mr. Gardiner, I don't believe I should have to learn 'any' special
techniques so that you may continue with your SPAMMING propanganda. I
note you did not respond to my comments about your many excessively
crossposted SPAMMING threads.
Nathan
Nathan McClean
You're welcome, Dan. I too had difficulties until Jeff Sinclair's
postings led me to further investigation. An important matter that I
didn't cover in my posting is that Gardiner has been touting his book
for at least a year, which was *co-authored* by Gary Amos, a law
professor at the Pat Robertson School of Government at Regent
University, supported by Pat Robertson’s organization. From Jeff
Sinclair's postings, Amos is also prominently listed as at least a
sympathizer of a group devoted in part or in whole to tearing down the
wall of separation between church and state.
This establishes the likely tie with Gardiner's reconstructionist
propaganda at our history NG's. Sinclair's postings have much more
info that is interesting to read and learn -- that may lead you to
study other web sites if you have time. I found this study to be very
revealing, I am amazed that such activities are occurring in our
society.
Nathan
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:29:31 -0600, Dan Cyr <dan...@execpc.com> wrote:
>]Thanks. As a lurker for the past few days, reading the many posts for the
>]
Nathan McClean
<Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>]Richard A. Schulman wrote:
>]>
>]> <cody...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>]>
>]> Cody Ann, is that you?
Mr. Schulman's attempt to punish me in a 'superior' sexist manner is
noted. My name was omitted in my initial posting, it is now present.
>]>
>]> >...This group is not debating history details to improve
>]> > their collective knowledge, they are engulfed in an ideological
>]> > struggle to establish whether Mr. Gardiner should be allowed to
>]> > reconstruct history to meet his needs, viz. the founding fathers were
>]> > 'orthodox Christians' with 'religion coursing through their veins' --
>]> > which simply is not supported by the evidence presented.
>]>
>]> Nor is Mr. Gardiner's position so unnuanced. He certainly has not presented
>]> Franklin and Jefferson as have been orthodox Christians. You have
>]> maliciously represented his views.
Not malicious nor misrepresented at all, Mr. Gardiner has said so many
different things in so many different threads in so many different
NG's I'm sure you can cite an instance where what you say is true. I
am responding to the 'bottom line' of his presentations, like in the
bottom line of a financial statement, like in the summary or
conclusion of his presentations, which may or may not be applicable to
a singular instance of the total.
>]>
>]> > Coincidentally(?), it seems that Mr. Gardiner's attempt to reconstruct
>]> > history falls in step with similar reconstructionist activities by
>]> > Christian Right activist groups -- in order for them to (falsely)
>]> > proclaim the United States was founded with intentions for it to be a
>]> > 'Christian nation'...to justify their manipultation of Christian
>]> > voters (and politicians) toward placing their nominees in many elected
>]> > offices...in order for the Christian Right to control government at
>]> > all levels...thereby 'returning' our nation to its 'intended'
>]> > Christian control.
>]>
>]> Rick Gardiner has offended a wolf pack of left-liberal secularists --
>]> including, obviously, yourself -- who are the real revisionists. His posts
>]> have not been part of a Christian Right agenda. He's a historian who's had
>]> much of interest to say and who has created a useful Web site -- more than I
>]> can say for his opponents. The wolf-pack has been drowning four newsgroups,
>]> including the one I participate in (soc.history.war.us-revolution) in
>]> diatribe, name-calling, repetitious multikilobyte cut-and-pasting, featuring
>]> a minimum of solid historical scholarship or even wit. I've stopped reading
>]> most of this crap (I'm referring to Sinclair and Curtis, principally).
I agree only with your feelings about Gardiner, his supporters and
contesters 'drowning' the history NG's. My observations indicate
Gardiner and his supporters initiate and conduct the vast majority of
vicious name-calling, especially when that's the only ammunition they
have. What do you do in your first response to me, you say I am
obviously a left-liberal secularist. If you must know, my values and
positions lean to the right on most issues.
>]>
>]> You, Cody, aren't performing a useful service by setting up your own
>]> gratuitous howling. Take your polemic against the Christian Right elsewhere.
>]> It's off topic in alt.history.colonial and soc.history.war.us-revolution.
Gardiner's propaganda is all off-topic at history NG's as I said when
initiating this thread, that's why I'm here.
>]>
>]> > Short of this I call for
>]> > him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
>]> > propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
>]> > SPAM.
>]>
>]> ROTFL. Cody, please explain your qualifications and contributions to the
>]> field of American colonial history. Incidentally, I haven't done the
>]> research on this in Deja Vu, but I'll stick my neck out and bet you that the
>]> cross-postings to sci.skeptic and alt.deism were the work of Mr. Gardiner's
>]> opponents, not himself.
Mr. Schulman, must I be a PhD to qualify, can't anyone participate,
not those who want separation of church and state (religion and
government) continued in our nation, after our founders so carefully
established this principle? I've stated my conerns about the
crossposted SPAMMING within this group elsewhere within this thread.
The example of Gardiner taking one posting to one newsgroup and making
two new threads in his 'responses,' one being sent out to seven
different NG's takes the prize I believe. But let's decide later.
>]> --
>]> Richard Schulman
>]
>]I never knew that sci.skeptic even existed until someone else crossposted to
>]that group. I'm quite sure that Robert Johnson is the source of the alt.deism
>]post, although I would agree that most of the subject matter of the discussion
>]is appropriate for a deism group.
>]
>]RG
Mr. Gardiner, please refer to the above example of your SPAM that is
cited by message ID elsewhere in this thread. I don't agree that
alt.deism is an appropriate group except when you're on deist topics,
I believe the appropriate newsgroup for your interest is one in the
politico-religious arena.
Nathan
Nathan McClean
<rjtre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
Thank you for your views. I am convinced there is an ideological
struggle here that goes far beyond any academic interest in American
history. I intend to focus on the stuggle.
Nathan
Nathan McClean
<Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>]cody...@yahoo.com wrote:
>]>
>]> Coincidentally(?), it seems that Mr. Gardiner's attempt to reconstruct
>]> history falls in step with similar reconstructionist activities by
>]> Christian Right activist groups -- in order for them to (falsely)
>]> proclaim the United States was founded with intentions for it to be a
>]> 'Christian nation'...to justify their manipultation of Christian
>]> voters (and politicians) toward placing their nominees in many elected
>]> offices...in order for the Christian Right to control government at
>]> all levels...thereby 'returning' our nation to its 'intended'
>]> Christian control.
>]
>]What in the world are you talking about? The last thing I would want is for
>]any religious institution to have "control" of the civil government. That is
>]entirely in opposition to the will of the founders. The United States of
>]America does not and should not have an established religion.
Maybe a super-strong influence sounds better? Or, maybe you have
conjured up a new CYA definition for some obscure word in the above,
like you seem to be good at doing? Or maybe you knew absolutely
nothing about the beliefs of your book's co-author and yours are
completely opposite to his?...yeau, right.
>]
>]> Some might say "What's wrong with that, wouldn't
>]> we be better off with more leaders having high moral standards?"
>]
>]Some might say that, but I sure wouldn't. A good number of the founders of the
>]U.S. did not have very high moral standards.
I agree with you on this one.
>]
>]> The
>]> danger is that our United States would be controlled by an intolerant
>]> religious theocracy, the very thing our nation's founders rightfully
>]> took so much care to prevent.
>]
>]Exactly. So where is this great disagreement you think you have with me.
>]Apparently you have been duped by Alison and Sinclair's nonsense that I am
>]somehow in a conspiracy with the 700 club to get Pat Robertson into the White House.
Please re-read my intial posting at this thread. You have also not
responded to the referenced postings by Jeff Sinclair, cited in mine.
These provide the basis for our 'disagreement.' I look forward to
your response.
>]
>]I'll probably do a write in vote for Ted Koppel.
>]
>]> Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon
>]> his reconstructionist efforts, he has lost. Short of this I call for
>]> him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
>]> propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
>]> SPAM. If he decides to continue my perspective says he should
>]> restrict himself to a political-religion type news-group.
>]
>]My interest is in the socio-cultural milieu of the American colonial and
>]revolutionary periods. If you, Alison, or Sinclair sees in this some
>]"right-wing conspiracy," well, you can keep on fantasizing with Hilary.
Your postings indicate your strongest interests lie in religion
related arenas along with your reconstructionist propaganda.
>]
>]> I call for
>]> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
>]> no purpose for those who battle against him.
>]
>]Supporters? LOL.
>]
>]If you take a studied look at who has been dragging "supporters" into the
>]colonial group who are not primarily interested in colonial history, the
>]record will show that it has been everyone EXCEPT me.
Oh, my, you are the 'only' one? It is obvious to me that both sides
of this conflict have done their homework.
>]
>]Do you remember a guy named Stevens who posted in here for a few weeks?? He
>]was a recruit from alt.jewish. Who do you think lured Sinclair into this
>]group? His initial introduction to this group was a series of posts about the
>]Ancient Israelites--entirely off subject for this group.
I recall there being 'many' off-topic and crossposted SPAMMING
discussions over many months, yours included. In fact, the basis of
yours is only on-topic in a politico-religious arena.
>]
>]Have you ever noticed that a number of posters in here have "atheist #1415" as
>]part of their signature? and one who claimed to be the president of
>]Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas (CLIT). Guess who attracted them to the fray? Do
>]you think they were a natural part of the colonial history group, or do you
>]think it is more likely that they were lured in here with a cross post by one
>]of the leftist ideologues?
I won't fall into your trap and practice of pointing fingers and
name-calling. You seem to have a bad name for anyone who disagrees
with you, and you try to make others who are lurking believe that all
who disagree should fit somewhere in a garbage bag. I'm not an
atheist so please omit that category for me.
>]
>]There are a number of persons in the group who have been interested in
>]colonial history. As much as I think Modacc was erroneos, the conversation was
>]appropriate for colonial history. Mr. Tree, Mr. Schulman, and even Mr. Curtis
>](occasionally), have demonstrated a sincere interest in colonial American
>]discussions. Alison is simply an ideologue who uses the forum to grind his
>]political axe.
>]
>]I would be curious to know what you think colonial america was all about?
Let's stay on-topic in this thread, entitled "History
Reconstructionist Revealed."
>]
>]> The resulting space at
>]> alt.history.colonial, for example, may then be used by subscribers
>]> having broad general interests in colonial American history.
>]
>]You speak as if there is a limited amount of memory on the newsgroup server.
>]Perhaps you need to take a basic course in computer science in this regard.
>]You might be surprised to find out that alt.history.colonial is not in danger
>]of losing all its memory, even in light of Alison dumping the entire contents
>]of his hard drive on this server.
I am concerned about the lack of general-interest postings at the
American history NG's where your many threads have overwhelmed them.
Even Mr. Schulman speaks of this. Most people by far arrive with no
experience with 'busy' newsgroups like sci.skeptic. When they see the
long line of 'religion' threads most leave without even posting a
question or contributing. Most know little or nothing about filters.
>]
>]> Introduction to my above understanding is contained in Mr. Jeff
>]> Sinclair's 4-part posting, all dated 1/9/2000, sub-entitled "Setting
>]> the Record Straight." Mr. Sinclair's postings in general seem to be
>]> well documented with great respect for the logical critical-thinking
>]> process. I hope many will investigate his thought provoking work:
>]
>]I haven't seen these posts. Sinclair is filtered out by my browser. This was a
>]decision I made as a result of his refusal to cease with vulgarities and
>]immature inuendoes about the holocaust. If you find that sort of tactic to be
>]respectable, then by all means enjoy.
Mr. Gardiner, please refer to the Sinclair postings cited in my
initial posting at this thread, along with message ID's -- to give you
the benefit of doubt about your not reading them. I believe these
address matters that are in the hearts and minds of your contesters.
If you ignore them this is avoiding the issue. You must know that
your contesters won't go away until you do.
>]
>]> By following these links and from exploring other web-links for
>]> Christian Right activist groups I believe most who investigate will
>]> agree with my understanding and concerns. Even a disagreeing reader
>]> will be better informed.
>]
>]Exactly which "Christian Right" activist group do you think I represent or am
>]in conspiracy with?? The principal ecclesiastical organizations I have been
>]affiliated with in the last 8 years are Princeton Seminary and the liberal
>]wing of the Presbyterian Church. I don't attend church often any more.
Just read the Sinclair postings, it's all there.
>]
>]I now teach high school history at an non-religious college prep school.
>]
>]Gary Amos is a friend. So what? Most of my friends are Marxist-leaning
>]academicians. So what?
>]
>]Jim Kennedy liked my book. So what? A few of my liberal professors at
>]Princeton liked my book. So what?
>]
>]As Mr. Schulman has rightly observed, you have made a rather hasty and
>]superficial assessment of me and my "position."
>]
>]RG
Yes, so what. Please address the issues raised by Sinclair's
postings, or better, just return the American history newsgroups to
general-interest users.
Nathan
mscu...@my-deja.com
cody...@yahoo.com (Nathan McClean) wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:03:25 GMT, mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >]the market place of ideas Mr. Gardiner is entitled to present his
> >]Mr. Gardiner to discuss the arguments we are making about colonial
> >]society and not redesign our arguments in his own fashion.
Discussion
> >]is not spam. The content of posts addressing Mr. Gardiner's
arguments
> >]are not spam. I consider posts to be spam if one is posting colonial
> >]history to alt.islam and other places. When Mr. Gardiner decided to
use
> >]David Irving as a source I directed my response to alt.revisionism
> >]since David Irving (and Hitler) haven't much to do with colonial
> >]history. That's how these things happen. Your post here is going to
> >]historical groups and to a skeptic group. Okay, I understand the
> >]relationship between skepticism and the battle against pseudo-
history
> >]and pseudo-science.
>
> My intent is not to censor, it is to challenge him to leave the
> history NG's voluntarily.
He isn't about to do so. So why bother. It's possible we may be getting
into a rehash of a discussion concerning why the "Pilgrims" came to
this country. It'll have to do with both religion and money. Both
facets are worth noting. I will attempt to place the emphasis where it
belongs, however.
> Some might say this is a type of censorship
> but I say that Gardiner's propaganda is off-topic in the sense that
Propaganda, as you well know, can be true. It can be false. At least
Gardiner is willing to respond unlike some other people who post and
never respond. That is close to real spam.
> its obvious purpose is to further Protestant Religious Right
So what? As long as he speaks out then he can be refuted. The same is
true for holocaust deniers. We liked them speaking out for we could
show people not familiar with the history what fools they are. WE also
are able to show readers the tactics they use. Whatever you think
Gardiner's purpose is, he is free to express those ideas as others are
to comment on them. This is what the framers intented when they wrote
the first amendment.
> (extremist) interests of politico-religious nature, therefore being a
> political/religion newsgroup topic -- his propaganda has nothing to do
> with true and accurate contributions to the knowledge base of American
> colonial history including the American Revolutionary War. Followers
Actually, he is right and wrong. He mixes truth in with his
distortions. If he is left alone to distort then young readers or those
not familiar with the history will think that he is totally correct. I
respond to him because I strongly believe in accurate history. If you
think *I* have an axe to grind then you haven't been reading *my*
responses to Gardiner over the past year or so.
> and contesters of Gardiner subscribe to the history NG's primarily
> because he does.
I subscribe to the colonial news group because I have had a 25 year
focus with colonial New England. That's where my interest is. That's
why *I* subscribe.
> As to SPAM this is also defined as crossposting an article or response
> to more than four newsgroups regardless of the discussion or response
> content, with 'four' being based on an occasional 'need,' not to be
> constantly abused. Re: Deja.com web page.
Deja news does not run usenet. They have their rules and they are good
rules. I was a sysop and moderator on Compuserve for two years or so. I
do know what spam is and what is discussion. As long as discussion is
taking place it is not spam. Crossposting happens because parts of the
discussion swing into other areas. There are honest reasons for
crossposting. There are also other reasons and you might ask the person
who originally posted the thread why it belongs there if it concerns
you.
> I posted to two history NG's along with two others only to follow
> Gardiner's lead, I'm not prould of it. To further demonstrate
> SPAMMING within the religion-topic group, RL Johnson posted an article
> on 1/3/2000 *only* to the alt.history.colonial NG.
Actually he has posted to others. And he does not respond to people
commenting on his original posts. That, too me, constitutes spam. It
would on CompuServe forums. But since he focuses on certain newsgroups
having to do with deism and colonial, revolutionary periods he can do
so. Since he doesn't respond I simply do not take the time any longer
to read his posts. He's not posting to discuss. Gardiner does discuss.
[snip]
> This again demonstrates that Gardiner is more interested in spreading
> his propaganda tale to as large an audience that he thinks he can get
> away with -- rather than being truly interested in contributing to a
> particular topic.
I do realize that Gardiner is a propagandist. Yet, he is a propagandist
he "discusses" his propaganda. It really hacks me off to be in the
position here to defend some of what he does. I'm not defending his
style of debate of some of his tactics. However, he isn't violating any
strong usenet rule that I'm aware of.
> [snip]
>
> >]Also I find it difficult to discuss colonial history without there
> >]being a religious facet. It is nearly impossible to discuss colonial
> >]New England without it. Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland,
> >]Pennsylvania and several others are difficult discussions without
> >]having religion come into the history. My concern is emphasis and
> >]perspective. EVen the Indian Wars had a religious aspect in
> >]Massachusetts-Bay.
>
> Some if not many threads by this group have gone far afield of
> colonial American history topics: ancient Hebrew history,
That will happen during discussions. It's a fact of human conversation
that digressions will occur.
> biblical
> interpretations and dogs being a few I recall off hand. Religion (and
> politics) can be read into many topics, religion is the entire world
> to some people, but I don't believe this makes it right or courteous
> of Mr. Gardiner to overwhelm the colonial history and US Rev War
> newsgroups with obiously religion-only topics when there are religion
> or other applicable newsgroups available.
I do agree that some of that was off-topic in the group. Yet it did
show Mr. Gardiner's knowledge for what it was and it also showed his
debate style for what it is. I have a subtle interest in it because I
have an interest in what is called Puritanism.
We all digress at times. You'll have to pardon us for being imperfect.
> [snip]
>
> >]> Btw, I at first had trouble with message URL's referenced in Jeff
> >]> Sinclair's postings. I was successful only by copying/pasting the
> >]> first line into my browser's URL- address pane, then the second
line
> >]> (with no space between) before clicking the 'enter' key to access
the
> >]> URL.
> >]
> >]What news reader are you using?
>
> I'm using Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243. Any advice will be
> appreciated.
Buy the real version. It's worth it. It's $30 and you can download it.
They are up to Version 1.7. It's a wonderful product.
buc...@exis.net
PART I
ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|In article <ne8u7s0la9s5f2pi5...@4ax.com>,
>:| <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>:|>"Richard Tree" <rjtre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|[...]
>:|
>:|>>:|That said, we all have a right to our views. Moreover, we all have a right
>:|>>:|to argue them. Humanism and materialism are profound influences in our
>:|>>:|institutions of "higher learning." Frankly, I believe the Secular
>:|>>:|Humanist's agenda is deeper than just denying Christianity in Colonial
>:|>>:|America.
>:|>
>:|>Secular Humanist?
>:|
>:|Religious Right?
>:|
>:|>Care to elaborate?
>:|
>:|Why don't you elaborate on the definition of relgious right? You like
>:|to throw it about frequently.
Already posted that to you, couple of times a long time ago, and then at
least once recently.
But, hey, no problem, can do it again..
Afterwards perhaps you can then explain secular humanists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE "RELIGIOUS RIGHT": A DEFINITION
The groups and activists described in these pages dislike the designation
"religious right" -- a promiscuous media concoction that has sometimes lent
itself to caricature and derogation. Religious conservatives usually prefer
a less sectarian tag, like the irenic "pro-family movement," or the fuzzy
"people of faith." Most Americans consider themselves "pro-family" and
claim religious faith, however, and the phrase "religious right" is fair
when it is specific: in this report it refers to an array of politically
conservative religious groups and individuals who are attempting to
influence public policy based on a shared cultural philosophy that is
antagonistic to pluralism and church/state separation. The movement
consists mainly of Protestants, most of them evangelical or fundamentalist,
a far smaller number of Catholics, and a smattering of Jews.
Some stereotype-busting is in order. The majority of evangelicals and
fundamentalists -- roughly 30 million Americans -- are not affiliated with
religious right groups. Billy Graham, most notably, has not made cornrnon
cause with the movement, and such leading evangelical figur-es as Crystal
Cathedral televangelist Robert Schuller and former Surgeon General C.
Everett Koop have maintained a congenial distance. Additionally, while
religious right activists are almost exclusively members of the Republican
Party, many evangelicals are Democrats. These include Jimmy Carter, to name
a famous example, most born-again African-Americans, and a small
constellation of evangelical activists that may be dubbed the "religious
left." A number of socially conservative Catholics also tend to vote
Democratic.
For these reasons, while religious right voter registration efforts and
shifting affiliations have added millions of white evangelicals to GOP
rolls since 1979, the popular characterization of devout Christians as
diehard Republicans is distorted. According to 1992 Gallup surveys, while
41 percent of` Republicans identified themselves as "born again," the
proportion was nearly the same for Democrats -- 39 percent. SiInilarly, 79
percent of Republicans claim to be church members, as do 71 percent of
Democrats. Further, 65 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of
Democrats agree that religion is "very important" in their lives.'
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Religious Right: The assault on Tolerance &
Pluralism in America, A Publication of the Anti-Defamation League, (1994)
pp 7.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A List of SOME of the groups and individuals that make up the Religious
Right.
Pat Robertson:
The Christian Coalition:
Billy McCormack
The American Center for Law and Justice
Jay Sekulow
David Barton
Focus on the Family
Dr. James C. Dobson
The American Family Association
Donald Wildmon
The Free Congress Foundation
Paul Weyrich
Citizens for Excellence in Education
Concerned Women for America
Traditional Values Coalition
Operation Rescue
Terry Randall
Reconstructionists
John (R.J). Rushdoony
Gary NorthDavid Chilton
Gary DeMar
James Jordon
Coalition on Revivial
Jay Grimstead
Joseph Morecraft
Robert Thoburn
Gary Amos
Joseph Kickasola
Regent University
Steven Hotze
Rutherford Institute
John Whitehead
Jerry Falwell
Phyllis Schlafly
Beverly LaHaye
Lou Sheldon
Eagle Forum
D. Jaames Kennedy
Coral Ridge Ministries
----------------------------------------------------------------
The above is a list of just SOME. of the individuals and organizations that
are referred to when the term *Religious Right* or *Radical Religious
Right* or *Ultra Religious Right* is used.
BTW the above information comes from the same publication as cited above.
TO BE CONTINUED (aren'tr you really glad you asked)
buc...@exis.net
PART II
The battle being waged by the Christian Right to reclaim American for
Christ is being waged on other fronts as well. The extreme right-wing of
the movement is prominently occupied by the Reconstructionists, who believe
fervently that the law given by God for the political, legal, and spiritual
ordering of ancient Israel as set forth in the Old Testament is intended
for all people in all ages. Consequently, the United States should adopt
and implement the Mosaic Code as the theocratic foundation of its legal
system. Under the Reconstructionists' political theology, religious liberty
for all Americans would essentially cease, and all heresy would be stamped
out through the enforcement of biblical law.
One new strategy of the Reconstructionists is to identify all Christian
pastors across America who support their views, as well as those who do
not. According to Reconstructionist leader Jay Rogers, "the idea is to
divide the church in America into two camps: 1) those who are committed to
the battle for a Christian republic, and 2) those who are committed to 'the
myth of neutrality' or who are openly opposed to rebuilding a Christian
nation." All church leaders would be asked to sign a statement confirming
their allegiance; the lists would then be Posted on the Internet, made the
subject of press releases, and disseminated by mail. Those not aligning
with the cause would be "recruited" for membership. National synods of the
new "Confessing Church in America" would be held in odd-numbered years over
the next decade. The ultimate goal would be to build a spiritual army
"organized to re-build America upon the principles of the Bible," according
to Reconstructionist precepts. The "Confessing Church" would also issue
prayer Proclamations to call attention to misfits such as "Jesse Jackson,
Peter Comes (the openly homosexual 'Professor of Christian Morals at
Harvard'), or whoever are the 'pestilent prelates' God raises up and
hardens to oppose the 'Confessing Church' in the 21st century." The
"Confessing Church" would also pay for full-page ads in newspapers
around the country proclaiming that "A vote for Al Core is a sin against
God." Finally, as the United States was formed by a "Declaration of
Independence," the new America would be governed by a formal
"Declaration of Dependence Upon God," which calls for, among other
things, a turn away from "humanism and lawlessness" to a "covenanted
nation of biblical warrant."
In many ways, of course, the rhetoric of the mainstream Christian Right
is sometimes indistinguishable from that of Reconstructionists. Jerry
Falwell, for example, asserts that "God promoted America to a greatness as
no other nation has ever enjoyed because her heritage is one of a republic
government by laws predicated on the Bible." David Barton, in his widely
circulated book, The Myth of Separation, argues that the founding fathers
intended "that this nation should be a Christian nation; not because all
who lived in it were Christians, but because it was founded on and would be
governed by Christian principles." But the overall political agenda of the
Christian Right is less extreme, less strident in tone, and less theocratic
than the Reconstructionists. The Christian Right's political model might
have theocratic tendencies, but it would be a distinctly "Christianized"
version based more on the New Testament covenant emphasizing grace than the
Old Testament covenant emphasizing law. There would be, in theory, freedom
for non- Christians to worship according to conscience, with the hope that
they would, over time, become convinced of the merits of a nation
constructed on biblical principles. Non-Christians would not be denied the
right to worship privately according to their own beliefs, but they would
be expected to submit to a Public agenda that implemented Christian ideals
in many quarters. There would be Christian prayer in the public schools,
Christian symbols in the public square, public monies available to
religious enterprises (with most going to those operated by the culturally
dominant faith, Christianity), and governments in which the principal seats
were held by Christians.
The operative church-state legal framework would be Chief Justice William
H. Rehnquist"s nonpreferentialism. Rather than placing limits on
government's ability to be an advocate of religion in general, which is the
Supreme Court's current and controversial position, nonpreferentialism
holds that government can advance religion provided it is done
nondiscriminatorily. The problem with this doctrine, although hardly a
problem for the Christian Right, is that it would permit the dominant
religion of the culture (Christianity), by sheer force of a numbers
advantage, to be the religion most often advanced. In other words, formal,
programmatic discrimination against religious minorities would be illegal,
but a de facto discrimination would not.
Journal of Church and State, Volume 41, Summer 1999, Number 3, Editorial:
Thoughts on the Possible Realignment of the Christian Right in Twenty-first
Century America, by Derek H. Davis pp 436-438
=====================================================================
The Christian Right's foray into Politics over the last three decades
fails in large measure because the aim of theocratizing the nation goes far
beyond the biblical mandate they claim to rely upon. It has long been a
source of agitation for many faith-minded Americans that so many
conservative Christians enter the battle to Christianize the nation without
any real sense of a biblically-based political theology for doing so.
Obviously, there are many within the Christian Right movement who have a
political theology that differs from that which will be presented here, and
their views deserve respect, but there are many who seemingly have thought
very little about the subject whom perhaps could be persuaded to reconsider
their motives for seeking to reconstitute America along theological lines.
This is neither the time nor place to attempt anything like a full
exposition of the Bible's teaching on Christian political involvement, but
examining even a few basic principles will serve to make the main points of
what the Bible seems to teach.
We might begin by suggesting that if one examines the New Testament, he
finds that it is in no way a textbook for political ordering. It says a
great deal about Christians responsibility to submit to Political
authority, but is virtually silent about any political regime's duty to
operate pursuant to theological underpinnings. The Church Fathers sensed
this only too well, and that is why they began to look elsewhere for
assistance in formulating a political theology. They looked first to the
Old Testament, but it was clear to them that the New Testament had
abrogated the Mosaic law, and thus not wanting to rejudaize Christianity,
they turned to the only other available source of information, classical
political philosophy. For several centuries to come, Christian theologians
were prone to bathe this secular philosophical tradition in the Bible, thus
creating a political theology that merged church and state and made their
goals synonymous. This was a fatal error, leading to centuries of political
efforts to define and enforce acceptable religious belief, and the
consequent elimination of hundreds of thousands of "heretics" whose sole
crime was to subscribe to religious beliefs outside state-mandated norms.
It was also an unnecessary error, given that the New Testament upon which
they supposedly relied never prescibes such a merger of state power and
religious activity. Unfortunately, this error is now being repeated by the
Christian Right.
The Reconstructionists make the most obvious error, that which the Church
Fathers knew was not an option-failing to see that the New Testament offers
Christ as the fulfillment of all the demands of the Law. Christ's
announcement in Matthew 5:17 that He had come to fulfill the Law indicated
that he was the One to whom all of the Law (civil, moral, and ceremonial)
had pointed and was to find its ultimate fulfillment. In other words, all
of the holy demands of the Law, all of the strict requirements of being a
nation ruled by God, found their completion in Jesus Christ, who alone
could satisfy them. Add to this Christ's admonition to obey the Roman
secular authorities, and the fact that He never took steps to reinaugurate
Israel's old theocratic system, and we are left with the conclusion that
every nation should avoid, on biblical grounds, constructing a theocracy
based on the teaching of the Old Testament.
But of course most of the Christian Right do not advocate, in the fashion
of the Reconstructionists, a reinstatement of the entire body of the Old
Testament Law, but rather an increased attention to timeless, divine
principles that presumably will give the nation the moral rudder it now
lacks. This sounds more palatable, but what are the dhine principles to be
implemented, and what is the ultimate goal of this implementation? If we
look at the political issues emphasized by the Christian Right, we get some
idea of what divine principles are to be implemented. The Christian Right
advocacy for banning abortions, allowing school prayer, penalizing
homosexuality, and permitting government-funded private education all
assume that the Bible supports these positions. Whether these positions
represent the correct interpretation of the Bible is not the question here,
but rather the fact that these positions, based on the Bible and enacted
through political means, amount to the creation of a religious state,
something the founding fathers specifically declined to do, choosing
instead to place national sovereignty under the people rather than God,
evidenced most demonstrably by the fact that they chose to omit God's name
from the Constitution after deliberating the possibility of inclusion.
Moreover, the political enforcement of these positions surely has as its
aim the goal of pointing all citizens to God as the ultimate source of
truth, and teaching that the most critical aspect of God's truth is
humanity's need for salvation of the soul. Is this not a confusion of
kingdoms (earthly and heavenly) which Christ himself taught against? Did he
not teach that spiritual goals and political goals are not synonymous? In
Matthew 22:21, Christ said that Christians are to "render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Christ
here was clearly affirming that spiritual commitments are to be
distinguished from political commitments.
Christ perfectly modeled this distinction between spiritual and temporal
ends. He never advocated the overthrow of the Roman government, or even its
adjustment, in favor of a more theocratic order. He never identified
Himself with any particular form of government, nor any political party,
nor did He even remotely suggest that it was the duty of human government
to aid His mission. Christ was amazingly unconcerned with much of what
falls under the rubric of politics. He preached against tyranny and
oppression, of course, but his main mission was to bring men to Himself and
it was apparently a secondary matter to Him what specific form of
government (monarchy, democracy, etc.) men live under. The temporal was for
him far less important than the eternal; thus He focused on the spiritual
rather than the physical aspects of Kingdom building. The idea of a
"Christian" nation, it seems, was foreign to him.
If Christ was largely unconcerned with many of the details of politics
and far more concerned with soul winning, perhaps Christians should be too.
Christians in America, it seems, and this is perhaps what Paul Weyrich and
Cal Thomas seem to be saying, frequently become too concerned with the need
for government to become identified with Christian principles. Many
Christians wrongly believe that Christianity will flourish in a more
Christian political environment. History shows the opposite to be true.
Christianity grew more rapidly than at any time in history in the first
three centuries after Christ's death when Christians were persecuted for
not bowing the knee to Caesar. Christians understandably sought more
favorable political conditions for themselves. By the fourth century,
Christianity was so widespread that it became impossible to control it by
means of outright persecution; the emperor Constantine placed it on a
neutral basis with other religions in 313 A.D., and in 3130 A.D. Theodosius
made it the official religion of the empire. The faith thereafter lost much
of its vitality, distinctiveness, and vigor, owing to its Preferred
political status. Merged with government, Christianity became consumed with
temporal affairs--armies, police, crime, taxation, commerce, economics,
etc. and less focused on the mission outlined for it by Christ and the
apostles. In its witness, the Church gradually began to rely less on the
power of its spiritual message than on the power of the sword to enforce
its politicalwill. The persecuted had turned persecutor. Is this not the
same path the Christian Right would now have us follow?
I would hope not to be misunderstood here. I am not advocating
indifference to politics, just as I do not think Weyrich and Thomas are
advocating indifference to politics. As John Courtney Murray once said,
politics is part of the moral universe, and Christians are rightly
concerned with morality. In their daily lives, Christians are to be
Christian citizens, not merely Christians, But because the Bible does not
require that political and governmental affairs be Christian, those who are
Christians are free to join with non-Christians in our democratic form of
government to make laws that from the perspective of the American people as
a whole, not from the perspective of their own interpretation of the Bible,
best ensure the common good. In this process, negotiation and compromise
are not dirty words, and Christians should be satisfied with laws that fall
short of biblical standards as they understand them. Biblical standards may
dictate the contributions that Christians make toward the formation of laws
if they believe their views advance the common good, but Christians do not
fail God if the negotiated product, even laws on such controversial areas
as abortion, school prayer, and homosexuality, do not meet their standards.
The everwidening religious pluralism that is America is not, according to
this model, a threat. Indeed, religious pluralism pursuant to this model is
something to be celebrated rather than denounced because the religious
views of all citizens are given equal standing under the law. The goal,
even duty, of Christians should be to respect non-Christians' equal
ownership of the nation, and to 戢ssist the government in the promotion of
the welfare of all American citizens based upon a shared morality, not to
set up a Kingdom of God on earth. It was Reinhold Niebuhr who said that it
is the achievement of democracy, not a sectarian Political agenda, that is
the heart of a Christian public philosophy
Meanwhile, Christians should vigorously pursue the spiritual mission of
the Church, which is to do good to all people (Galatians 6:10), and to
spread the gospel (Matthew 28:19-20). They might call upon the government
to assist them in the first task, but not in the second.
Journal of Chruch and State, Volume 41, Summer 1999, Number 3, Editorial:
Thoughts on the Possible Realignment of the Christian Right in Twenty-first
Century America, by Derek H. Davis pp 438-441
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
roger...@my-deja.com
buc...@exis.net wrote:
> ... and the phrase "religious right" is fair
> when it is specific: in this report it refers to an array of
politically
> conservative religious groups and individuals who are attempting to
> influence public policy based on a shared cultural philosophy that is
> antagonistic to pluralism and church/state separation.
This is a very peculiar and subjective definition. To most people,
the "religious right" refers to those groups with both religious
and right-wing political messages, and with those messages
intertwined.
> SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Religious Right: The assault on Tolerance &
> Pluralism in America, A Publication of the Anti-Defamation League,
(1994)
> pp 7.
http://www.adl.org/publications/sum_religious_right.html
A lot of Jews were profoundly embarrassed by this controversial
book, because it fingers and attacks people purely for their
private and personal religious beliefs.
> A List of SOME of the groups and individuals that make up the
> Religious Right.
This list includes people who almost never speak publicly of
their personal religious beliefs. Those people are *not* part
of the religious right.
Richard A. Schulman
wrote:
> I'm more of a pragmatist
>than acedemic and won't have scholarly contributions -- but now that I
>understand the ideological struggle that's going here I find it rather
>interesting.
No, you're more of a fraud than a pragmatist -- though your Marxist
phraseology -- "ideological struggle" -- certainly indicates your
status as a dedicated ideologist. Your email id and given name were
completely unknown anywhere on the Usenet until you began posting to
this thread alone. It's also of interest that you are posting from a
server in Russia, hosted by
You could be one of the too well-known clowns hitherto seen in these
quarters posting under a pseudonym or just a leftist with time to
kill. Whatever the case, you have zero credibility as a scholar or an
identity.
---
Richard Schulman
To email me, remove the "XYZ"
Richard A. Schulman
wrote:
>Mr. Schulman's attempt to punish me in a 'superior' sexist manner is
>noted. My name was omitted in my initial posting, it is now present.
"Nathan" -- please explain why neither "Nathan McClean" nor
"cody...@yahoo.com" has any history whatever of Usenet posting until
Jan. 15, 2000 -- at which point "Nathan" materializes with "his"
leftist, contentless diatribe against Mr. Gardiner.
I'd also be interested in hearing how so dedicated scholar of the
American Revolution as yourself comes to be posting from a Russian
news server, http://www.comstar.ru ?
Mike Curtis
>mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <387F5C24...@sprintmail.com>,
>> Henry Bariteau III <h...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> > Were not the original settlers of this country, (that is the
>> Pilgrims) overt
>> > Christians???
>>
>> They were Brownists and admitted seperatists. They also came here from
>> Holland where there was religious freedom. The majority of those coming
>> over on the Mayflower were "adventurers." Some were servants. Most all
>> were farmers. The reasons for leaving Holland can be found in William
>> Bradford's History.
>
>Thank you for pointing that out.
>
>Now let's look at a piece of Bradford's history in this regard:
See the new thread alt.colonial. I also removed alt.deism from this
reply.
Mike Curtis
Gardiner
Well then you are the one who should be posting in a
"political/religio-ideology" group. Whether you believe it or not, I am not all
that interesting in this RIGHTWING v. LEFTWING banter. As my webpage indicates,
my interest is in studying the documents of the colonial period in search of a
better understanding of the socio-cultural world of colonial America and the
birth of the U.S.
You can join in the chorus of "Gardiner loves Pat Robertson" all you want. Don't
expect much of a response from me in that regard. If you would like to discuss
the evidence of colonial America in a moderately respectable fashion, I will put
forth as much effort as I can in my responses. If not, please feel free to enjoy
piling on with more "Gardiner is a Nazi" rhetoric. I'm all for free speech, but
I'm also all for ignoring adolescent behavior.
Gardiner
>
> >]I haven't seen these posts. Sinclair is filtered out by my browser. This was a
> >]decision I made as a result of his refusal to cease with vulgarities and
> >]immature inuendoes about the holocaust. If you find that sort of tactic to be
> >]respectable, then by all means enjoy.
>
> Mr. Gardiner, please refer to the Sinclair postings cited in my
> initial posting at this thread, along with message ID's -- to give you
> the benefit of doubt about your not reading them. I believe these
> address matters that are in the hearts and minds of your contesters.
> If you ignore them this is avoiding the issue. You must know that
> your contesters won't go away until you do.
I'm doing so in a thread entitled, WHY DID THE FOUNDERS SEPARATE CHURCH AND
STATE. I will try to dig up the Sinclair posts you referred to and deal with
them tonight.
RG
Richard A. Schulman
<jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote, in attempting to make a case for
guilt-by-association against Mr. Gardner::
...
> "...Man is to subdue the earth and have dominion
>over all its creatures. This is called 'The Cultural Mandate' because
>it deals with all culture as we know it. As God's junior partners we
>are to rule over the earth in His name."
>This dogma is virtually the same as R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North's
>radical Christian Reconstructionism.
You moron, haven't you ever read Genesis (Book One, no less), where
that "dogma" is famously expounded. It is fundamental to Judaism,
Christianity, and western science!
>Although D. James Kennedy is one of America's foremost enemies of the
>separation of church and state, he is practically unknown to mainstream
>America. On the other hand, Kennedy is extremely popular among
>evangelical Christians who delight in his sermons opposing abortion,
>homosexuality, pornography, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
>(According to Kennedy, gay men and women are "a curse against our
>nation," and claims that "Any person who practices sexual immorality
>and who does not repent and turn from it to Christ to find forgiveness
>will spend eternity in Hell.")?
>
>http://www.fni.com/heritage/aug95/PtrMrshl.html
>
>Of note here:
>
>?Peter declares in a powerful way that there is hope for revival if
>once again we will base our lives on biblical principles," Shafer
>said. "He believes America is at the crossroads and that Christians can
>do something about it."
>"Any time a nation turns away from God, that nation will suffer
>consequences of that decision," she added. "We as the body of Christ
>can bring about the revival we all look for when we take seriously the
>call to repentance that God gives us in II Chronicles." ?
>
>While it was these two who apparently read Gardiner? and Amo? tract
>and found it to their liking, it was Gardiner who willingly posted
>their reviews to appeal to their audience. Mike Curtis noted this.
>Strangely enough, they ?ysteriously disappeared?shortly after this.
>Mike Curtis also called him on this apparent attempt to cover this
>information up:
>
>http://x31.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?
>AN=476709438&CONTEXT=947969275.2018902028&hitnum=2
>
>MC:
>These reviewers have been removed! Interesting.
>You have no shame, do you?
>
>Gardiner? response:
>
>http://x31.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?
>AN=476809688&CONTEXT=947969275.2018902028&hitnum=3
>
>RG:
>Thanks for keeping a close monitor on my book advertisement. My problem
>was that I have been getting @ 100 hits a day on my Colonist's Library
>Website (see http://www.thecounter.com/counter/369518.vmain for the
>statistical
>breakdowns); as a result, my book ad is also getting hit heavily.
>Several have commented on the wordiness of the ad, and have suggested I
>reduce the endorsements to one and edit a couple of paragraphs. Some,
>such as yourself, have given me the prejudiced "I don't like your
>friends" remark, which, although it is very shallow way to look at the
>world, I don't want it to prevent anyone with an open mind from given
>my book a read due to any prejudices. And since my primary sources page
>seems to appeal to a broad cross section who have been ordering my
>book, I've nixed Marshall and Kennedy.
>Bottom line, I made the changes for selfish marketing purposes. I want
>the ad to be more easily read, and I don't want prejudices to factor in
>if possible. I've been very pleased with the response.
>Thanks for your concern.
>
>http://x31.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?
>AN=476985390&CONTEXT=947969275.2018902028&hitnum=4
>
>MC:
>?et's call it as it really is. You are disguising the intent.
>
>And for the past many weeks you and I have been discussing about 1/3 of
>the time your book's thesis. The rest of the time has been spent
>correcting your rewriting of my arguments and dealing with your
>"godly" and "understanding" attitude.?
>
>It is also interesting to note that these reviewers and the paragraph
>that he took out of it are again ?ysteriously?in the same web page
>that he used back then to advertise his book. Just take a look and see
>for yourselves:
>
>http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
>
>Ralph Reed, former director of the Christian Coalition talked
>about ?tealth tactics?as noted in one of the URLs above referencing
>my previous posts to ?et the record straight? I will leave it up to
>the reader to decide if this does or does not constitute such
>a ?tealth tactic?
>
><<Continued in Part 2>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
---
Gardiner
>
> Please re-read my intial posting at this thread. You have also not
> responded to the referenced postings by Jeff Sinclair, cited in mine.
> These provide the basis for our 'disagreement.' I look forward to
> your response.
Well, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and trust that you really are
"looking forward" to a response, and that you might offer the courtesy of
carefully reading my response. I also look forward to your reasoned follow-up.
The post you are referring to is--
http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=572190007&search=thread&CONTEXT=947984979.356057106&HIT_CONTEXT=947984979.356057106&HIT_NUM=2&hitnum=0
Apparently these are the threads which you "posted" that you want me to address:
> Message-ID: <85br7b$fmb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 1 11:37 PM
> Message-ID: <85br7l$fmd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 2 11:37 PM
> Message-ID: <85br82$fmh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 3 11:38 PM
> Message-ID: <85br8c$fmm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 4 11:38 PM
>
> These postings may be found under a thread entitled
> "The Founders Were Deists? (Part II)" started 1/8/2000 at:
> soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,sci.skeptic,alt.deism
Well, here goes.
The first post which Sinclair wrote under the thread THE FOUNDERS WERE DEISTS
(Part II) is available at
http://x33.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=571004840&search=thread&CONTEXT=947985549.1031667724&HIT_CONTEXT=947985549.1031667724&HIT_NUM=6&hitnum=185
I will address the substance of it here:
> The point is that Witherspoons’ importance to the
> Revolution as a whole has been shown to be grossly
> exaggerated in that his influence was primarily local and resticted
> to New Jersey, Gardiner’s protestations to
> the contrary.
This is simply wrong.
Consider, for example, Woodrow Wilson's assessment of Witherspoon:
http://mondrian.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/mfs/05/Companion/princeton_in_nations_service.html?19#mfs
For example, see the Princeton University website which indicates the broad
scope of Witherspoon's influence:
http://mondrian.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/mfs/05/Companion/continental_congress.html
See also the Princeton University website which demonstrates further influence
of Witherspoon's education:
http://mondrian.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/mfs/05/Companion/constitutional_convention.html
Perhaps Sinclair thinks that these Princeton University websites are all part of
the "right-wing conspiracy of holocaust deniers" and that these pages are
nothing but fundamentalist propaganda. That's what Alison thinks about the
Library of Congress site which has the same import
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion
Under Witherspoon, Princeton "became herself for a time... the academic center
of the Revolution" (SOURCE: U.S. Pres. Wilson) and sent into public life an
extraordinary number of notable statesmen: twenty-one senators, thirty-nine
representatives, twelve governors, three Supreme Court justices, one
vice-president, and a president, all within a period of about twenty-five years,
and from a college that seldom had more than a hundred students. Nine Princeton
men were delegates at the Constitutional Convention, and five of these were
Witherspoon's students.
> Other than having a personal friendship with
> Madison, no significant influence on revolutionary
> thinking by Witherspoon has been demonstrated by examining the
> libraries of Madison or Jefferson, or by
> looking for references to him by such noted
> historians as Wood or Bailyn.
When we consider scholars who have focused specifically upon Madison, such as
Dr. Smylie and Ralph Ketchum, we find that they accord to Witherspoon a direct
influence. Smylie considers Witherspoon the ultimate source for Madison's
Political views: see James H. Smylie, "Madison and Witherspoon: Theological
Roots of American Political Thought", The Princeton University Library Chronicle
(Spring 1961):118-132.
Ketchum suggests that Witherspoon inspired Madison in his views concerning
religious liberty.
"The personal relationship between Witherspoon and Madison was unusually strong.
Madison stayed at Princeton six months beyond his graduation, partly to pursue
further reading under Witherspoon's direction. They were close and cooperating
colleagues in the Confederation Congresses of 1781 and 1782. Upon the completion
of Madison's work at the Constitutional Convention, Princeton conferred upon him
a Doctor of Laws degree accompanied by warm words from Witherspoon: 'as it has
been my peculiar happiness to know, perhaps more than any other of them, your
usefulness in an important station, on that and some other accounts, there was
none to whom it gave more satisfaction than to." Finally during Madison's very
busy days in the Federal Congress, he reported to Jefferson his disappointment
at not finding Witherspoon at Princeton, where he had gone especially to see
"the old Doctor." That Clarke and Witherspoon were far more than casual
influences upon Madison would seem to be beyond doubt."
"In his lectures on Moral Philosophy, John Witherspoon was a consistent advocate
of religious freedom, often citing in his support the dangers oppression
presented to sound religion... The devotion of the God-dominated Witherspoon to
the cause of freedom of conscience must also have been a powerful influence upon
the young Virginian."
(Source: Ralph Ketchum, JAMES MADISON's RELIGION, in Robert S. Alley, JAMES
MADISON AND
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1985), 175ff)
Furthermore, Sinclair's mention of Bailyn is quite ironic, for it is Bailyn that
says Madison's view of religious liberty was "confessedly influenced by the
claims of the Presbyterians" (Bailyn, 260).
> > > So the British were free to fool themselves. I don't think it is fair
> > > to pass on the stupidity of the British onto American students. Plus
> > > Thomas Hutchinson mentions Witherspoon not once as far as his
> > > experiences as the last British governor of Massachusetts Bay is
> > > concerned.
> >
> > Witherspoon was not part of the Boston milieu. He was based in New Jersey.
> > Hutchinson did not address the patriot leadership of New Jersey.
> >
> > Try John A. Neuenschwander, The Middle Colonies and the Coming of the American
> > Revolution (London, 1973).
>
> Exactly. Witherspoon’s influence was primarily local.
> No demonstrable influence has been observed by
> Witherspoon on revolutionary thinking or on subsequent
> developments in the development of constitutional
> government.
President Dr. Woodrow Wilson, who knew a thing or two about history, wouldn't
agree with Sinclair's narrow claims
http://mondrian.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/mfs/05/Companion/princeton_in_nations_service.html?19#mfs
That's just fundamentalist propaganda, right?
> Gardiner’s tactic has been to suggest
> that because he was one of many teachers at Princeton
> and because there were many leaders who at least passed
> through Princeton, that Witherspoon was a mentor
> to all of these men, especially James Madison
> (disputed by lack of any demonstrable influence of
> Witherspoon on Madison’s or anyone else’s political
> thought), because he was a clergyman this points to
> these men who passed through Princeton as being
> “orthodox Christians” (the writings of most
> of these men contradict this assertion),
Sinclair hasn't shown that the writings of any of these men are "unorthodox."
Having attended Princeton University, I've had the opportunity to study the
educational requirements of the school in the 18th century. Witherspoon and the
other teachers there were very careful to not abide heretics in the school. If
there were any unorthodox men who graduated from Princeton, they were excellent
deceivers.
> and thus being
> “orthodox Christian” their intention must have been to establish
> Christianity as the official religion even in their formulation
> of the establishment clause in The First
> Amendment.
>
> One hardly needs to say that application of Occam’s Razor to
> this tortuous logic would shave off an
> awful lot of hair…
As I have shown in a thread entitled "WHY THE FOUNDERS SEPARATED CHURCH AND
STATE," the first amendment is the codification of the orthodox Protestant
position regarding liberty of conscience.
For your sake I have reposted this material at
http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
It is not entirely complete, but there is enough there to refute Sinclair.
> > > Dealing with Gardiner's obfuscations are like dealing with the
> > > obfuscations of Holocaust deniers or creationists.
> >
> > Oh geez, here come the inflamatory comments. Perhaps I have made a mistake
> > again by giving this goon a respectable answer.
>
> Holocaust deniers and creationists use such techniques
> as building armies of straw men. Another tactic is
> arguing from the specific to the general. An example
> is given above in noting how Gardiner has tried to inflate
> the importance of Witherspoon, or Calvin, or Luther despite
> no direct or even indirect documentary evidence
> showing much influence here, especially in comparison
> with Enlightenment thinkers.
In another thread, I have shown direct influence using the primary sources. What
more can I do?
http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
> Another favorite tactic is
> to take evidence out of its context. Gardiner does this
> in spades, as has been amply documented. And so on.
>
> For a good look at a rather comprehensive list of
> logical fallacies that Gardiner consistently uses that are also
> used by Holocaust
> deniers, creationists, and so on, take a look at the following > URL: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
The fallacy being committed at this point in the debate by Sinclair is called
argumentum ad hominem abusive. This is when a person diverts attention from the
subject matter in substitution for an argument "against the man" (ad hominem).
Note that Sinclair is not dealing with the evidence, but rather talking about
me.
Sinclair's commitment to the anti-holocaust-deniers is clearly his first love.
He seems to see everything in that light. He is quite out of his league in
colonial american history.
[the rest of this particular post was simply bantering about "tactics," etc. I'm
not interested. I'd rather argue history.
=======
The next post I could find of Sinclair's which you asked me to address is the
one found at
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=570191212&search=thread&CONTEXT=947992783.865927192&HIT_CONTEXT=947992783.865927192&HIT_NUM=15&hitnum=162
> > No one is denying the flaws of the Puritans. What you are denying is the clear
> > and demonstrable contributions of the Puritans.
>
> Not at all. What I am denying is the relative importance of the
> Puritans and other religious groups when compared to Whig political
> thought,
Apparently Sinclair and you are unfamiliar with what the Whig tradition is all
about. In the 1670's the old Protestants in England began to be concerned with
the fact that James, Duke of York, an avowed Roman Catholic might become King.
As a result they formed themselves into a Party organized to preserved
Protestantism in England. http://sites.internetcorp.net/~mcferran/exclusion.htm
This Party took on the derisive term "WHIG" which referred to Scottish
Presbyterians. (Oxford English Dictionary XII (W) 43.)
These Whigs attempted to overthrow the monarch in 1679 and, as a result, many
were executed, most notably, Algernon Sydney, who wrote, what Bailyn and other
scholars refer to as "THE TEXTBOOK OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION." Locke was also
indicted in this plot, but he had escaped to Holland to avoid punishment. When
James eventually did become King, Locke and the other "whigs" organized a
successful bloodless revolution to depose this Catholic king and replace him
with a Calvinist (Bill the 3rd). Locke's Two Treatises on Government which
inspired Jefferson greatly, were written in 1689 in order to defend this action.
The Whig tradition and the Glorious Revolution were Protestant movements through
and through.
> closely aligned as it was to the
> Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the resulting constitution
The Whigs, in the spirit of their Puritan Commonwealth heirs, with Locke as
their spokesman, championed "Religious Toleration," against the likes of James
II who wished to impose Catholicism on the kingdom. As a result, when Will 3rd
became king, one of his first decrees was the toleration act:
http://sites.internetcorp.net/~mcferran/toleration.htm
The famous Bill of Rights (1689) which Sinclair says I have overlooked (LOL),
opens with this complaint: "Whereas the late King James the Second, by the
assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did
endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and
liberties of this kingdom;..." [followed by a list of the Rights of Protestants]
> and to
> the political thought and philosophy of the Enlightenment. When
> colonists and political leaders looked backward in the 1760s and
> 1770s for inspiration and ideas, they relied not on Puritan thought,
> or the Puritan experience which was
> transformed into a virtual theonomy, as noted
> above, which was not at all tolerant of “politically or religiously
> incorrect” thoughts or groups,
Sinclair is simply unfamiliar with the literature.
According to Bailyn, whom Sinclair cites as authoritative, the colonists and
political leaders looked primarily to the English Puritan Revolution and the
Puritans of New England for their inspiration, moreso than the Enlightenment or
the Classic Greco-Roman tradition. (Bailyn 30-34).
If one reads the literature and pamphlets of the Sons of Liberty, Adams, Otis,
Mayhew, and others who ignited the war, the references to the Puritan heritage
are conclusive.
> but to the Enlightenment
> thinkers such as Locke and Hume and to the ideology
> resulting from the Glorious Revolution, which was
> remarkably tolerant for its time toward political opposition.
It was tolerant because it's leaders were Protestants who had been followers of
Milton and the Commonwealthmen:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/civil_power/index.html
> > Of all the documents which foreshadowed the U.S. Constitution, the one that it
> > closest resembles is the Mass. Constitution, 1780,
> > (http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=478&parent=475) which is
> > acknowledged by historians to be the product of a century and a half of the
> > development of puritan political theory.
>
> Was it?
Yes.
> It was directly contradictory to many strands of American political
> thought of the 1780s, especially
> those having to do with religion and state, as the following will reveal:
>
> From Gordon S. Wood, _The Creation of the American Republic: 1776- 1787_ (University of North Carolina
> Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 1969) pp. 219-220, 427-428.
Nothing below here challenges my claim above. This is all extraneous and
irrelevant--
> “Yet as early as 1784 Benjamin Lincoln, the Revolutionary general,
> set out, in a series of article extraordinary
> for the boldness of their constitutional suggestions and of
> their bicameralism in the 1780 Massachusetts
> Constitution that directly confronted the Revolutionary
> assumptions of 1776. There were, wrote Lincoln, as yet
> ‘but few, who are apprehensive of danger or difficulty,
> from any discordant interests existing within the
> Commonwealth. With no distinctions in honors or in rank,
> it is generally supposed, that the old idea of the few,
> and the many, is unfitly applied. Placed on a common level
> in point of honorary distinctions, a trifling
> difference in the distribution of property, can never in
> general estimation, occasion so great a diversity in
> views, as to endanger the safety, or peace of the community’….
>
> “The society, said Lincoln, in a remarkable anticipation of the
> arguments John Adams was shortly to make, must contain what it
> could not prevent and control this influence
> of the propertied by segregating them in a separate house of
> the legislature in order to forestall the rich from
> using ‘cunning and corruption’ to secure ‘the power they
> cannot constitutionally obtain’. Therefore, Lincoln
> concluded, the principle of the Massachusetts government
> was not equality, as the Revolutionaries of 1776
> had thought, “but a species of honour, or a respect for that
> distinction, which the constitution acknowledges to
> exist.’…
[snip longwinded irrelevancies]
> <<snip>>
>
> > > There is a vast difference in law concerning Federal power and state
> > > power. So what Gardiner is doing is obfuscating and hiding the history
> > > underneath his propaganda.
> >
> > The history of state governments is part of the history of America, is it not?
>
> Where the state governments, such as Massachusetts, contradict the ideological and philosophical tide of
> American Revolutionary and Constitutional thinking, it is a peripheral part of the history of America.
With that logic, slavery is only a "peripheral" part of American history too?
Nonsense.
[the rest of his post was a whine about "tactics" and his assessment of a a
professor from a Virginia college. I'm really not interested. I'd rather talk
about history]
I think there may be two more posts from Sinclair that you want me to address.
I'll try to get to them after while.
Gardiner
>
> buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Do you understand that among the various things that Gardiner has claimed
> >or implied is:
> <snip>
> >That when asked to show the religious evidence in the Constitution stated
> >that the whole idea of a **federal** constitution, **federal** government,
> >etc was based on Religion because the word federal means compact with God.
>
> Funny, I thought Federal was from the Latin _Foedus,_ treaty,
> agreement; not from the Latin word for faith _fides_, or faithful,
> _fidelis_. I can't find compact with God in there anywhere.
"Foedus" was routinely translated "Covenant" by the Puritans. Thus, their most
fundamental commitment was to FEDERAL THEOLOGY, also called COVENANTAL THEOLOGY.
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,27085+1,00.html
When the founders championed a "federal" system, there was a clear connection to
the covenantal history which preceded the founding.
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm10_samson.html
Jeff Sinclair
In article <387FDBBF...@pitnet.net>,
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >
> > He doesn't seem to understand that his connection to and with his
> > co-author, and especially when he has claimed to call this co-
author on
> > several occasion to get information for his arguments says a few
things
> > about him.
>
> I called Amos about Gary Wills' critique of a footnote buried in the
back of his
> book, DEFENDING THE DECLARATION. I wanted to know if he was aware of
it since it
> was an argument which Curtis was leveling against Amos. I was not
surprised to
> find that Amos was quite aware of it, and also quite aware that Wills
was dead
> wrong on the publication date of Jefferson's "The Philosophy of
Jesus."
Wow! Convincing proof! We are to take the word of an admitted
propagandist (Gary Amos as noted in the critique by Roger Schultz) over
an acknowledged historian (Garry Wills). Not.
What’s more, Mike Curtis presented the case very carefully as to show
the Amos is referring to the “syllabus” which was published in 1816:
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?
AN=566870035&CONTEXT=947946462.1544880138&hitnum=12
“I think he was talking about the Gospels vs. the "Syllabus." You see
that is what the footnote was about. when Mr. wills said that they were
issued in scholarly editions that is what he meant by Amos not
consulting them.
Let's put the whole footnote for all to see.
**************
Gary Wills has pointed out in his book UNDER GOD - RELIGION AND
AMERICAN POLITICS that Jefferson's words are put to uses quite often in
the Church-State arguments. "We know more about his personal views on
religion than we know about any other person's at the origin of our
state. But our knowledge is drawn from sources denied to his
contemporaries, who speculated widely about his 'atheism' or made
unfounded charges about his hostility to organized religion of all
kinds. Echoes of these charges have haunted his reputation, even to
this day. Fundamentalists have denounced his deism--or, with
compensatory zeal, have co-opted him in the cause of a 'Christian
nation.' A faculty member at Pat Robertson's CBN University even made
Jefferson a conduit of the Christian views of Samuel Rutherford, the
myth of whose influence is derived from Francis Schaeffer."
We find in his footnote to this that the faculty member discussed in
Gary T. Amos the author of the above book Mr. Gardiner mentions. Gary
Wills points out that the book was endorsed by the National Review in
its April 30, 1990 issue. the review writes: "Happily for us, as Mr.
Amos proves in his small book, all the embarrassing old [religious]
junk that liberals are furiously stuffing into the historical trunks
was coveted and used by Jefferson himself." Mr Wills then writes: "The
extent of Jefferson's religious writings does not protect him from
distortion even after their publication in scholarly editions--which
Amos does not consult."
Wills points out that Jefferson took great care to keep his religious
views private and only available to his most trusted friends. A letter
to Benjamin Rush when Jefferson sent his 'Syllabus' on Jesus to him
makes that desire for privacy quite clear. In the footnote after that
letter to Benjamin Rush is quoted Wills footnotes: "Gary Amos, in the
book cited above, weirdly claims (on p. 195) that Jefferson published
his version of the Gospels in 1816. That compendium was not published
till 1902. Cf. _Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels_, edited by
Dickinson W. Adams (Princeton, 1983), pp 125-26. The 'Syllabus' was
published anonymously (not by Jefferson) in 1816 and received no public
notice."
******************”
> I've never called Amos "to get information for my arguments." Perhaps
I should
> do as you do and tell you where to blow it.
Not bad. This time Gardiner contradicts himself in consecutive
sentences. The sentence before, he just said that he called Amos.
> Na. The vulgarities are your department. Or is that Sinclair's dept.
Nah. The vulgarities of insults and outright slander and lies would be
Gardiner’s department. A reminder of that fact can be found at:
http://x37.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?
AN=570613756&CONTEXT=947945169.2134638602&thitnum=4
and
http://x37.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?
AN=570613760&CONTEXT=947945169.2134638602&thitnum=4
and
http://x37.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?
AN=570613765&CONTEXT=947945169.2134638602&thitnum=4
and
http://x37.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?
AN=570613771&CONTEXT=947945169.2134638602&thitnum=4
This was the result of a vicious and unprovoked attack on me by
Gardiner. I have decided to set the record straight. Gardiner is not
here to discuss history, he is here to distort it in the cause of an
ideological agenda that he has not bothered to hide very well. He has
presented historical facts, but upon closer examination, most of these
have been shown to be quotations taken out of context, half truths, and
inflation of factors not as important as others in determining the
course of American political thought, especially as it regarded church
and state.
This, as people who have been watching this newsgroup know, is just the
tip of the iceberg.
> > There is information on the web about this co-authoir that very
much places
> > that person well within the framework of the far religious right.
>
> There is information on the web that places Alison within the
framework of the
> Wiccan Pagan cult. (http://members.aol.com/Talendear/whoidx.html)
>
> > No one has to explain Gardiner to anyone else, he does it all by
himself.
>
> Alison is unquestionably associated with American Atheists
> http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt
It is to be noted that the atheists and the Wiccans are two very
different groups with very different trains of thought. _They_ refer to
Jim Allison’s page because what they, and a whole bunch of other groups
such as the National Council of Churches, most Jewish groups, most
Muslim groups, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. have in common is their support
for the separation of church and state. The article above was used by
Wayne Aiken with Jim Allison’s permission, not written for the express
purpose of advancing atheism, as Gardiner would like to try and imply.
On the other hand, Gardiner prints out on the web page where he sells
his book, co-authored by Gary Amos, reviews by D. James Kennedy and by
Peter Marshall. These can be found at:
http://personal.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
For those of you lurking who do not know who these characters are, the
following web links should help to establish this:
http://www.berkshire.net/~ifas/fw/9703/kennedy.html
Of note here:
“According to Kennedy, God gave the world two mandates, "The Cultural
Mandate He gave at the beginning of the world, and the Great Commission
He gave at the beginning of the Christian era after the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ; the former at the dawn of creation, the latter at the
dawn of the new creation. Man is to subdue the earth and have dominion
over all its creatures. This is called 'The Cultural Mandate' because
it deals with all culture as we know it. As God's junior partners we
are to rule over the earth in His name."
This dogma is virtually the same as R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North's
radical Christian Reconstructionism. In fact, Kennedy has called the
Bible commentaries by those men "essential" works….
Although D. James Kennedy is one of America's foremost enemies of the
separation of church and state, he is practically unknown to mainstream
America. On the other hand, Kennedy is extremely popular among
evangelical Christians who delight in his sermons opposing abortion,
homosexuality, pornography, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
(According to Kennedy, gay men and women are "a curse against our
nation," and claims that "Any person who practices sexual immorality
and who does not repent and turn from it to Christ to find forgiveness
will spend eternity in Hell.")”
http://www.fni.com/heritage/aug95/PtrMrshl.html
Of note here:
“"Peter declares in a powerful way that there is hope for revival if
once again we will base our lives on biblical principles," Shafer
said. "He believes America is at the crossroads and that Christians can
do something about it."
"Any time a nation turns away from God, that nation will suffer
consequences of that decision," she added. "We as the body of Christ
can bring about the revival we all look for when we take seriously the
call to repentance that God gives us in II Chronicles." ”
While it was these two who apparently read Gardiner’s and Amo’s tract
and found it to their liking, it was Gardiner who willingly posted
their reviews to appeal to their audience. Mike Curtis noted this.
Strangely enough, they “mysteriously disappeared” shortly after this.
Mike Curtis also called him on this apparent attempt to cover this
information up:
http://x31.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?
AN=476709438&CONTEXT=947969275.2018902028&hitnum=2
MC:
These reviewers have been removed! Interesting.
You have no shame, do you?
Gardiner’s response:
http://x31.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?
AN=476809688&CONTEXT=947969275.2018902028&hitnum=3
RG:
Thanks for keeping a close monitor on my book advertisement. My problem
was that I have been getting @ 100 hits a day on my Colonist's Library
Website (see http://www.thecounter.com/counter/369518.vmain for the
statistical
breakdowns); as a result, my book ad is also getting hit heavily.
Several have commented on the wordiness of the ad, and have suggested I
reduce the endorsements to one and edit a couple of paragraphs. Some,
such as yourself, have given me the prejudiced "I don't like your
friends" remark, which, although it is very shallow way to look at the
world, I don't want it to prevent anyone with an open mind from given
my book a read due to any prejudices. And since my primary sources page
seems to appeal to a broad cross section who have been ordering my
book, I've nixed Marshall and Kennedy.
Bottom line, I made the changes for selfish marketing purposes. I want
the ad to be more easily read, and I don't want prejudices to factor in
if possible. I've been very pleased with the response.
Thanks for your concern.
http://x31.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?
AN=476985390&CONTEXT=947969275.2018902028&hitnum=4
MC:
“Let's call it as it really is. You are disguising the intent.
And for the past many weeks you and I have been discussing about 1/3 of
the time your book's thesis. The rest of the time has been spent
correcting your rewriting of my arguments and dealing with your
"godly" and "understanding" attitude.”
It is also interesting to note that these reviewers and the paragraph
that he took out of it are again “mysteriously” in the same web page
that he used back then to advertise his book. Just take a look and see
for yourselves:
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Ralph Reed, former director of the Christian Coalition talked
about “stealth tactics” as noted in one of the URLs above referencing
my previous posts to “set the record straight”. I will leave it up to
the reader to decide if this does or does not constitute such
a “stealth tactic”.
Jeff Sinclair
Finally, it is also worth noting that Gardiner has recently claimed:
http://x46.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?
thitnum=0&AN=572390736.1&mhitnum=18&CONTEXT=947972352.1692401697
“What in the world are you talking about? The last thing I would want
is for any religious institution to have "control" of the civil
government. That is entirely in opposition to the will of the founders.
The United States of America does not and should not have an
established religion.”
Would that I believed that he meant that, in which case the only thing
at issue probably would have been his abusiveness and vitriol directed
toward others. In fact, there is probably no one in the world more than
me who wants Gardiner’s statement to be true.
It is to be noticed, however, that as I mentioned elsewhere, this does
not merely refer to the establishment of a church body. It refers to
religion as a whole:
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/clause.html
“Nevertheless, the word “national” was specifically rejected by the
1789 conference committee and obviously does not appear in the
establishment clause. Thus, in one sentence I will destroy
the "national" religion distortion: common sense and proper English
require that the word "thereof" in the free exercise clause, refer to
and mean the same thing as the establishment clause! "Congress shall
make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise" of a governmentally
established national religion, a state church, or a single
denomination? Give me a break. The word "religion" means religion--the
broad definition--in both clauses.
Readers who wish to study the issue should read the classics in the
field of religion and government: Leo Pfeffer's _Church, State, and
Freedom_ (1967) and Leonard W. Levy's _The Establishment Clause_
(1986).”
But facts are facts. When given a chance to show how
his “separationist” position addresses real-life, hot-button issues
having to do with separation of church and state, Gardiner defended
school officials leading public prayer in the Pontotoc school system
despite the fact that this violated the beliefs of another public
school pupil:
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?
AN=565577768&search=thread&CONTEXT=947973333.838336529&HIT_CONTEXT=94797
3333.838336529&HIT_NUM=28&hitnum=56
RG:
“> If all you are going to say is, "well, those people are a small
minority" then
> you are making the same argument that the religious right makes when
they have
> prayer in Pontotoc Mississippi schools where only one student
complained.
JS:
So might makes right? In a previous post, I noted that a friend of mine
had lived in Utah for a period and that his son was about the only
Christian kid in a class of Mormons. Pressure was put on the school
system to institute prayers about things that my friend and his son
disagreed with and found offensive. So by that logic, I am assuming
that you agree that this was a good thing, correct?
JS:
That’s not only contrary to the Constitution; that’s contrary to
Christianity itself:
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/prayer.html”
(see the legal decision on this at which shows that the courts found
that such officially led prayers and bible classes were not only wrong,
but they were coercive):
http://home.olemiss.edu/~llibcoll/ndms/june96/96d0083p.html
In that same thread (Religion and the Early American Republic), he also
defended official use of phrases invoking God not simply as throw off
phrases, such as “God Bless You” or “In God we Trust”, but also when
such were used intentionally in an official capacity to promote
religion. In one such case as was also noted in that thread, the
Florida Supreme Court also found in favor of a judge who refused to
sign _official_ documents using the designation AD (rather than CE) in
the dating. He also would seem to have no problem having public school
children being led to sing Christian songs by a public official. Just
as the constitution makes it very clear that should students wish to
express their religious sentiments publicly and if officials wish to
express their religious sentiment when they are not in an official
capacity, they cannot be interfered with, so also it makes very clear
that official endorsement of religion is likewise prohibited as the
government is to be officially neutral toward religion. Gardiner
expresses his sentiments on these issues throughout several posts early
in this thread. One only needs to click on the URL above linked to his
comments on the Pontotoc school case, and click on the “Thread”
designation in order to access other posts in that same argument.
Again, the reader is invited to judge for himself or herself.
Gardiner is not a Christian Reconstuctionist. He just produces
propaganda for them and supports their positions on Usenet. He has also
used this forum and others to shamelessly try and sell his book which,
if it is anything like his own advertisement says it is and anything
like the pseudohistory he has presented to several newsgroups, is
supportive of an ideological position which would seek to make this
country an officially “Christian nation” and which would make all who
do not measure up to this ideal into second class citizens.
All of this is being noted for the benefit of those of you out there
reading this who have mostly lurked without comment. Several of you
have recently posted saying that you wish that all of us would leave
because, as you have correctly noted, much of what has gone on has not
been history and has perhaps strayed into political ideology.
Given all of this information, however, ask yourselves these following
two questions: Would the personal attacks cease if Gardiner’s opponents
were not here? To answer that simply do a search in the Deja news
server: “Search _all_ records” and “Search For:” set to the string “~a
(gard...@pitnet.net)” . Or you can do a “power search” to set the date
parameters before December of 1999. You will note even doing a cursory
search that Gardiner has repeatedly and persistently personally
attacked without provocation scores of people who did not agree with
his opinions. Second question: Is Gardiner interested in objective
historical research? Again, it is noteworthy that he has evaded
question posed to him as to whether he intends to have his book peer
reviewed by historians. The one historian who did weigh in on a similar
book done by his co-author noted in his review that Gary Amos made no
attempt to be objective; producing the book _Defending the Declaration_
in order to be a “debater’s manual”. And, as has been noted,
professional historians such as Gordon Wood, Bernard Bailyn, and Sydney
Ahlstrom who have looked at the whole of the influences on American
political thought have noted that religion was just one of several
influences and by no means _the_ most important one. Gardiner goes to
extraordinary and indeed absurd lengths to stress the religious
dimension. An examination of his political/social thinking and of his
freely chosen associations shows why.
>
> > >:|My interest is in the socio-cultural milieu of the American
colonial and
> > >:|revolutionary periods. If you, Alison, or Sinclair sees in this
some
> > >:|"right-wing conspiracy," well, you can keep on fantasizing with
Hilary.
> >
> > if the above was so true, then I wonder why he frequently moves out
beyond
> > that period in his posting.
>
> If that happens, it is usually in response to someone else bringing
up a modern
> Supreme Ct. case or something (like you have done frequently in
alt.colonial)
And which _is_ relevant because in these decisions, the opinions always
note the thoughts of such people as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson
concerning the whys and wherefores of such things as the separation of
church and state. It is rather interesting how these, when they are
cited, almost always contradict Gardiner’s statements on church and
state.
> > >:|> I call for
> > >:|> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow
leaving
> > >:|> no purpose for those who battle against him.
> > >:|
> > >:|Supporters? LOL.
Oh, we forgot. Schulman, Childress, and Tree have shown themselves to
be completely unbiased and civil observers.
For those out there who believe that, I am announcing a fabulous deal
on the Brooklyn Bridge at the incredibly low one-time price of $199.95.
Call before midnight and send cash in non-sequential bills and I will
make sure to get you the title deed via e-mail as soon as I can. ;-)
> > >:|
> > >:|If you take a studied look at who has been dragging "supporters"
into the
> > >:|colonial group who are not primarily interested in colonial
history, the
> > >:|record will show that it has been everyone EXCEPT me.
> >
> > Really? Hmmmmmm, what is your defender Childress doing here?
> >
> > In the five years I have run into him on the net I have never known
him to
> > frequent the history NGs
>
> You'll have to ask him why he is here. Two things are absolutely a
fact: 1)
> Childress was definitely not contacted by me to come post in
alt.colonial, quite
> frankly, I have no clue as to how he came across these threads,
Gardiner didn’t call Amos for information either. The sentence before,
he says quite specifically he did. That information is right at the top
of the first part of this post.
and 2) Childress
> has been rather "unsupportive" of me in some respects (e.g., abrasive
tactics),
> which is a quite different and respectable posture than one sees
coming from the
> ideological leftists.
We who have fought Gardiner are hardly monolithic either. Mike Curtis
has rightly taken me to task for returning Gardiner’s insults and
inappropriate familiarity. We have sought to concentrate on history,
and have responded appropriately to deliberate distortions on
Gardiner’s part. Nor are we “ideological leftists”. We have noted the
place of religion in the development of American political thinking and
recognized its considerable contribution. We have also noted however,
that it is far from being the end-all be-all of political development
that Gardiner has claimed it was. For that, we have endured slander,
insults, and personal abuse from Gardiner, initiated by him. The record
on Deja news can be consulted by the curious to confirm or deny that
hypothesis.
<<Continued in Part 3>>
Jeff Sinclair
> > >:|Have you ever noticed that a number of posters in here
have "atheist #1415" as
> > >:|part of their signature?
> >
> > How many? Who? What does that mean and how does that alter
anything about
> > you?
>
> Well, in the last two weeks we've had Jeff, Nash, and Pastor Stevo.
In the past
> we've been blessed with the occasional trolling of Maff91 and his ilk.
>
> What it means is that the attacks on an honest history which
acknowledges the
> centrality of religion in early America are largely rooted in an
antagonistic
> disposition to religion in general. It is not a balanced critique.
With Gardiner it’s either all or nothing. An honest history recognizes
the legitimate role that religion played but also notes that it was not
central. Again, the effects of the Enlightenment, the development of
political corruption by the Crown, and Whig political thought have all
been shown to have had a more major impact on the development of
American political thought. This has also been shown by the fact that
while there was some considerable influence of religious thought, other
strands of political thinking and behavior by these same religious
groups (i.e. the Puritans and how they developed largely intorerant and
rigid theocracies especially in Massachusetts and Connecticut) run
directly _counter to_ significant strains in American republicanism. In
other places, ties to Puritan legal documents are better explained by
ties to Enlightenment thinking or to classical antiquity. Gardiner
largely ignores this.
> > I haven't even hit you with the 1400 or 1500 pages of material I
have on it
> > involved in my project.. Actually, some of it does get into the
colonial
> > period, and it is 99.9% historical documents, very little, next to
no
> > commentary. And no, it isn't a bunch of URLs to other sites for
documents,
> > it is the real Mccoy (BTW u ever hear the story behind that
phrase? its
> > pretty interesting)
>
> IIRC it had to do with smuggling liquor during Prohibition. Now who
is "posting"
> outside of the parameters of 1600-1800?
At least in the past two months, Jim Allison has not posted anything
having to do with smuggling liquor during Prohibition. Gardiner is
therefore attacking a straw man in this statement.
> > Kill file just means they get to make their arguments and you don't
> > respond. Therefore, any readers only get their side. Doesn't bode
well for
> > you, does it? :o)
>
> I followed your lead in this regard:
>
> On 12/27/99, ALISON WROTE:
>
> "To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't
even read his
> posts/replies. I delete them."
>
> I guess Schulman's incisive remarks were just too much for you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Doesn't bode well for you, does it? :o)
You misspelled “fluff” above.
Let’s see just one recent example of Schulman’s “incisive remarks”:
http://x25.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?
thitnum=0&AN=572245719.1&mhitnum=12&CONTEXT=947980962.218759195
“Rick Gardiner has offended a wolf pack of left-liberal secularists --
including, obviously, yourself -- who are the real revisionists. His
posts have not been part of a Christian Right agenda. He's a historian
who's had much of interest to say and who has created a useful Web
site -- more than I can say for his opponents. The wolf-pack has been
drowning four newsgroups, including the one I participate in
(soc.history.war.us-revolution) in diatribe, name-calling, repetitious
multikilobyte cut-and-pasting, featuring a minimum of solid historical
scholarship or even wit. I've stopped reading most of this crap (I'm
referring to Sinclair and Curtis, principally).
You, Cody, aren't performing a useful service by setting up your own
gratuitous howling. Take your polemic against the Christian Right
elsewhere. It's off topic in alt.history.colonial and
soc.history.war.us-revolution. ”
http://x25.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?
thitnum=0&AN=573069777.1&mhitnum=11&CONTEXT=947980962.218759195
“No, you're more of a fraud than a pragmatist -- though your Marxist
phraseology -- "ideological struggle" -- certainly indicates your
status as a dedicated ideologist. Your email id and given name were
completely unknown anywhere on the Usenet until you began posting to
this thread alone. It's also of interest that you are posting from a
server in Russia, hosted by
You could be one of the too well-known clowns hitherto seen in these
quarters posting under a pseudonym or just a leftist with time to kill.
Whatever the case, you have zero credibility as a scholar or an
identity.”
I can only guess that he thinks that he is the reincarnation of Sen.
Joseph McCarthy. He sure acts like it.
> > >:|Exactly which "Christian Right" activist group do you think I
represent or am
> > >:|in conspiracy with?? The principal ecclesiastical organizations
I have been
> > >:|affiliated with in the last 8 years are Princeton Seminary and
the liberal
> > >:|wing of the Presbyterian Church. I don't attend church often any
more.
> > >:|
> > >:|I now teach high school history at an non-religious college prep
school.
> > >:|
> > >:|Gary Amos is a friend. So what? Most of my friends are Marxist-
leaning
> > >:|academicians. So what?
I once read a post by someone saying that some of their best friends
were Jewish. So what? It was just coincidence that this guy was a
member of and actively promoting the National Alliance, which is
today’s incarnation of the American Nazi Party. Once again, given
Gardiner’s difficulty in telling the truth, this statement and others
like if should be taken with several tons of salt.
> > >:|
> > >:|Jim Kennedy liked my book. So what? A few of my liberal
professors at
> > >:|Princeton liked my book. So what?
So where are their “kudos” for Gardiner’s book, if they liked it so
much? He lists Kennedy and Marshall and Raymond Cannata on your
advertisement for his book. I checked web references and found out that
Cannata was a fellow student who graduated from Princeton in 1994 and
went to a parish in New York state. Gardiner has said that several
professors at Princeton liked his book. His one recommendation from
there is not from one of his “liberal professors”, which would give
added weight to his book, but from a fellow student. What does that
tell you about his claim?
> > >:|
> > >:|As Mr. Schulman has rightly observed, you have made a rather
hasty and
> > >:|superficial assessment of me and my "position."
> > >:|
> >
> > (1) Your arguments define your position far better then anything
anyone
> > else has ever said about you.
>
> This is very true.
And his arguments have been documented throughout this post and
throughout this news group showing that his true position supports
those who seek to officially establish Christianity.
> > (2) who endorses your book defines your position.
>
> The group that you call "we" defines your position (WICCANS)?
The difference is that Gardiner has demonstrated ties to these people
consistently. Jim Allison has no ties to the WICCANS. He also has a
link to Gardiner’s “primary sources” web page. By that logic, Jim
Allison’s position must be defined by his “obvious” similarities to
Gardiner’s position. Amazing.
> > (3) your co-author defines your position
>
> Those who endorse your writing defines your position
> (http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt)
Jim Allison, however, does not endorse a position supporting those who
would officially establish atheism (the identification of the author of
the article at the above link) or “wiccans” or any other religious
train of thought. Gardiner does, and his own positions on practical
church-state issues show that he is solidly in the camp of those who
support establishment of Christianity, especially the kind advocated by
the Religious Right.
> > I haven't seen anything in ten months, from you, that are out of
step with
> > what conclusions reasonable people could and probably would form
about your
> > position based on the three things above.
>
> I haven't seen anything from you in ten months that is out of step
with Wiccans,
> Atheists, and other radical groups who claim you.
Would that also include the National Council of Churches? They support
church-state separation too. Wiccans and Atheists and some of the
religious bodies that I have mentioned in earlier parts of this post
have little in common with each other apart from their support for the
establishment clause of the First Amendment which keeps _religion_ from
being endorsed or attacked by the government.
--
"I have always been here" - Kosh
Jeff/addesign
<snip>
>Do you understand that among the various things that Gardiner has claimed
>or implied is:
<snip>
>That when asked to show the religious evidence in the Constitution stated
>that the whole idea of a **federal** constitution, **federal** government,
>etc was based on Religion because the word federal means compact with God.
Funny, I thought Federal was from the Latin _Foedus,_ treaty,
agreement; not from the Latin word for faith _fides_, or faithful,
_fidelis_. I can't find compact with God in there anywhere.
Jeff/addesign a.a #1063
****************************************************************
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--Lucretius, 1st c. BC
"So vast is the sum of the iniquities that religion has induced."
****************************************************************
If the religion of any Church become, therefore, true and saving,
because the head of that sect, the prelates and priests, and
those of that tribe, do all of them, with all their might, extol
and praise it, what religion can ever be accounted erroneous,
false, and destructive?--John Locke, Letters on Toleration
Gardiner
>
> buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Do you understand that among the various things that Gardiner has claimed
> >or implied is:
> <snip>
> >That when asked to show the religious evidence in the Constitution stated
> >that the whole idea of a **federal** constitution, **federal** government,
> >etc was based on Religion because the word federal means compact with God.
>
> Funny, I thought Federal was from the Latin _Foedus,_ treaty,
> agreement; not from the Latin word for faith _fides_, or faithful,
> _fidelis_. I can't find compact with God in there anywhere.
"The Presbyterians in their reliance on federalism and representative
institutions anticipated the political make-up of the future United States."
Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Birth of the Nation (Knopf, 1968) p. 83.
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>:|
>:|>:|You speak as if there is a limited amount of memory on the newsgroup server.
>:|>:|Perhaps you need to take a basic course in computer science in this regard.
>:|>:|You might be surprised to find out that alt.history.colonial is not in danger
>:|>:|of losing all its memory, even in light of Alison dumping the entire contents
>:|>:|of his hard drive on this server.
>:|> LOL the entire contents of my hard drive?
>:|> Hardly, not even close
>:|> I haven't even hit you with the 1400 or 1500 pages of material I have on it
>:|> involved in my project.. Actually, some of it does get into the colonial
>:|> period, and it is 99.9% historical documents, very little, next to no
>:|> commentary. And no, it isn't a bunch of URLs to other sites for documents,
>:|> it is the real Mccoy (BTW u ever hear the story behind that phrase? its
>:|> pretty interesting)
>:|
>:|IIRC it had to do with smuggling liquor during Prohibition. Now who is "posting"
>:|outside of the parameters of 1600-1800?
>:|
Gee, I get to pull a Childress and call you a liar, only in this case, it
will be true, you are a liar, or seriously deluded.
I would love to see you produce any post of mine, any reply of mine that in
any manner deals with smuggling liquor during prohibition. Especially, any
post or reply of mine that deals with that subject in regards to the
project I refer to.
I will say it again, I think you need to take some time off, you are past
your limit. In references to me in the past few weeks you have implied
(1) I was someone named Mary ( I am not someone named Mary and if Mary is
really a woman, we have different plumbing)
(2) I was in cahoots with this Mary because we had the same ISP. (We
didn't have the same ISP.)
(3) Claimed I was another fella. (I wasn't this other fella either.)
NOW
(4) you are claiming I said or implied my project had anything to do with
smuggling liquor during Prohibition, or mentioned it in any other way in
any posts or replies of mine.
The project I mentioned, and which was described to you in the past exists
under the working title of
THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE, ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The time frame covered by the above is approx 1780 -1947
That doesn't quite qualify for anything you are claiming, but then, what is
new?
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|> >:|My interest is in the socio-cultural milieu of the American colonial and
>:|> >:|revolutionary periods. If you, Alison, or Sinclair sees in this some
>:|> >:|"right-wing conspiracy," well, you can keep on fantasizing with Hilary.
>:|>
>:|> if the above was so true, then I wonder why he frequently moves out beyond
>:|> that period in his posting.
>:|
>:|If that happens, it is usually in response to someone else bringing up a modern
>:|Supreme Ct. case or something (like you have done frequently in alt.colonial)
>:|
BZZZZZZZZZ, sorry no cookie, you have gone beyond you stated interest area
on numerous occasion and for numerous reasons not in any way related to
Modern Supreme court cases.
BTW, why would you feel compelled to comment on any Supreme Court cases if
your interest was totally colonial America?
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|There is information on the web that places Alison within the framework of the
>:|Wiccan Pagan cult. (http://members.aol.com/Talendear/whoidx.html)
>:|
Actually, when I try to go to the above URL I get
"Sorry, We Can't Find That Page"
Now, to be honest, there had been a page there a week or so ago.
The page that was there was some sort of Wiccan web page. On that page they
had posted some articles that was on Tom Peters "Separation of Church and
State Home Page, at sometime in the past. At the bottom of the articles
they stated that they done so with permission of the Separation of church
and State Home page.
I contacted them and informed them that the addy they were using to link to
the Separation of Church and State was now under our over all addy (candst)
and I would appreciate if they would include mention of our web site, since
Separation of church and state was re-published under our web page now.
Evidently they are in the process of making changes to their site to add
the additional information or they have decided to take their page down,
for whatever reason.
However, the fact remains, such links do not establish Gardiner's claims.
(1) One does not need to ask permission of a web page owner to link to
said page. (Gardiner linked to some articles on our pager without asking. I
was unaware of it till he mentioned he had done so.) One does have to ask
permission to reproduce an article on their web page from another page, but
not to just link.
(2) I suspect that there are a number of pages that are linked to our page
that I know nothing about.
But, I do know that there are orthodox Christian sites that we are linked
to and are linked to us. There are a number of historical sites we are
linked to and are linked to us. there are a number of legal sites we are
linked to and are linked to us.
There are a number of Colleges and Universities that are linked to us, via
their schools of law of history departments or libraries.
We are linked to Gardiner's web page, yet I don't find much of anything
about him I agree with. We are linked to a web page by a fella who calls
himself Brian Carey, there is nothing about that fella I agree with. We are
linked to David Barton's web complexes, and there is nothing about him I
have any use for.
I have no problems with providing the opportunity for searchers to examine
various thoughts and opinions.
This is something Gardiner has never understood, I can will and do post
information that supports my points, are indifferent to my points and even
contradicts my points at times. I also link to other sites that do the
same.
Wiccans? I have no problems with those who follow earth religions,
(Wiccans, native American religions, Goddess religions, etc) I have no
problem with those who follow Eastern religions, New Age thought, Jewish,
Christianity, agnostics, atheists, or any others
I do have problems with any extremes, not matter what label they operate
under.
The Charismatic, Evangelic, Fundamentalist thought of any religion I don't
accept, but have no problem with those who believe them accepting them. I
do have problems with any religions that wish to impose their doctrines,
dogmas, tents, etc on the populace via use of the government, and/or deny
other rights because of what their religions teach or they think their
religion teaches.
Gardiner's singling out certain religious thought, and non religious
thought says quite a bit about his lack of tolerance or belief in religious
freedom.
>:|> No one has to explain Gardiner to anyone else, he does it all by himself.
>:|
he sure does, this reply by him is evidence of that.
>:|Alison is unquestionably associated with American Atheists
>:|http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt
>:|
LOL
The above URL takes one to an article written by
James N. Senyszyn and reprinted, as I recall by Wayne Aiken
The facts are Wayne had written me a year or two ago asking for permission
to use some things that I had researched and posted in various NGs and on
Tom Peters's Web page.
I gave such permission.
That does not establish any of the claims Gardiner is trying so desperately
to establish in an effort to diminish the associations that those who have
endorsed his book and co-author have with certain groups..
Fact is, I am not a member of any group. (I do subscribe to Direct TV NFL
Sunday Ticket, does that make me a member of some group?)
I don't subscribe to any publication other then the Journal of Church State
put out at Baylor U.
( I did subscribe to the Cleveland Browns Illustrated till this past fall
but found I could get as much if not more info from the various Cleveland
Browns web sites on line)
Oh yes, I take that back I just remembered I do belong to a group. I am a
member of the friends of the Library at ODU. That allows me to check out
books from their library.
That's it. No religious groups, no non-religious groups, no activist
groups, no non-activists groups. LOL
No affiliations.
Gee, maybe I need a life, I had better go over to K-Mart to see if they are
still offering life as a blue light special this week. LOL
Look at what depths someone will go to who is suppose to be reasonably
educated. Links on web pages and acknowledgment of permission given to use
some material is suppose to equal employment with and active physical and
mental involvement with numerous groups that have some very common
threads.
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|
================================================================
>:|Have you ever noticed that a number of posters in here have "atheist #1415" as
>:|part of their signature?
How many? Who? What does that mean and how does that alter anything about
you?
Do you think it is impossible for others to drop in by themselves.
Do you think it is impossible for others to have a variety of interests?
I have been surprised at finding people in various NGs. I found a guy in
the WWII NG that is also in the Cleveland Browns NGs which I frequent.
>:|and one who claimed to be the president of
>:|Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas (CLIT). Guess who attracted them to the fray? Do
>:|you think they were a natural part of the colonial history group, or do you
>:|think it is more likely that they were lured in here with a cross post by one
>:|of the leftist ideologues?
Leftist ideologies?
How interesting, you claim innocence to rightist ideologies yet make
unproven clams about leftist ideologies of others. In short, you are guilty
of the very thing you claim others are guilty of regarding you. How
interesting. LOL
Nice demonstration of your own biases.
Just to set the record straight, until you confine your posts to one NG you
are also reaching out to people in other NGs to read what you post, wanting
people to read what you want, so remember, as you point the finger at other
at least three fingers point back at you.
================================================================
>:|> >:|Have you ever noticed that a number of posters in here have "atheist #1415" as
>:|> >:|part of their signature?
>:|>
>:|> How many? Who? What does that mean and how does that alter anything about
>:|> you?
>:|
>:|Well, in the last two weeks we've had Jeff, Nash, and Pastor Stevo. In the past
>:|we've been blessed with the occasional trolling of Maff91 and his ilk.
>:|
His ilk?
>:|What it means is that the attacks on an honest history which acknowledges the
>:|centrality of religion in early America are largely rooted in an antagonistic
>:|disposition to religion in general. It is not a balanced critique.
>:|
You do not present honest history.
Beginning at the end of last Feb to the present, in a number of different
NGs and even larger number of threads, the bulk of those who have posted or
replied disagreeing with you gave no indication of their religious beliefs
or any lack thereof they may or may not have, therefore, your point is
biased and incorrect. Just like your history.
See, they seem to go together, don't they? LOL
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|> Kill file just means they get to make their arguments and you don't
>:|> respond. Therefore, any readers only get their side. Doesn't bode well for
>:|> you, does it? :o)
>:|
>:|I followed your lead in this regard:
>:|
>:|On 12/27/99, ALISON WROTE:
>:|
>:|"To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't even read his
>:|posts/replies. I delete them."
>:|
>:|I guess Schulman's incisive remarks were just too much for you. Doesn't bode
>:|well for you, does it? :o)
>:|
That isn't following my lead. You kill file Jeff, you say., I didn't kill
file anyone. I delete him, at least I know he responded and I can, if i
choose to do so, read him.
I don't bother because he is another clone of all your bad habits.
Rude. crude, little of value.
>:|> (1) Your arguments define your position far better then anything anyone
>:|> else has ever said about you.
>:|
>:|This is very true.
Yep, that is what I have been saying
>:|
>:|> (2) who endorses your book defines your position.
>:|
>:|The group that you call "we" defines your position (WICCANS)?
>:|
We? What we are you talking about now?
But otherwise already been answered.
>:|> (3) your co-author defines your position
>:|
>:|Those who endorse your writing defines your position
>:|(http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt)
>:|
DUH, endorse? Get the facts right, silly. They asked if they could use some
of the things I wrote.
Otherwise already been answered....
>:|> I haven't seen anything in ten months, from you, that are out of step with
>:|> what conclusions reasonable people could and probably would form about your
>:|> position based on the three things above.
>:|
>:|I haven't seen anything from you in ten months that is out of step with Wiccans,
>:|Atheists, and other radical groups who claim you.
>:|
A belief in religious liberty for religions, for all sects, for all
denominations, for all religious societies, equally, yep I am in step with
any that believe that. How interesting that you combine Wiccans and
atheists with other groups you call radical. Your intolerant biases are
showing.
Yes I also firmly believe that non religious have all the same rights as
any religious do, and that they are just as protected as any who are
religious.
Freedom does have two elements free to do free to not do, freedom to be
religious includes freedom to not be religious.
Freedom to choose the church you want to support when you are required to
support a church is not freedom.
Jeff/addesign
>Jeff/addesign wrote:
>>
>> buc...@exis.net wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >Do you understand that among the various things that Gardiner has claimed
>> >or implied is:
>> <snip>
>> >That when asked to show the religious evidence in the Constitution stated
>> >that the whole idea of a **federal** constitution, **federal** government,
>> >etc was based on Religion because the word federal means compact with God.
>>
>> Funny, I thought Federal was from the Latin _Foedus,_ treaty,
>> agreement; not from the Latin word for faith _fides_, or faithful,
>> _fidelis_. I can't find compact with God in there anywhere.
>"Foedus" was routinely translated "Covenant" by the Puritans. Thus, their most
>fundamental commitment was to FEDERAL THEOLOGY, also called COVENANTAL THEOLOGY.
I guess their scholarship was just as poor as yours. I'm, going by one
of my old Latin textbooks, and the Latin roots identified in any
competent dictionary.
>http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,27085+1,00.html
>When the founders championed a "federal" system, there was a clear connection to
>the covenantal history which preceded the founding.
>http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm10_samson.html
About as clear as the connection between Reform Judaism and Calvin.
IOW, imaginary.
Jeff/addesign
>Jeff/addesign wrote:
>>
>> buc...@exis.net wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >Do you understand that among the various things that Gardiner has claimed
>> >or implied is:
>> <snip>
>> >That when asked to show the religious evidence in the Constitution stated
>> >that the whole idea of a **federal** constitution, **federal** government,
>> >etc was based on Religion because the word federal means compact with God.
>>
>> Funny, I thought Federal was from the Latin _Foedus,_ treaty,
>> agreement; not from the Latin word for faith _fides_, or faithful,
>> _fidelis_. I can't find compact with God in there anywhere.
>"The Presbyterians in their reliance on federalism and representative
>institutions anticipated the political make-up of the future United States."
>Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Birth of the Nation (Knopf, 1968) p. 83.
Fascinating quote. Totally irrelevent to the etymology of "Federal."
Jeff/addesign
>On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 01:09:16 GMT, Jeff Sinclair
><jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote, in attempting to make a case for
>guilt-by-association against Mr. Gardner::
>...
>> "...Man is to subdue the earth and have dominion
>>over all its creatures. This is called 'The Cultural Mandate' because
>>it deals with all culture as we know it. As God's junior partners we
>>are to rule over the earth in His name."
>>This dogma is virtually the same as R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North's
>>radical Christian Reconstructionism.
>You moron, haven't you ever read Genesis (Book One, no less), where
>that "dogma" is famously expounded. It is fundamental to Judaism,
>Christianity, and western science!
To quote a Phil Harris song,
"the things that you're liable
to read in the Bible,
Ain't necesarily so."
Please list scientists who have stated that they rule over the earth
in God's name. I want specific quotes.
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|> There is information on the web about this co-authoir that very much places
>:|> that person well within the framework of the far religious right.
>:|
>:|There is information on the web that places Alison within the framework of the
>:|Wiccan Pagan cult. (http://members.aol.com/Talendear/whoidx.html)
>:|
>:|> No one has to explain Gardiner to anyone else, he does it all by himself.
>:|
>:|Alison is unquestionably associated with American Atheists
>:|http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt
>:|
Kindly compare the information from the following that was posted by Jeff
to the two URLs provided by Gardiner
From: Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,sci.skeptic,alt.deism
Subject: Setting the Record Straight (Part 3 of 4)
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 05:38:12 GMT
<<Part 3 of 4>>
=================
It is also instructive that the book of his that he has been touting
since nearly the beginning of last year was co-authored by Gary Amos, a
law professor at the Pat Robertson School of Government at Regent
University, supported by Pat Robertson’s organization. Gardiner has
said that his views concerning church and state issues differ from
Amos. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Gardiner has characterized his co-author as a supported of Americans
United for the Separation of Church and State. However, Gardiner’s
claims have been shown consistently to be untrustworthy. How might
these claims be examined critically?
Gary Amos’es positions of these matters and relevant associations have
been well documented on several places on the internet and in several
sources. Below are a number of these sources:
[but they are not the only sources that are on the internet -JA-]
------------------------------------------------
THE COALITION ON REVIVAL
Some of the most substantial interaction between reconstructionists and
religious right leaders has occurred under the auspices of` the
Coalition on Revival (COR). Founded as a non-profit thinktank and
evangelical networking agency by Jay Grimstead in 1984, COR seeks to
bridge theological differences in order to foster a conservative
Christian regeneration of American culture -- notably by means of
political action.
COR is not a reconstructionist group: its steering committee has
included many of the country's leading evangelicals, including some who
have had little if any affiliation with the religious right movernent.
The foundation of COR's mission, its major documents -- a "Manifesto
for the Christian Church," 17 Worldview," position papers on different
issues, and 42 doctrinal articles -- are conservative, but not
expressly theocratic.
However, the group's heavy reconstructionist presence, Grimstead's
pronouncements, and the stated aims of the group's activist arm all
suggest that COR at least flirts with -- if it has not pledged itself
to -- theocracy, and that it engages other extreme notions
RECONSTRUCTIONISTS IN COR
In 1986, when COR's "Manifesto" was drafted, the group's steering
committee included R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, and Gary DeMar. Several
other committee members had publicly endorsed reconstructionist
thinkers or championed theocratic notions, including Dennis Peacocke of
Strategic Christian Services (who once said, "Their 'wall of
separation' between church and state is, in reality, not a wall but a
coffin") and Rus Walton, executive director of the reconstructionist-
associated Plymouth Rock Foundation. Non-steering committee signees of
COR's document included David Chilton, Joseph Morecraft and Robert
Thoburn, sympathizers ***Gary Amos*** and Joseph Kickasola of Regent
University and Steven Hotze, a Harris County Texas, Republican Party
official. Hotze reportedly favors the death penalty for homosexuals and
has hosted Gary DeMar at GOP functions.
Among the prominent religious right figures on the steeling committee
during this time and in subsequent years were Donald Wildmon, Robert
Simonds, Beverly LaHaye, Tim LaHaye, D. James Kennedy, former
congressman Mark Siljander, recent Virginia lieutenant governor-
candidate Michael Farris, leading creationist Duane Gish, past Free
Congress Foundation executive vice-president Connaught "Connie”
Marshner, and Dee Jepsen, Chairman of Regent University.
By 1993, several of these figures had defected, reportedly due to COR's
reconstructionist affiliations. The LaHayes, Wildmon, Simonds, and
Kennedy, along with other more mainstream figures had left the group; a
number of mainstream evangelicals remain on the steering committee,
however. (R.J. Rushdoony has also left COR.)
(Source of Information: The religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance &
Pluralism in America, A publication of the Anti-Defamation League.
(1994)
pp 127)
Amos is prominently listed here as at least a sympathizer of a group
devoted in part or in whole to tearing down the wall of separation
between church and state. There are other sources as well, which point
to the unlikelihood of Gary Amos being a separationist as Gardiner says
that he is:
http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/97mar/s03.htm
“No one after reading this work will ever be convinced the Founders
were, by and large, secularists bent on undermining a Christian
society; they may have been naive at some points; they were not
disingenuous. Jasper Adams supported the legal disestablishment of any
particular Christian church in the nation, but not the legal
disestablishment of the Christian religion. This is the present
reviewer's position. Other recent works expressing this general
viewpoint include M. E. Bradford's Religion and the Framers (Plymouth
Rock Foundation [P.O. Box 577, Fisk Hill on Water Street, Marlborough,
NH 03455], 1991) and A Worthy Company (Plymouth Rock, 1982); John
Eidsmoe's Christianity and the Constitution (Baker, 1987); and Gary
Amos's Defending the Declaration (Providence Foundation [P.O. Box 6759,
Charlottesville, VA 22906], 1994). All are worth serious attention.”
http://www.phoenix.net/~prosocs/riterev.html
“Reconstructionists’ insistance on incorporating dominion over all
mankind in order to initiate the "second coming" should be of concern
to us all. The presence of influencial
Reconstructionists in areas of public policy, education and politics is
definitely an alert to the wise. In order to challenge a movement that
would change our form of government to a Christian-based theocracy, we
must be knowledgeable of who these people are. They are already at work
behind the scenes to change our government through the passage of laws,
court rulings and the election of public officials who have accepted
the support of those in this movement in return for votes. It is
imperative that we do not accept these changes as benign through
ignorance of the real motives. These "Christian Elites" will call the
shots once they have accomplished their political goals.
The beliefs of reconstructionists are described in a document called A
Manifesto for the Christian Church. Signers of the Manifesto include:
Dennis Peacocke, Strategic Christian Services; Dr. Ted Baehr, Good News
Communications; Dr. Gary Amos, Rregent University, Law & Public Policy;
Gary DeMar, American Vision and Worldview Magazine; Ted DeMoss,
Christian Business Men's Committee; Dr. Jay Grimstead, Coalition on
Revival; Dr. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church; Dr. Tim
LaHaye, American Coalition for Traditional Values; Mrs. Connie
Marshner, Free Congress Foundation; Dr. Gary North, Institute for
Christian Economics; Dr. R. J. Rushdoony, Chalcedon Institute; Mark
Siljander, Global Strategics, Inc.; Dr. Robert Simonds, Citizens for
Excellence in Education; Rev. Donald Wildmon, American Family
Association; David Chilton, Pastor, Church of the Redeemer; Dr. Steven
Hotze, political activist, Houston, Texas.
Other public figures who, although they are not listed as signers of
the Manifesto, adhere to its mandates, are:
William Dannemeyer, former Member, U. S. Congress; Dennis Peterson,
Creation Resource Foundation; Randall Terry, Operation Rescue and U. S.
Taxpayers Party; Cyrus Zal, Rutherford Institute.
These signers network with many organizations across the nation to
implement Reconstructionism into every facet of our lives. R. J.
Rushdoony is considered to be the modern day father of Christian
Reconstruction. His son-in-law is Gary North, who heads the Institute
for Christian Economics in Tyler, Texas. Jay Grimstead, who heads the
Coalition on Revival (COR), has been very active in the movement but
declines to refer to himself as a Reconstructionist.
The "Foundation Documents" are the heart of Reconstructionist religious
philosophy. They include A Manifesto for the Christian Church, 42
Articles on Historic Christian Doctrine and the Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy. Included in the Manifesto is A Statement of Essential Truths
and A Call to Action. Numbers one and two of this document assert the
inerrancy of the Bible based on The Chicago Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy.(2)
Number three states:
"The Bible States Reality for All Areas of Life and Thought.
"We affirm that the Bible is not only God's statements to us regarding
religion, salvation, eternity, and righteousness, but also the final
measurement and depository of certain fundamental facts of reality and
basic principles that God wants all mankind to know in the spheres of
law, government, economics, business, education, arts and
communication, medicine, psychology, and science. All theories and
practices of these spheres of life are only true, right, and realistic
to the degree that they agree with the Bible. The Bible furnishes
mankind with the only logical and verbal connection between time and
eternity, religion and science, the visible and invisible worlds."
(Emphasis added.)
In the Christian World View Documents, it is explained exactly in what
way this world view will effect "every sphere of life and thought." ”
Amos is listed here again. He is associated with a group whose goals
are 180 degrees opposite from that of AUSCS. If indeed he subscribes to
their publication, it is almost certainly because he is keeping an eye
on what the opposition is saying.
He is associated with an organization, namely the Christian Coalition,
through his tenure at Pat Robertson’s Regent University and his
publicly demonstrated sympathies, that has urged political candidates
associated with it to hide their sympathies from the public:
http://www.pfaw.org/issues/right/bg_cc.shtml
“In 1992, Reed told a Coalition gathering, "The first strategy, and in
many ways the most important strategy, for evangelicals is secrecy."
The Christian Coalition's initial approach to elections, popularly
known as "stealth" tactics, has three essential parts: targeting low-
profile elections that normally attract few voters, focusing get-out-
the-vote efforts on certain conservative churches, and instructing the
candidates to hide its views from the public by avoiding public
appearances and refusing to fill out questionnaires.
The Coalition's strategy first attracted national attention in 1990,
when a coalition of right-wing groups, led by the Christian Coalition,
helped candidates in San Diego win 60 of 90 races for a variety of
offices, from school to hospital board. Apparently indifferent or
oblivious to the threat posed to democracy by "stealth tactics," Reed
boasted of their success. "[S]tealth was a big factor in San Diego's
success," he said. "But that's just good strategy. It's like guerrilla
warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your
opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move
quietly, with stealth, under cover of night." He expanded the metaphor
elsewhere, "I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my
face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a
body bag. You don't know until election night." “
This contradicts what Gardiner has had to say about his co-author quite
decisively. Either Amos did not tell the whole truth to Gardiner over
the phone, or Gardiner does know the truth about Amos’ sympathies and
is choosing to use such “stealth tactics” both on Amos’ behalf and on
his own.
Interestingly enough, the critique of Amos book comes from a history
professor, Gary Schultz, who Gardiner himself uses as a source in one
of his “rebuttals” of a recent post of mine. It is in a journal which
in several articles appears to be at least somewhat conservative is not
itself accomodationist. I will post what I feel to be relevant
comments; readers are invited to see the whole article to check for
context. Admittedly, there are some positive comments in this article
as seen by the reviewer of Amos’ book as well which the reader can see
in the entire article. The critiques are included here to contradict
Gardiner’s point that “, I don't think you will find much fault with
Dr. Amos' work”. It also demonstrates that the central purpose of this
is not as an objective history but as a debating manual, stressing a
polemical purpose to this extended political tract, not dissimilar to
what Gardiner has been doing:
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/reviews/cm01_rev_declaration.html
“The book is engaging, polemical, and vigorously argued; Amos admits
that it was designed to be something of a "debater's manual". He
relentlessly challenges liberal historians, and takes to the woodshed
the neo-evangelical historians who parrot their theories. This pit-bull
approach to history makes the book interesting, and does not hurt its
effectiveness, since Amos is up-front about his approach and makes no
pretence of being a detached, dispassionate historian….
Amos's treatment of the Enlightenment and its influence on America,
however, falls short. He has an excellent section on "demythologizing"
the myth of the American Enlightenment, showing that radical forms of
continental deism, which claimed that God was never involved in the
world - winding up the world and letting it run by itself - were rare
in America and had limited influence. Furthermore, he correctly argues
that Americans, while not all born-again believers, did have a largely
Christian worldview and were nurtured in the Judeo-Christian tradition,
and that Christianity was a major feature of the colonial intellectual
milieu. But one only wishes Amos were more sophisticated in developing
this idea. The first problem with the book is that it leaves the idea
that Americans were either devout Christians or radical deists,
whereas, in fact, there was probably some middle ground.
His treatment of Jefferson is an example of this. Though noting that
Jefferson was not a Christian, Amos argues that he was raised in a
pious colonial atmosphere and had great respect for Christian ethics
(the famous Jefferson Bible summarized the valuable moral principals of
Christ). While this is true enough, Amos fails to explore the possible
Enlightenment influence on Jefferson and his political ideas, including
those expressed in the Declaration. In short, Amos tries too hard to
sanitize Jefferson and the Declaration.
Secondly, Amos is largely content with a simplistic type of
intellectual genealogy. While it is true that roots for the ideas of
the Declaration are found in the Pauline epistles and medieval
theology, they are found elsewhere as well. What does it matter, for
instance, if Thomas Aquinas used ideas of natural law? Did Jefferson
read Aquinas, or did he glean his ideas about natural law from some
other source? Amos does not mention secular sources for these important
terms, or explore the contexts in which they were used. He does not,
for instance, mention Gary Wills's Inventing America, a seminal work on
Jefferson's thought arguing for the influence of Scottish Realism.
(Amos believes Locke was the primary philosophical influence.) Amos
limits the power of his work by neglecting these dimensions of
intellectual history.
Historians will be disappointed, thirdly, with Amos's historical
methodology. He largely ignores secondary sources on the Declaration,
arguing that they are too biased. He claims, somewhat naively, that he
uses only the primary sources to get the true picture of the period.
Yet his study of the primary sources for Jefferson is weak, a major
limitation in a study of the Declaration.
Finally, it is not clear that Amos really proved his point. If he was
trying to prove that Christianity was an influence on the Declaration,
he succeeded. But it is open to question if it was the influence.
Furthermore, while Amos shows that the Declaration includes much
theological terminology, he never proves that it is used in a
Christian, not a deistic or Unitarian sense. Though he capably brings
the Judeo-Christian tradition to center stage in the discussion of the
Declaration, the Enlightenment always lurks behind the curtains ”
=========================================================
Richard A. Schulman
>>> "...Man is to subdue the earth and have dominion
>>>over all its creatures. This is called 'The Cultural Mandate' because
>>>it deals with all culture as we know it. As God's junior partners we
>>>are to rule over the earth in His name."
>>>This dogma is virtually the same as R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North's
>>>radical Christian Reconstructionism.
Richard Schulman:
>>You moron, haven't you ever read Genesis (Book One, no less), where
>>that "dogma" is famously expounded. It is fundamental to Judaism,
>>Christianity, and western science!
Sinclair's reply:
>To quote a Phil Harris song,
>"the things that you're liable
>to read in the Bible,
>Ain't necesarily so."
You're hardly in a position yourself to comment on what is or isn't so
in the Bible because your original post indicates that you don't have
the cultural literacy level expected of a third grader with respect to
that book. A third grader will certainly be up on creation stories --
Greek, Norse, Biblical, etc. -- and have read and understood Genesis
I, unlike yourself.
You need to spend more time reading worthwhile books and less time
dumping drivel into newsgroups.
>Please list scientists who have stated that they rule over the earth
>in God's name. I want specific quotes.
Such explicit acknowledgement is not necessary. If you understand
science and can bring yourself to qualify for advancement to fourth
grade by reading Genesis I, 26-28, you will see there an admirable
early expression of the hubristic program of western science.
Mike Curtis
>Jeff Sinclair:
>>>> "...Man is to subdue the earth and have dominion
>>>>over all its creatures. This is called 'The Cultural Mandate' because
>>>>it deals with all culture as we know it. As God's junior partners we
>>>>are to rule over the earth in His name."
>>>>This dogma is virtually the same as R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North's
>>>>radical Christian Reconstructionism.
>
>Richard Schulman:
>>>You moron, haven't you ever read Genesis (Book One, no less), where
>>>that "dogma" is famously expounded. It is fundamental to Judaism,
>>>Christianity, and western science!
>Sinclair's reply:
Wrong Jeff.
>>To quote a Phil Harris song,
>>"the things that you're liable
>>to read in the Bible,
>>Ain't necesarily so."
>
>You're hardly in a position yourself to comment on what is or isn't so
>in the Bible because your original post indicates that you don't have
>the cultural literacy level expected of a third grader
In comes Richard "Ad Hominem" Schulman who doesn't seem to realize
that Jeff/Add Design and Jeff Sinclair aren't the same people. But
then he really doesn't care whan his M.O. is to blindly attack.
>You need to spend more time reading worthwhile books and less time
>dumping drivel into newsgroups.
You present a good example. So let's follow your lead, shall we?
Mike Curtis
Richard A. Schulman
wrote:
>Jeff/Add Design and Jeff Sinclair aren't the same people.
Thanks for prompting me not to confuse Tweedle-Dee with Tweedle-Dum!
Gardiner
>
> >:|> And no, it isn't a bunch of URLs to other sites for documents,
> >:|> it is the real Mccoy (BTW u ever hear the story behind that phrase? its
> >:|> pretty interesting)
> >:|
>
> >:|IIRC it had to do with smuggling liquor during Prohibition. Now who is "posting"
> >:|outside of the parameters of 1600-1800?
> >:|
>
> Gee, I get to pull a Childress and call you a liar, only in this case, it
> will be true, you are a liar, or seriously deluded.
>
> I would love to see you produce any post of mine, any reply of mine that in
> any manner deals with smuggling liquor during prohibition.
So tell us the colonial american story behind the phrase "the Real McCoy".
LOL.
RG
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> >:|There is information on the web that places Alison within the framework of the
> >:|Wiccan Pagan cult. (http://members.aol.com/Talendear/whoidx.html)
> >:|
>
> Actually, when I try to go to the above URL I get
>
> "Sorry, We Can't Find That Page"
>
> Now, to be honest, there had been a page there a week or so ago.
What happened here is quite clear. You got burned and exposed for showing your
true colors, and you contacted your Wiccan friends and asked them to disocciate
from you. LOL.
The bottom line here is that your own silly "guilt-by-association" tactics,
which are employed by you and Sinclair to detract from the substance of the real
issues, have come back to bite you, and you don't want to have to deal with it.
Here's the deal, Jim. Stick to the substance of the issues, and stay off the "i
dont like your friends" kicks, and it won't ever turn on you.
> Fact is, I am not a member of any group. (I do subscribe to Direct TV NFL
> Sunday Ticket, does that make me a member of some group?)
Why do you and Sinclair insist on trying as hard as you can to claim that I am a
member of so many groups. The fact is, I am no more a member of any groups than
you are. I don't even have direct TV.
> I don't subscribe to any publication other then the Journal of Church State
> put out at Baylor U.
My only subscription is MAD magazine.
> ( I did subscribe to the Cleveland Browns Illustrated till this past fall
> but found I could get as much if not more info from the various Cleveland
> Browns web sites on line)
I'm a cheesehead.
> Oh yes, I take that back I just remembered I do belong to a group. I am a
> member of the friends of the Library at ODU. That allows me to check out
> books from their library.
I remember too, I once received a mailing from the Jim Morrison & DOORS fan
club.
> That's it. No religious groups, no non-religious groups, no activist
> groups, no non-activists groups. LOL
>
> No affiliations.
>
> Gee, maybe I need a life, I had better go over to K-Mart to see if they are
> still offering life as a blue light special this week. LOL
>
> Look at what depths someone will go to who is suppose to be reasonably
> educated. Links on web pages and acknowledgment of permission given to use
> some material is suppose to equal employment with and active physical and
> mental involvement with numerous groups that have some very common
> threads.
That's the game that you and Sinclair invented. You and Sinclair have bent over
backwards to paint me the poster boy for the 700 club everytime you get a
chance. It's a pretty desperate move.
No 700 club for me. I'm usually too busy watching South Park.
RG
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> >:|There is information on the web that places Alison within the framework of the
> >:|Wiccan Pagan cult. (http://members.aol.com/Talendear/whoidx.html)
> >:|
>
> Actually, when I try to go to the above URL I get
>
> "Sorry, We Can't Find That Page"
>
> Now, to be honest, there had been a page there a week or so ago.
What happened here is quite clear. You got burned and exposed for showing your
true colors, and you contacted your Wiccan friends and asked them to disocciate
from you. LOL.
The bottom line here is that your own silly "guilt-by-association" tactics,
which are employed by you and Sinclair to detract from the substance of the real
issues, have come back to bite you, and you don't want to have to deal with it.
Here's the deal, Jim. Stick to the substance of the issues, and stay off the "i
dont like your friends" kicks, and it won't ever turn on you.
> Fact is, I am not a member of any group. (I do subscribe to Direct TV NFL
> Sunday Ticket, does that make me a member of some group?)
Why do you and Sinclair insist on trying as hard as you can to claim that I am a
member of so many groups. The fact is, I am no more a member of any groups than
you are. I don't even have direct TV.
> I don't subscribe to any publication other then the Journal of Church State
> put out at Baylor U.
My only subscription is MAD magazine.
> ( I did subscribe to the Cleveland Browns Illustrated till this past fall
> but found I could get as much if not more info from the various Cleveland
> Browns web sites on line)
I'm a cheesehead.
> Oh yes, I take that back I just remembered I do belong to a group. I am a
> member of the friends of the Library at ODU. That allows me to check out
> books from their library.
I remember too, I once received a mailing from the Jim Morrison & DOORS fan
club.
> That's it. No religious groups, no non-religious groups, no activist
> groups, no non-activists groups. LOL
>
> No affiliations.
>
> Gee, maybe I need a life, I had better go over to K-Mart to see if they are
> still offering life as a blue light special this week. LOL
>
> Look at what depths someone will go to who is suppose to be reasonably
> educated. Links on web pages and acknowledgment of permission given to use
> some material is suppose to equal employment with and active physical and
> mental involvement with numerous groups that have some very common
> threads.
That's the game that you and Sinclair invented. You and Sinclair have bent over
Jeff/addesign
>Jeff Sinclair:
>>>> "...Man is to subdue the earth and have dominion
>>>>over all its creatures. This is called 'The Cultural Mandate' because
>>>>it deals with all culture as we know it. As God's junior partners we
>>>>are to rule over the earth in His name."
>>>>This dogma is virtually the same as R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North's
>>>>radical Christian Reconstructionism.
>Richard Schulman:
>>>You moron, haven't you ever read Genesis (Book One, no less), where
>>>that "dogma" is famously expounded. It is fundamental to Judaism,
>>>Christianity, and western science!
>Sinclair's reply:
>>To quote a Phil Harris song,=20
>>"the things that you're liable
>>to read in the Bible,
>>Ain't necesarily so."
>You're hardly in a position yourself to comment on what is or isn't so
>in the Bible because your original post indicates that you don't have
>the cultural literacy level expected of a third grader with respect to
>that book. A third grader will certainly be up on creation stories --
>Greek, Norse, Biblical, etc. -- and have read and understood Genesis
>I, unlike yourself.
I'm up on the creation stories. I'll match my literacy level against
someone who can't tell one usenet author from another, any day.
>You need to spend more time reading worthwhile books and less time
>dumping drivel into newsgroups.
Et tu, Brute?
>>Please list scientists who have stated that they rule over the earth
>>in God's name. I want specific quotes.
>Such explicit acknowledgement is not necessary. If you understand
>science and can bring yourself to qualify for advancement to fourth
>grade by reading Genesis I, 26-28, you will see there an admirable
>early expression of the hubristic program of western science.
Sorry, that answer just doesn't cut it. You postulated it, you can
substantiate it.
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> >:|> There is information on the web about this co-authoir that very much places
> >:|> that person well within the framework of the far religious right.
> >:|
> >:|There is information on the web that places Alison within the framework of the
> >:|Wiccan Pagan cult. (http://members.aol.com/Talendear/whoidx.html)
> >:|
> >:|> No one has to explain Gardiner to anyone else, he does it all by himself.
> >:|
> >:|Alison is unquestionably associated with American Atheists
> >:|http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt
> >:|
>
> Kindly compare the information from the following that was posted by Jeff
> to the two URLs provided by Gardiner
Kennedy has expressed appreciation my work. American Atheists have expressed
appreciation for yours. You bend over backwards to say that this is no proof
that you are a card carrying atheist, but you and sinclair persist at claiming
that this is proof that I am a card-carrying "reconstructionist."
The hypocrisy is glaring.
As far as Sinclair is concerned, he spends so much time looking into and
attempting to exploit "associations," while at the same time saying about
himself "I refuse to give any information whatsoever about my background,
because my associations shouldn't be the issue."
The hypocrisy is glaring.
My record and background has been an open book. I'm not ashamed of it. I am a
college prep school teacher at an independent unaffiliated private school in
Wisconsin. The time that I am not involved in my duties concerning school, I am
usually pounding away on my computer responding to inquiries about my book and
responding to silly allegations of being a "reconstructionist." I have no time
to be anything other than a teacher and a newsgroup regular.
My only contact with reconstructionists has been negative. I don't approve of
their goals. I happen to know that Amos has little love for them as well. Last
year I had an ongoing debate with one of these fellows who believed in an
establishment of Presbyterianism; he cursed me to hell. I can provide you with
the substance of that exchange if it means anything.
Quite frankly, I'm finding all this "guilt by association" banter to be a real
waste of time. That is one of the main reasons why I have opted to ignore
Sinclair as much as possible. I trust that intelligent people know the
difference between presenting evidence and presenting slander and inflammatory
inuendo. I'm sure if Sinclair keeps digging, he might find out that I wet my
pants when I was in kindergarten, and yes, I have attended Bible studies with
people who believe in creationism. Oh my! guess that means Gardiner is a Nazi
who wants to make the U.S. a theocracy, yada yada yada.
Can we move on to something substantive?
I noticed how much you are dodging my straightforward historical post as a
response to Mr. Clem's question, which I have archived at
http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/liberty.html
I invite you to rise above Sinclair. I guess that's asking too much.
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >Jeff/addesign wrote:
> >>
> >> buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> >Do you understand that among the various things that Gardiner has claimed
> >> >or implied is:
> >> <snip>
> >> >That when asked to show the religious evidence in the Constitution stated
> >> >that the whole idea of a **federal** constitution, **federal** government,
> >> >etc was based on Religion because the word federal means compact with God.
> >>
> >> Funny, I thought Federal was from the Latin _Foedus,_ treaty,
> >> agreement; not from the Latin word for faith _fides_, or faithful,
> >> _fidelis_. I can't find compact with God in there anywhere.
>
> >fundamental commitment was to FEDERAL THEOLOGY, also called COVENANTAL THEOLOGY.
>
> I guess their scholarship was just as poor as yours.
Their Latin Scholarship was FIRST RATE
http://www.universitylake.org/history/harvard.html
> >http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,27085+1,00.html
>
> >When the founders championed a "federal" system, there was a clear connection to
> >the covenantal history which preceded the founding.
> >http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm10_samson.html
>
> About as clear as the connection between Reform Judaism and Calvin.
> IOW, imaginary.
An imaginary fantasy which has sure fooled these Ph.D.'s:
Perry Miller, The Puritans (New York, Harper & Row, 1963).
Ralph Barton Perry, Puritanism and Democracy (New York: The Vanguard Press,
1944). Ralph C. Hancock,
Calvin and The Foundations of Modern Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1989).
George Laird, Hunt, ed. Calvinism and the Political Order (Philadelphia,
Westminster Press, 1965).
Donald S. Lutz: "From Covenant to Constitution in American Political Thought."
Publius 10 (Fall 1980), 101-133.
Donald S. Lutz: Documents of Political Foundation by Colonial Americans.
Philadelphia: ISHI Press, 1986.
Donald S. Lutz: A Covenanted People. The Religious Tradition and the Origins of
American
Constitutionalism. The John Carter Brown Library: Providence, RI, 1987.
Donald S. Lutz: : The Origins of American Constitutionalism. Baton Rouge and
London: Louisiana State UP,
1988.
Donald S. Lutz (edited, introductory essay): Colonial Origins of the American
Constitution. A Documentary
History. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998.
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >Jeff/addesign wrote:
> >>
> >> buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> >Do you understand that among the various things that Gardiner has claimed
> >> >or implied is:
> >> <snip>
> >> >That when asked to show the religious evidence in the Constitution stated
> >> >that the whole idea of a **federal** constitution, **federal** government,
> >> >etc was based on Religion because the word federal means compact with God.
> >>
> >> Funny, I thought Federal was from the Latin _Foedus,_ treaty,
> >> agreement; not from the Latin word for faith _fides_, or faithful,
> >> _fidelis_. I can't find compact with God in there anywhere.
>
> >institutions anticipated the political make-up of the future United States."
>
> >Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Birth of the Nation (Knopf, 1968) p. 83.
>
> Fascinating quote. Totally irrelevent to the etymology of "Federal."
"Federal" as used by Calvinists, as were the preponderance of those living in
the founding generation (I believe Alison says it was 90% or so) in America, had
clear connotations as it referred to the essense of their theological
presuppositions
(http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,27085+1,00.html)
The "Federalism" which Schlesinger wrote about had to do with the system of
republicanism which is part and parcel of Presbyterian polity, as set forth by
its architect, John Calvin.
http://www.flash.net/~jaybanks/books/reformed/8.htm
buc...@exis.net
>:|
>:|Secular -- Worldly rather than spiritual.
>:|
>:|Humanist -- One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of
>:|human beings.
>:|
>:|In other words: One that denies a spiritual influence that is
>:|concerned with the welfare of human beings.
>:|
==========================================================
Some food for thought What follows is from a post discussion on the subject
of secular humanism.
=============================================================
###new###To:
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.current-events.usa,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,t
alk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress
Subject: Re: Promise Keepers Criticized for Being Politically Incorrect!
From: jal...@infi.net
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 22:31:10 GMT
9...@spies.com (Extremely Right) wrote:
>:|The left teaches a philosophy, a religion of Humanism, in school.
>:|This is the state religion. ###8up
This was a discussion that I had with another over this very thing, it
works well here too.
>:|First, Secular Humanism IS a religion.
I do suppose you are going to supply evidence to establish this fact?
The first thing you might want to address is the fact that secular and
humanism are two separate words.
Secular refers to anything non religious.
Humanism is defined as "any system or mode of thought or action in which
human interests, values, and dignity and taken to be of primary importance,
as in moral judgements. Devotion to or study of the humanities.".
Taking into account the latter definition, even religious schools teach
courses that are considered to be part of the humanities.
Next, you will have to address the fact that while there may be some
dispute as to which of the two actually coined the phrase first, the phrase
secular humanism is credited to either Leo Pfeffer or Joseph Blau, then
professor emeritus of religion at Columbia University. However neither Leo
Pfeffer nor Blau placed the type of meaning you are trying to put to it.
Pfeffer's meaning when he wrote the phrase in his book, CREED IN
COMPETITION, which was published in 1958 defines it in this manner. "Those
unaffiliated with organized religion and concerned with human values."
Then there are some of the following facts:
__________________________________________________________________________
" If secular humanism is a religion it is a funny kind of religion.
It has no credo other than humanism--which is hardly an
indispensable aspect of religion as is manifested by general and judicial
recognition as religions of creeds that forbid blood transfusions
(Jehovah's Witnesses), medical treatment (Church of Christian
Science), or abortion even where necessary to save the life of a human
being (Roman Catholic Church). It has no great founder or leader
such as Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy.
or Reverend Sun Myung Moon. It has no prayers, no sermons or sermonizers,
no rituals, no priesthoods, no symbols such as crosses, crucifixes and
Stars of David, and no sacred books, such as the
Old or New Testament, the Koran, Mary Baker Eddy's Science and
Health With Key to the Scriptures, or Book of Mormon. Marriage
ceremonies performed by secular humanists are not likely to be
recognized by states that accept ceremonial marriages performed by
clergymen. Indeed, the term secular by itself indicates something
that is not religious. (Use of the word to distinguish lay from clergy
in Catholicism is obviously not intended to encompass "Secular Humanist.")
Most important, the recently published Encyclopedia
of Religion (13) has no reference to secular humanism. It is difficult
to attribute the status of a religion to persons who are not recognized
as such in undoubtedly the foremost authoritative encyclopedia of religion,
particularly if it is claimed that they existed as long ago
as 1961 when Torcaso was decided.
Be all this as it may, one thing can be asserted with a fair degree
of certainty: Justice Black never anticipated and never intended that
the term secular humanism should be used by champions of
fundamentalism as justification for either censorship of public school
instruction or introduction of religious instruction or both. But that
is exactly what happened, and unlike the genie in the Arabian nights,
secular humanism could not be returned into the Everson and
McCollum bottle. Before, however, discussing the instances in which this
has happened and is still happening, it is appropriate to recount
the venture into this arena on the part of Utah's Senator Orrin
Hatch, then chairman of the Senate's Committee on Labor and
Human Resources.
In 1984, Congress adopted the Education for Economic Security
Act of that year for the purpose of bringing up to date the Higher
Education Act of 1963 and the Elementary and Secondary Act of
1965. Section 20 U,S.C.A. 4059 of the 1984 statute read: "Grants
under this subchapter ['Magnet School Assistance] may not be used
for consultants, for transportation or for any activity which does not
augment academic improvement." With no public notice, Senator Hatch tacked
on to the proposed exclusionary subsection the words
"or for any course of instruction the substance of which is secular
Humanism." The subsection thus read: "Grants under this subsection
may not be used for consultants, for transportation, or for any activity
which does not augment academic improvements or for any course
of instruction the substance of which is secular humanism."
How this came about is indicated in an interview by Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan of New York: "I have no idea what secular
humanism is. No one knows ... I thought it was the price I had
to pay to get school desegregation money."(14) Earlier, a press spokesman
for Senator Hatch's Committee said that secular
Humanism "is almost a term of art. You get into value education
and a bunch of touchy-feely stuff that came out in the 70's. Conservatives
Object because these things may get in the way of
a Christian education .... That's a long way of saying there is
no quick definition for it."(15).
Senator Hatch and his staff could not decide what a course using "secular
humanism" might be; nor could his committee, nor the Department of Justice
attorney called in for assistance; so it was decided to pass the ball to
local school boards. "School boards," Senator Hatch's staff assistant
explained,"depend on sane, reasonable people running them. There is no
definition you can build into
federal law that can keep crazy people from misinterpreting things. The
absence of a working definition was a glitch. But with a little luck it
won't be a serious glitch." Accordingly, a resolution was adopted that
read: "A LEA [Local Education Agency] that receives [financial] resistance
under this part may not use funds for any course of instruction the
substance of which the LEA determines is secular humanism."
Unfortunately, the "glitch" turned out to be more serious than Senator
Hatch and his staff expected. Unfortunate too was the reality that it
would not go away. On the contrary, the publicity arising
from newspaper accounts of the Hatch amendment resulted, on the
one side, in a nationwide awakening among fundamentalists who
suddenly realized that they had discovered a good thing and were
not about to let it go; and on the other side, the action of People for the
American Way in calling upon the Education Department
to define what it meant by "secular humanism" in its regulations, and that
of the American Jewish Congress in requesting the
Department to amend the regulation so as to make clear that the
Act "does not authorize much less require public schools to urge religious
values on their students."
Senator Hatch, hardly a great libertarian, came to realize that
the "glitch" had to be extinguished, preferably as publicly unnoticeable as
was its inception. Accordingly, a bill was introduced to amend
the statute so as to delete from the statute the words "or for courses of
instruction the substance of which is secular humanism." The
bill was passed in both houses of Congress and approved by the
president in November of 1985, a little more than a year after it
was first enacted. Sic transit Hatch amendment. Hatch amendment
or no Hatch amendment, secular humanism is a weapon here to stay, at least
until such time as the Supreme Court hands down
a decision stating in clear terms that in constitutional law, then
is no such thing as "secular humanism."
Indeed, the Court had an opportunity to do this as early as 1963
barely two years after the Torcoso decision was handed down. In
that year it handed down its decision in Abington School district
v. Schempp,(16) and the companion case, Murray v. Curlett,(17) both
of which challenged the constitutionality of laws providing for devotional
Bible reading and prayer recitation in the public schools.
In Abington, in holding the practice unconstitutional, the Court said, "It
is insisted that unless these exercises are permitted a 'religion of
secularism' is established in the schools. We agree of course that the
State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense
of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring
those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. We do not
agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect."(18)
(13.) Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillian, 1987)
(14.) New York Times, 22 February 1985
(15.) Washington Post, 10 January 1985
(16.) Abington Township School District v. Srhempp, 374 U.S. 203
(1963).
(17.) Ibid.
(18.) Ibid.,225.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION:
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE VOL. 29 AUTUMN 1987 NUMBER 3
ARTICLE TITLED: THE "RELIGION" OF SECULAR HUMANISM by Leo Pfeffer, pgs 498
- 500 )
__________________________________________________________________________
> I will not post the
>:|entire contents of the two Humanist Manifestos, but you can
>:|examine them at your leisure. Clearly SH, by its own standards,
>:|is a religion, albeit a non-theistic religion.
Well, are you able to make a connection between those who call themselves
humanists and subscribe to this Humanist Manifesto, agree with it, perhaps
wrote it, etc, and those whom you label as secular humanists?
>:|
>:|The second Humanist Manifesto says:
>:|
>:| As we approach the twenty-first century, however, an
>:| affirmative and hopeful vision is needed. Faith, commensurate
>:|
>:| with advancing knowledge, is also necessary. In the choice
>:| between despair and hope, humanists respond in this Humanist
>:| Manifesto II with a positive declaration for times of
>:| uncertainty.
>:|
>:| As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism,
>:|
>:| especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live
>:| and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers,
>:| and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and
>:|
>:| outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation,
>:| still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes
>:| of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for
>:|
>:| survival.
>:|
>:|This quote alone shows the religious quality of SH. The balance
>:|of the two documents is equally candid.
>:|
>:|See <http://www.codesh.org/manifest_i.html> and
>:|<http://www.codesh.org/manifest_ii.html>.
>:|
Be that as it may, you have not established any connection between those
who wrote those words and secular humanists.
>:|Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has ruled the SH is a
>:|religion, so irrespective of our beliefs on the subject, the
>:|government has ruled, and as obedient little serfs, we must
>:|accept. (Do I have the incantation right, Jim?)
Ahhhhhhh, that little ole trick?
You know, of course, that either you do not understand what you are talking
about, or if you do you are trying to mislead people here.
>:|
>:|In Torcaso v. Watkins, a Maryland Notary Public was
>:|reinstated despite his refusal to declare belief in God.
>:|The Supreme Court noted that many religions, including
>:|Secular Humanism, deny the existence of God.
>:|
>:|TORCASO V. WATKINS, October 1961, US Supreme Court:
>:|
>:| Among religions in this country which do not teach what
>:| would generally be considered a belief in God are Buddhism,
>:| Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."
>:|
___________________________________________________________________________
S. Batte, Esq says
The above information appears in a footnote. Whether or not secular
humanism was or was not a religion was not the issue in Torcaso.
However, the 11th Cir. Court of Appeals in Smith v. Bd. of Comm. of
Alabama (1987) held: "The Supreme Court has never established a
comprehensive test for determining the "delicate question" of what
constitutes a religious belief for purposes of the first amendment,
and we need not attempt to do so in this case, for we find that, even
assuming that secular humanism is a religion for purposes of the
establishment clause, Appellees have failed to prove a violation of
the establishment clause through the use in the Alabama public schools
of the textbook at issue in this case.
_________________________________________________________________________
You must not know how to read a court decision, or you would know that a
footnote does not constitute any part or parcel of the holding of the court
in that decision, it has no legal standing, is not bonding on anything. It
is like OBITER DICTUM. not part of the holding, not binding not used as
binding precedent for future decisions.
>:|In other Supreme Court decision Arbington School District v.
>:|Schempp, 374, US 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963)
>:|
>:|Justice Clark stated:
>:| "[T]he State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in
>:| the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to
>:| religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion
>:| over those who do believe.' "
>:|
________________________________________________________________________
S. Batte, Esq. says
Of course, the quote would make more sense in context:
It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a
"religion of secularism" is established in the schools. We agree of
course that the State may not establish a "religion of secularism" in
the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion,
thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do
believe." We DO NOT AGREE, however, that this decision in any sense
has that effect." (emphasis added)
_________________________________________________________________________
To quote Alan Pfeffer (apfe...@scott.skidmore.edu) from 3 Nov, 1993:
--Begin retyped Article--
Subject: Re; Secular Humanism
'This is correct. The term "secular humanism" (no capitals) was invented by
Leo Pfeffer, my father, in a book called "Creeds in Competition" published
in 1958. He was also the lawyer for Roy Torcaso, an atheist who was denied
a notary license in Maryland because he refused to take an oath saying he
believed in God. In his brief to the Supreme Court, my father mentioned as
a subordinate argument that the Maryland law not only discriminated against
atheists and agnostics, it also discriminated against religions that did
not believe in God, such as Buddhism. Meanwhile, another brief submitted to
the Supreme Court in support of Torcaso's position (I
think by the Unitarians), used the term secular humanism in another
context. Somehow Justice Black's law clerk apparently combined the two
items, and so the Court's opinion included a footnote listing religions
that do not believe in God and including secular humanism.
The footnote was definitely not a ruling as that term is understood in law.
It was completely irrelevant to the decision or the reasoning of the case.
The Court's opinion said that requiring anyone, atheist or believer, to
profess a belief in God was unconstitutional.
--End retyped Article--
In other words, no, it is not correct that secular humanism was ruled a
religion by the Court.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|One might argue that even if it is a religion, that it does not
>:|affect children in school. This argument presupposes that
>:|schools do not teach Secular Humanism.
Taking the accepted dictionary definitions of the words being tossed
around, any subject that is taught in any school that does not include
religion in some form or fashion is therefore secular. Even a private
religious school should they teach a subject, any subject, and did not wrap
it in some form of religious presentation could be rightfully blamed of
teaching secularism. Any school, including private religious schools that
taught any subject that is generally considered to be a part of the
"humanities" and taught it without wrapping it up in religion could be
rightfully blamed of teaching secular humanities..
You are trying to say that RELIGION = RELIGION, BUT NON - RELIGION =
RELIGION AS WELL.
Teaching religion is teaching religion, but not teaching religion is also
teaching a religion, the religion of non-religion.
Now has the IRS given the religion of "secular humanism" a tax exempt
status as a religion? I don't think so.
What other evidence do you have to offer?
> One of the supporters of
>:|this point of view demanded that we show one textbook that
>:|teaches SH. It is quite impossible to do so because the
>:|teachings are subtle and accepted (by dint of decades of
>:|indoctrination) by the majority to be considered "religion".
>:|Neither of these failings disproves the accusation.
Smoke screen!
You can speak for the majority?
The fact that you can't produce any textbooks that teach secular humanism,
the fact that you either did not understand what you were reading when you
read about the court decisions you cited or you did understand that these
court decisions did not support your claims, but you felt you could get
away with it anyways (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it was
the first rather than the latter)
The fact that you have combined several so called "groups" ( secular
humanists and humanists) without supplying any evidence that actually links
them together as being one and the same, and then uses some vague quotes
from a book by one of these groups as some form of evidence to support your
claims quite a stretch.
The fact that at least some of the claims you are making in regards to this
boogie man secular humanism and the public schools system can also be made
about private schools in general and that includes private religious
schools in some instances doesn't exactly help you any. Any school system
you could ever devise would also be "guilty" of teaching this mysterious
"religion" in at least some instances. (That is the mysterious religion of
not teaching religion in classes that it was not really part of the subject
material)
Now you say all that doesn't really mean anything, doesn't really disprove
secular humanism as a religion. Well, I haven't seen anything you have
offered thus far that proves it is.
buc...@exis.net
>:|In my humble and not as well learned opinion, all founders were
>:|influenced by Christianity -- whether they knew it or not.
>:|
Hmmmmmm, it flowed through their veins, huh?
buc...@exis.net
>:|I am a man of faith. I have a deep love of Christ and the Church.
>:|However, I too *do not* believe that Christianity was the most
>:|important influence -- directly. I simply view the most important
>:|influence was the desire for liberty. But, I am inclined to believe
>:|that Christianity -- Protestant Christianity to a large degree --
>:|shaped the fundamental views of Liberty. Perhaps this is "splitting
>:|hairs"
Ah, yes. blasphemy laws really enhanced the liberty of free speech.
Sunday laws that could and did result in fines and even jail time really
enhanced liberty.
Taxes that were used to support the dominant religion, or any religion
really enhanced liberty
Required attendance in church, etc really was a great example of liberty
Civil liberties and rights denied because of ones religion or lack thereof
really enhanced liberty
All those democracies and republics that are to be found in the Bible
really provided great models for liberty
At one time or another all the above, and more existed in this country,
right up to and including in some cases the founding period.
That is why unions between church and state were ended.
The breaking of such unions truly did enhance liberty.
You can project your own feelings about religion, and your own religious
beliefs and thoughts onto the founders if you want, but just remember,
those are your thoughts, ideas, beliefs, etc, not theirs.
When someone gets into saying that such and such was influenced by such and
such even if he didn't know it, you are speculating.
Speculation is fine, but call it what it is, speculation. It isn't proof,
it isn't evidence, it isn't fact.
There is a saying "Facts can give rise to or create arguments, but
arguments do not create facts.
Nor does speculation create facts.
The men who eventually founded this country were influenced first and
foremost by their own personal experiences. (Madison began his personal war
against unions between church and states because of his observations of
religious persecution, not in Europe, but in his own home state.)
Next they were influenced by personal reasons, some noble, some not so
noble. They were influenced by what they had studied and learned and this
took the form of studies of the classics, European Enlightenment, law,
religion, European history, etc. and despite Gardiner's best efforts to
show otherwise, his view that religion was the most important, just does
not hold up.
Some of the founders were more religious then others, just like today.
Not all were equally religious, not all placed the same importance or
meaning to religion.
buc...@exis.net
>:|Jeff/addesign wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >Jeff/addesign wrote:
>:|> >>
>:|> >> buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|> >>
>:|> >> <snip>
>:|> >> >Do you understand that among the various things that Gardiner has claimed
>:|> >> >or implied is:
>:|> >> <snip>
>:|> >> >That when asked to show the religious evidence in the Constitution stated
>:|> >> >that the whole idea of a **federal** constitution, **federal** government,
>:|> >> >etc was based on Religion because the word federal means compact with God.
>:|> >>
>:|> >> Funny, I thought Federal was from the Latin _Foedus,_ treaty,
>:|> >> agreement; not from the Latin word for faith _fides_, or faithful,
>:|> >> _fidelis_. I can't find compact with God in there anywhere.
>:|>
>:|> >"The Presbyterians in their reliance on federalism and representative
>:|> >institutions anticipated the political make-up of the future United States."
>:|>
>:|> >Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Birth of the Nation (Knopf, 1968) p. 83.
>:|>
>:|> Fascinating quote. Totally irrelevent to the etymology of "Federal."
>:|
>:|"Federal" as used by Calvinists, as were the preponderance of those living in
>:|the founding generation (I believe Alison says it was 90% or so) in America, had
>:|clear connotations as it referred to the essense of their theological
>:|presuppositions
Ahem! Why did you include me in this?
Exactly what are you saying I said this time?
I'll call you one more time, though I don't know why I waste my time, you
never do produce all these things you have invented me saying when I call
you on them. You better hope no one reads these threads because if they do
your credibility drops each time you pull this stunt.
Would you mind producing whatever it is that you say I said that has to do
with 90% and has any connection to the word federal?
This is not accidental, because it happens far too often, and not just with
me.
You are forever making little comments claiming I or others say this or
that, or advocate this or that, and rarely is what you claim true. When
called on it, you rarely produce the alleged quote.
Why do you do this?
What do you think you gain?
Is your memory really that poor ?
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|> There is information on the web about this co-authoir that very much places
>:|> >:|> that person well within the framework of the far religious right.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|There is information on the web that places Alison within the framework of the
>:|> >:|Wiccan Pagan cult. (http://members.aol.com/Talendear/whoidx.html)
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> No one has to explain Gardiner to anyone else, he does it all by himself.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Alison is unquestionably associated with American Atheists
>:|> >:|http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Kindly compare the information from the following that was posted by Jeff
>:|> to the two URLs provided by Gardiner
>:|
>:|Kennedy has expressed appreciation my work. American Atheists have expressed
>:|appreciation for yours.
Duh!
You have evidence that the organization American Atheists have expressed
appreciation for my work?
Wow, I didn't know that.
>:|You bend over backwards to say that this is no proof
>:|that you are a card carrying atheist, but you and sinclair persist at claiming
>:|that this is proof that I am a card-carrying "reconstructionist."
Card carrying atheist? LOL
Your proof is?
>:|Can we move on to something substantive?
>:|
First of all, when I look at the posts and responses in these NGs each
morning, I can pretty much predict which ones Gardier will ignore and which
ones you can hang your hot on that you will se him responding to.
He consistently responds to the ones that involve some sort of "pissing"
contest to them. More likely then not he will avoid that ones that actually
pertain to historical facts. he offers a lot of reasons for doing this,
i.e. the person is rude and or crude (he overlooks his own behavior here)
its only a bunch of URLs (again he overlooks his own behavior in posting
here) it is canned material (it would be historical data, usually
original source that disagrees with some claim he has made) it is just
scholars opinions (his scholars are right, all others are wrong)
In short this man has more tricks then Carter has little liver pills. but
that fact still remains, I can make a mental note on most morning as to
which posts or replies I will find gardiner will have responded to and
which he is going to by pass, and I'm not wrong very often.
>:|Can we move on to something substantive?
Sure and we can begin with the 35 or so posts that deal with your
inaccurate claims about Madison that you have carefully avoided
They are in the thread called
Gardiner meet Mr. Madison
Then you can deal with
Settling the record straight parts 1-4
and you might actually deal with American History instead of this
compulsion of yours of constantly taking everyone back to Europe.
I have gained so many frequent flyers miles just from reading your posts
(and being taken back to Europe each time) I could get free trips all over
probably monthly for the rest of my life.
Personally, I don't even particularly like Europe, I tend to prefer Japan,
Hong Kong, P.I. etc, guess from my days in the Navy.
In other words, there are plenty of replies that have been posted that deal
with, horrors actual history and double horrors, American history too.
About the other issue, say what you will, you are properly linked to your
co-autjor, the two of you actively worked together to produce a book. A
book that is biased.
Your co-author is associated with certain groups that are on record as
having certain goals, certain tenets, etc.
This has been documented.
The fact that you spend so much time and effort and have since last spring
trying to repair that damage by trying to make it appear that web page
links, etc., equal active participation, shows a lot of scrambling on your
part.
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|> And no, it isn't a bunch of URLs to other sites for documents,
Nice attempt to try and wiggle free of getting caught red handed AGAIN
inventing things and saying others said or did it.
==============================================================
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>:|
>:|>:|You speak as if there is a limited amount of memory on the newsgroup server.
>:|>:|Perhaps you need to take a basic course in computer science in this regard.
>:|>:|You might be surprised to find out that alt.history.colonial is not in danger
>:|>:|of losing all its memory, even in light of Alison dumping the entire contents
>:|>:|of his hard drive on this server.
>:|> LOL the entire contents of my hard drive?
>:|> Hardly, not even close
>:|> I haven't even hit you with the 1400 or 1500 pages of material I have on it
>:|> involved in my project.. Actually, some of it does get into the colonial
>:|> period, and it is 99.9% historical documents, very little, next to no
>:|> commentary. And no, it isn't a bunch of URLs to other sites for documents,
>:|> it is the real Mccoy (BTW u ever hear the story behind that phrase? its
>:|> pretty interesting)
>:|
>:|IIRC it had to do with smuggling liquor during Prohibition. Now who is "posting"
>:|outside of the parameters of 1600-1800?
>:|
Gee, I get to pull a Childress and call you a liar, only in this case, it
will be true, you are a liar, or seriously deluded.
I would love to see you produce any post of mine, any reply of mine that in
any manner deals with smuggling liquor during prohibition. Especially, any
post or reply of mine that deals with that subject in regards to the
project I refer to.
I will say it again, I think you need to take some time off, you are past
your limit. In references to me in the past few weeks you have implied
(1) I was someone named Mary ( I am not someone named Mary and if Mary is
really a woman, we have different plumbing)
(2) I was in cahoots with this Mary because we had the same ISP. (We
didn't have the same ISP.)
(3) Claimed I was another fella. (I wasn't this other fella either.)
NOW
(4) you are claiming I said or implied my project had anything to do with
smuggling liquor during Prohibition, or mentioned it in any other way in
any posts or replies of mine.
The project I mentioned, and which was described to you in the past exists
under the working title of
THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE, ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The time frame covered by the above is approx 1780 -1947
That doesn't quite qualify for anything you are claiming, but then, what is
new?
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|There is information on the web that places Alison within the framework of the
>:|> >:|Wiccan Pagan cult. (http://members.aol.com/Talendear/whoidx.html)
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Actually, when I try to go to the above URL I get
>:|>
>:|> "Sorry, We Can't Find That Page"
>:|>
>:|> Now, to be honest, there had been a page there a week or so ago.
>:|
>:|What happened here is quite clear. You got burned and exposed for showing your
>:|true colors, and you contacted your Wiccan friends and asked them to disocciate
>:|from you. LOL.
LOL you can prove this of course, right? No, gee why not.
More speculation on your part?
On Jan. 7, 2000 this email was sent by me
=====================================================================
Hello
I have noticed that you are using articles from the combined web page
listed below.
There are now two web sites in question
There was the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE which was created by
Prof. Tom Peters, S. Batte, and myself. (J. Allison)
When Tom Peters dropped out of the Page we (S. Batte and myself) created a
new web page THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE
When T. Peters left the University of Louisville, we picked up his page and
re-published it as a section of our page since the U of Louisville dropped
the page and it no longer existed on the www.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Sundays Excepted" Clause and the Sabbath.
["The 'Sundays Excepted' Clause" from the
Separation of Church and State Home page ]
There are two of these articles, one on Tom's old page, which you have
taken the article you are using from, and a newer and better version
located at
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/sundays.htm
Both versions were researched and written by S. Batte and myself, the main
difference being in how Tom edited it for his page. We (S. Batte and
myself) preferred our version which is the version to be found at the above
addy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is, you are giving your own URL addy to each page and not just
linking to the actual pages on our web site.
I would prefer that you link directly to the articles instead of
reproducing them under your addy.
But, I can live with it if you would add a link and name of the overall
page as well as citing Tom's old page for each article you use that
actually came from his old page.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
Thank you
Jim
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
>:|
>:|The bottom line here is that your own silly "guilt-by-association" tactics,
>:|which are employed by you and Sinclair to detract from the substance of the real
>:|issues, have come back to bite you, and you don't want to have to deal with it.
The bottom line is real simple.
You came on line promoting a book last spring
You made it a matter of the public record on Use net that you had written a
book, and that you had written that book with such and such fella, and you
made it a matter of public Use net record that so and so and such and such
and so and so endorsed your book.
Those are the bottom line facts.
Now, based on those facts a certain picture emerged. Why did a certain
picture emerge, because there were some common denominators that linked
those people together.
That too was a matter of the public Use net record.
(One didn't have to go anywhere to find this material. It is available on
the net. Put there, I suspect in many cases.,by the people in question.
Actually I didn't have to do anything to know anything about those people
because I already knew a lot about most of the names you had listed on
your book promotion pages or had mentioned in discussions.)
That is the bottom line, you made them part and parcel of these
discussions.
Then one can couple to that your own positions that you have advanced in
the discussions, and your own positions that you have defended in the
discussions. Add to that your occasional foray into showing your own
politics, which you have done from time to time in some of these
discussions.
You know, way back in the beginning, you were bitching that people had
connected you to the religions right or had called you a fundamentalist.
(Actually, IIRC (and I may not) I think you accused me of doing that, when
it wasn't me. What I had done was show you, by some of your own words, why
others might have said that to you.
It was actually another who had accused you of being a fundie or with the
religious right. Why do you think someone would came to that conclusion? I
tried to tell you back then, why they probably came to that conclusion, but
you didn't want to hear it.
>:|
>:|Here's the deal, Jim. Stick to the substance of the issues, and stay off the "i
>:|dont like your friends" kicks, and it won't ever turn on you.
Is this a threat? Am I now making the list of those whom you have
threatened?
Here is the real deal, I don't especially label you.
You label yourself by what you post.
You labeled yourself when you began promoting your book and listed the
names of those who endorsed your book and co-autjored your book.
If it is an unfair representation of you and your position, I don't know
what to tell you. You post your words, no one puts words into your mind to
type and post on line
You are stuck with your co-author, and those who you list as having
endorsed your book.
[there are a lot of neutral historians that you could have gotten to look
over your book perhaps and maybe endorse it, hell there are lots of those
whom are affiliated with these "liberal" ACLU or AUSC&S outfits that you
could have had look over your book and maybe endorse it.
Instead it was submitted to specific people and specific people endorsed
it, and those specific people have some common bonds with each other and
your co-author.
Maybe you were a naive innocent bystander drug into this web but that is
what is now.
Most reasonable people would look at those people (your co-author, and
those who endorsed your book, and your own positions and comments and form
a conclusion. It is that conclusion you are trying to deny and claim is not
really you.
Fine, but don't get upset with those who point out these common
denominators that exist that link these people together and link your own
comments and positions to them as well.
You don't establish your separation from these people by trying to smear
the messengers. The message exists outside and separate of the messengers.
>:|That's the game that you and Sinclair invented. You and Sinclair have bent over
>:|backwards to paint me the poster boy for the 700 club everytime you get a
>:|chance. It's a pretty desperate move.
>:|
I didn't invent you.
I didn't invent you showing up on line
I didn't invent you writing a book
I didn't invent you writing a book with a person who has close ties,
connections and affiliations to certain groups, etc
I didn't invent you writing a book and having it endorsed by certain people
who also have many of the same affiliations with the same groups and
organizations and also shares those affiliations with your co-author
I didn't invent you deciding to post/promote your book in the NGs
I didn't invent you creating web pages putting all that information
(co-author, who endorsed your book etc) on that, those pages.
I didn't invent your positions in discussions, nor your comments, nor your
forays into politics from time to time.
So, exactly what do you feel I invented?
Rick Gardiner
>
> richar...@hotmail.com (Richard Tree) wrote:
>
> >:|I am a man of faith. I have a deep love of Christ and the Church.
> >:|However, I too *do not* believe that Christianity was the most
> >:|important influence -- directly. I simply view the most important
> >:|influence was the desire for liberty. But, I am inclined to believe
> >:|that Christianity -- Protestant Christianity to a large degree --
> >:|shaped the fundamental views of Liberty. Perhaps this is "splitting
> >:|hairs"
>
> Ah, yes.
[snipped Alison's whining]]
Mr. Tree's insight about liberty and Protestantism was shared by John Adams
who creditted the Lutherans and the Calvinists of Geneva with contributing
greatly toward the cause of religious liberty. (Adams WORKS, VI:313)
Ah, but what the heck would Adams know? He was only a participant in the
founding, a Harvard grad, considered the most thorougly read of all the
presidents, and an ex-Calvinist himself.
Rick Gardiner
Uh-huh, like recently when you accused Raul Golden of being me. I never was
able to prove that, was I?
My memory just stinks, huh?
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=467210804&CONTEXT=948133945.1928986668&hitnum=4
> You are forever making little comments claiming I or others say this or
> that, or advocate this or that, and rarely is what you claim true. When
> called on it, you rarely produce the alleged quote.
>
> Why do you do this?
>
> What do you think you gain?
>
> Is your memory really that poor ?
I'm going back to April when you and Curtis were shooting at me from both
sides. Curtis cited an "authority," Paul K. Conklin's, The Uneasy Center:
Reformed Christianity in Antebellum America, Chapel Hill, 1995, in which he
stated that Reformed (i.e., Calvinist) Christians were 90% of Christians in
America in 1776.
http://x31.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465950566&CONTEXT=948133004.239271939&hitnum=49
I was not able to remember accurately if this was a citation from you or
Curtis, which is no surprise since you two have played "tag team" match every
since our introduction in Feb 99. Additionally, when Curtis cited this while
you two were doing the tag-team thing, you sure didn't "correct" him, if
indeed you didn't agree.
Can we talk about something substantive, now, or do you want to whine some more?
Rick Gardiner
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> There is information on the web about this co-authoir that very much places
> >:|> >:|> that person well within the framework of the far religious right.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|There is information on the web that places Alison within the framework of the
> >:|> >:|Wiccan Pagan cult. (http://members.aol.com/Talendear/whoidx.html)
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|> No one has to explain Gardiner to anyone else, he does it all by himself.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|Alison is unquestionably associated with American Atheists
> >:|> >:|http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt
> >:|> >:|
> >:|>
> >:|> Kindly compare the information from the following that was posted by Jeff
> >:|> to the two URLs provided by Gardiner
> >:|Kennedy has expressed appreciation my work. American Atheists have expressed
> >:|appreciation for yours.
>
> Duh!
>
> You have evidence that the organization American Atheists have expressed
> appreciation for my work?
Yep. http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt
Or will you claim that they really didn't "appreciate your work," they just
wanted to use a bunch of material that was not helpful to their cause.
LOL!!
> Wow, I didn't know that.
Now you do.
> >:|Can we move on to something substantive?
> >:|
>
> First of all, when I look at the posts and responses in these NGs each
> morning, I can pretty much predict which ones Gardier will ignore and which
> ones you can hang your hot on that you will se him responding to.
Yep. I respond to any posts in which the poster has clearly made an honest
effort to have a personal EXCHANGE and DIALOGUE about the issues at hand.
I ignore three main types of posts.
1) Any post in which it is clear that the poster has clearly put forth no
effort to respond in a personal fashion, but has instead simply cut and pasted
unedited material, some of which might be relevant, but most of which is
peripheral; even if it does have a one sentence commentary attached.
2) Any post, the purpose of which is to use inflammatory innuendoes for the
sake of arousing political sentiments rather than having an honest debate.
3) Any post that is beyond common standards of decency.
You have been mostly guilty of (1), but you occasionally engage in (2). You
sink to (3) now and again, but nowhere near as much as your
anti-holocaust-denier friends.
> >:|Can we move on to something substantive?
>
> Sure and we can begin with the 35 or so posts that deal with your
> inaccurate claims about Madison that you have carefully avoided
Can you show me where in any of those threads where you have made a systematic
argument, editting the pertinent information, showing clearly and succinctly
where you have shown that James Madison was significantly different than John
Witherspoon in his religious views? No one is interested in wading through the
contents of your hard drive to find that needle in the haystack you claim you have.
Pull out one or two primary sources at a time, editting the irrelevant
portions, for me which you think prove your point, and I will happily concede
if you can. You don't want to do this for two reasons: 1) because the evidence
is not there, and 2) because you are lazy and you really don't engage in
debate in these forums, you simply vomit your cut-and-pastes and walk away
like you have proven something.
You have made it clear that you don't think newsgroup debate is valuable for
the purpose of influencing a person with whom you are having a conversation,
and your behavior testifies to that. You don't even try, and so you shouldn't
expect someone to do any more than you.
BTW, I've shown the whole protestant history behind Madison's assertion that
"Luther led the way" in the proper separation between church and state, and
I've archived it at http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
> About the other issue, say what you will, you are properly linked to your
> co-autjor, the two of you actively worked together to produce a book. A
> book that is biased.
> Your co-author is associated with certain groups that are on record as
> having certain goals, certain tenets, etc.
Blah, Blah, Blah, and my grandmother's best friend's niece's neighbor is a
Mormon. I guess that means you can't trust anything I say with all my Mormon
associations and all.
> This has been documented.
>
> The fact that you spend so much time and effort and have since last spring
> trying to repair that damage by trying to make it appear that web page
> links, etc., equal active participation, shows a lot of scrambling on your
> part.
Can you get a new game plan? The old "Gardiner is a fundamentalist" has run
out of gas.
Would you care to try an academic approach?
Nah. That's too much trouble. As you have said a number of times, you prefer
an "easy mark." (you'll probably challenge me to prove that you said that, LOL)
Well, I guess I'll just have to learn to play your game:
Your mother wears combat boots.
RG
Richard A. Schulman
(Jeff/addesign) wrote:
>I'm up on the creation stories. I'll match my literacy level against
>someone who can't tell one usenet author from another, any day.
Glad to hear you think you're literate. Why don't you take the other
Jeff under your wing for tutoring, so that he can qualify for fourth
grade?
Schulman:
> If you understand
>>science and can bring yourself to qualify for advancement to fourth
>>grade by reading Genesis I, 26-28, you will see there an admirable
>>early expression of the hubristic program of western science.
Jeff/addesign, atheist #1063:
>Sorry, that answer just doesn't cut it. You postulated it, you can
>substantiate it.
Do you have a full name, or just a number stamped on your left buttock
at the robot factory? Did your creator -- lower or upper case as the
case may be -- endow you with a fast enough chip and enough RAM so
that you could comprehend that the central idea of the Genesis passage
is that man is enjoined to acquire mastery over nature, over the
entirety of creation? What is it that motivates scientists if not
that?
Perhaps you think that scientists are principally interested in
lowering production costs for the stamping out of atheist/robot #1064?
Mike Curtis
And here I thought Gardiner wanted to get back to real history.
Doesn't seem to be that way.
But since his twin Richard "Ad hominem" Schulman is mostly a waste of
time at the moment why change now, right, Gardiner?
>buc...@exis.net wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>> >:|>
>> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>> >:|>
>> >:|> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>> >:|>
>> >:|> >:|> There is information on the web about this co-authoir that very much places
>> >:|> >:|> that person well within the framework of the far religious right.
>> >:|> >:|
>> >:|> >:|There is information on the web that places Alison within the framework of the
>> >:|> >:|Wiccan Pagan cult. (http://members.aol.com/Talendear/whoidx.html)
>> >:|> >:|
>> >:|> >:|> No one has to explain Gardiner to anyone else, he does it all by himself.
>> >:|> >:|
>> >:|> >:|Alison is unquestionably associated with American Atheists
>> >:|> >:|http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt
>> >:|> >:|
>> >:|>
>> >:|> Kindly compare the information from the following that was posted by Jeff
>> >:|> to the two URLs provided by Gardiner
>> >:|
>> >:|Kennedy has expressed appreciation my work. American Atheists have expressed
>> >:|appreciation for yours.
>>
>> Duh!
>>
>> You have evidence that the organization American Atheists have expressed
>> appreciation for my work?
>
>Yep. http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt
>
>Or will you claim that they really didn't "appreciate your work," they just
>wanted to use a bunch of material that was not helpful to their cause.
>
>LOL!!
This is nothing more than an attempt to poison wells. It really
doesn't matter if atheists like the separation of church and state
site. It really doesn't matter if they dislike parts of the same site.
You little attack doesn't address the truth of the arguments made on
the website and your little attacks do not address the falseness of
the arguments made on the website. Your little attacks do nothing. All
they are is a debate fallacy.
>> >:|Can we move on to something substantive?
>> >:|
>>
>> First of all, when I look at the posts and responses in these NGs each
>> morning, I can pretty much predict which ones Gardier will ignore and which
>> ones you can hang your hot on that you will se him responding to.
>
>Yep. I respond to any posts in which the poster has clearly made an honest
>effort to have a personal EXCHANGE and DIALOGUE about the issues at hand.
Like Richard "Ad Hominem" Schulman? Start with him.
>I ignore three main types of posts.
>1) Any post in which it is clear that the poster has clearly put forth no
>effort to respond in a personal fashion, but has instead simply cut and pasted
>unedited material,
Which are original documents written by the very people you take out
of context. Jim places the quotes back into context for all to see.
But then when there are comments made you and Richard "Ad Hominem"
Schulman whine about secondary sources being used that comment on the
primary ones posted by Jim. You can't have it both ways no matter how
loudly you insist.
> some of which might be relevant, but most of which is
>peripheral; even if it does have a one sentence commentary attached.
Doesn't matter since you don't read the material. I thought the
primary material was all you needed according to you and
Richard "Ad Hominem" Schulman? I guess this isn't so true after all is
it?
>2) Any post, the purpose of which is to use inflammatory innuendoes for the
>sake of arousing political sentiments rather than having an honest debate.
Like your atheist nonsense above? Remember that when you claim that
"he does it too," that is a debate fallacy and a waste of time.
>3) Any post that is beyond common standards of decency.
>
>You have been mostly guilty of (1), but you occasionally engage in (2). You
>sink to (3) now and again, but nowhere near as much as your
>anti-holocaust-denier friends.
Which friends are those? Oh, and do point to a single indecent post of
mine.
>> >:|Can we move on to something substantive?
>>
>> Sure and we can begin with the 35 or so posts that deal with your
>> inaccurate claims about Madison that you have carefully avoided
>
>Can you show me where in any of those threads where you have made a systematic
>argument, editting the pertinent information, showing clearly and succinctly
>where you have shown that James Madison was significantly different than John
>Witherspoon in his religious views?
Since not much is known about Madison's religious views it is
difficult to say. Much more is known NOW about Jefferson's views. The
issue being discussed by Jim isn't Madison's religious views. What is
being discussed is politics and the law concerning religion and civil
government. Jim did, in fact, post a clear difference of opinion on
that very matter between Witherspoon and Madison. That they disagreed
on the issue of religion and civil government does not mean that they
were enemies.
> No one is interested in wading through the
>contents of your hard drive to find that needle in the haystack you claim you have.
You didn't even bother to look so you haven't much credibility. You
never have. You don't even understand what the argument is about. You
are too darn busy reframing it to suit your needs.
>Pull out one or two primary sources at a time, editting the irrelevant
>portions, for me which you think prove your point, and I will happily concede
>if you can.
Read the Meet Madison posts. There are a few but it'll enable you to
be on the same page.
> You don't want to do this for two reasons: 1) because the evidence
>is not there, and 2) because you are lazy and you really don't engage in
>debate in these forums, you simply vomit your cut-and-pastes and walk away
>like you have proven something.
Well, Gardiner, he has proven his point. Those who read the actual
writings of Madison can see that for themselves.
[snip]
>BTW, I've shown the whole protestant history behind Madison's assertion that
>"Luther led the way" in the proper separation between church and state, and
>I've archived it at http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
Yes, and it is really trivial in the context of what Madison WAS
actually writing. Propagandists like you do not find context to be
important at all.
>> About the other issue, say what you will, you are properly linked to your
>> co-autjor, the two of you actively worked together to produce a book. A
>> book that is biased.
>> Your co-author is associated with certain groups that are on record as
>> having certain goals, certain tenets, etc.
>
>Blah, Blah, Blah, and my grandmother's best friend's niece's neighbor is a
>Mormon. I guess that means you can't trust anything I say with all my Mormon
>associations and all.
Working together to produce a book is a tighter relationship than
having Wiccans refer to Jim's web page.
>> This has been documented.
>>
>> The fact that you spend so much time and effort and have since last spring
>> trying to repair that damage by trying to make it appear that web page
>> links, etc., equal active participation, shows a lot of scrambling on your
>> part.
>
>Can you get a new game plan? The old "Gardiner is a fundamentalist" has run
>out of gas.
Mine is that you are simply a propagandist and a poor historian.
[snip]
Mike Curtis
Rick Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> And here I thought Gardiner wanted to get back to real history.
> Doesn't seem to be that way.
Sure do, but I can't seem to get a response to http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
> >> You have evidence that the organization American Atheists have expressed
> >> appreciation for my work?
> >
> >Yep. http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt
> >
> >Or will you claim that they really didn't "appreciate your work," they just
> >wanted to use a bunch of material that was not helpful to their cause.
> >
> >LOL!!
>
> This is nothing more than an attempt to poison wells.
OH MY MY MY!!
Funny funny funny.
I refer the readers to a conversation between Curtis and me in April 99,
I wrote:
"an attempt to prove someone wrong by simply connecting them to a group which
is out of favor is the genetic ad hominem fallacy."
And Curtis' immediate response was:
"We are who we associate with."
(It's archived at http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=469130232&search=thread&CONTEXT=948151980.873988125&HIT_CONTEXT=948151980.873988125&HIT_NUM=5&hitnum=10)
> Your little attacks do nothing. All
> they are is a debate fallacy.
CSL (can't stop laughing)
to have a personal EXCHANGE and DIALOGUE about the issues at hand.
> >I ignore three main types of posts.
>
> >1) Any post in which it is clear that the poster has clearly put forth no
> >effort to respond in a personal fashion, but has instead simply cut and pasted
> >unedited material,
>
> Which are original documents written by the very people you take out
> of context.
Alison's "dumps" of his digital library is not the correct approach in a
newgroups. You used to even have the common sense to see this:
"on usenet you could point to an URL and write about the important parts of
the [citation] as you see it. This would be much more informative and also
will take up less bandwidth on my hard drive."
-Mike Curtis
March 1999
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460050037&CONTEXT=948152345.1061355533&hitnum=10
What happened? did you lose your common sensibilities?
> > some of which might be relevant, but most of which is
> >peripheral; even if it does have a one sentence commentary attached.
>
> Doesn't matter since you don't read the material. I thought the
> primary material was all you needed according to you and
> Richard "Ad Hominem" Schulman? I guess this isn't so true after all is
> it?
It's one thing to post relevant parts of primary sources. It is quite another
to simply upload one's files into the newsgroup. Alison might as well just
provide the LOC website URL everytime he wants to make a point, and say "it's
in there somewhere."
> >2) Any post, the purpose of which is to use inflammatory innuendoes for the
> >sake of arousing political sentiments rather than having an honest debate.
>
> Like your atheist nonsense above? Remember that when you claim that
> "he does it too," that is a debate fallacy and a waste of time.
Is that why you just said "LIKE YOUR atheist nonsense..."? You engage in a tu
quoque fallacy and immediately follow up with a charge of tu quoque fallacy
CSL
> >3) Any post that is beyond common standards of decency.
> >
> >You have been mostly guilty of (1), but you occasionally engage in (2). You
> >sink to (3) now and again, but nowhere near as much as your
> >anti-holocaust-denier friends.
>
> Which friends are those? Oh, and do point to a single indecent post of
> mine.
Danaher and Sinclair come immediately to mind as toilet mouths. Mr. Schulman
has had to ask you to keep your barnyard epithets in the barnyard.
A single indecent post of yours? that's easy: your "pure horse ****" retort
was quite inappropriate and indecent for scholarly discourse (http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=478803790.1&CONTEXT=948153046.1024655388&hitnum=19)
> >> >:|Can we move on to something substantive?
> >>
> >> Sure and we can begin with the 35 or so posts that deal with your
> >> inaccurate claims about Madison that you have carefully avoided
> >
> >Can you show me where in any of those threads where you have made a systematic
> >argument, editting the pertinent information, showing clearly and succinctly
> >where you have shown that James Madison was significantly different than John
> >Witherspoon in his religious views?
>
> Since not much is known about Madison's religious views it is
> difficult to say. Much more is known NOW about Jefferson's views. The
> issue being discussed by Jim isn't Madison's religious views.
That's the issue I was interested in discussing.
> What is
> being discussed is politics and the law concerning religion and civil
> government.
I have no disagreement with Alison on the fact that Madison wanted to separate
civil and religious. The fact that Alison doesn't understand is the "why?" The
answer is at http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
> Jim did, in fact, post a clear difference of opinion on
> that very matter between Witherspoon and Madison. That they disagreed
> on the issue of religion and civil government does not mean that they
> were enemies.
Nope. No primary sources have been posted demonstrating a difference on this
issue between Witherspoon and Madison. Witherspoon closely followed Locke on
this issue, as did Madison.
Madison disagreed with Locke insofar as he preferred the word "liberty" over
"toleration." "Toleration" smacks of the idea that what is being "tolerated"
is somehow a bad thing. Since Madison didn't want to think of religion as a
bad thing, he preferred religious "liberty" to religious "toleration."
> > No one is interested in wading through the
> >contents of your hard drive to find that needle in the haystack you claim you have.
>
> You didn't even bother to look so you haven't much credibility. You
> never have. You don't even understand what the argument is about. You
> are too darn busy reframing it to suit your needs.
And why didn't I bother to look? I'll let you answer--
"on usenet you could point to an URL and write about the important parts of
the [citation] as you see it. This would be much more informative and also
will take up less bandwidth on my hard drive."
-Mike Curtis
March 1999
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460050037&CONTEXT=948152345.1061355533&hitnum=10
> >Pull out one or two primary sources at a time, editting the irrelevant
> >portions, for me which you think prove your point, and I will happily concede
> >if you can.
>
> Read the Meet Madison posts. There are a few but it'll enable you to
> be on the same page.
If Alison will put forth enough effort to provide the aspects of the material
which address the question directly, and not just post a multitude of articles
on what "religious right" is defined as by the Journal of C & S, then I will
gladly consider and respond fairly to his efforts.
> >You don't want to do this for two reasons: 1) because the evidence
> >is not there, and 2) because you are lazy and you really don't engage in
> >debate in these forums, you simply vomit your cut-and-pastes and walk away
> >like you have proven something.
>
> Well, Gardiner, he has proven his point. Those who read the actual
> writings of Madison can see that for themselves.
I agree fully with your last sentence.
> >BTW, I've shown the whole protestant history behind Madison's assertion that
> >"Luther led the way" in the proper separation between church and state, and
> >I've archived it at http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
>
> Yes, and it is really trivial in the context of what Madison WAS
> actually writing. Propagandists like you do not find context to be
> important at all.
Yes, LOL, and "Propagandists" like Bailyn say that Madison was "confessedly
influenced by the Presbyterians" when arriving at his views on Church and State.
> >> About the other issue, say what you will, you are properly linked to your
> >> co-autjor, the two of you actively worked together to produce a book. A
> >> book that is biased.
> >> Your co-author is associated with certain groups that are on record as
> >> having certain goals, certain tenets, etc.
> >
> >Blah, Blah, Blah, and my grandmother's best friend's niece's neighbor is a
> >Mormon. I guess that means you can't trust anything I say with all my Mormon
> >associations and all.
>
> Working together to produce a book is a tighter relationship than
> having Wiccans refer to Jim's web page.
I don't have a problem with being associated with G.Amos whatsoever; none of
you seem to really know much about his views. Who he associates with, however,
has nothing to do with me. Most of the "poisoning the well" which has been
done towards me has had to do with who the associates of my associate are.
As I say, my grandpa's uncle's aunt's friend's neighbor's guinea pig is really
not relevant here, even if he does stink.
> >> This has been documented.
> >>
> >> The fact that you spend so much time and effort and have since last spring
> >> trying to repair that damage by trying to make it appear that web page
> >> links, etc., equal active participation, shows a lot of scrambling on your
> >> part.
> >
> >Can you get a new game plan? The old "Gardiner is a fundamentalist" has run
> >out of gas.
>
> Mine is that you are simply a propagandist and a poor historian.
In a legal argument there is opening statement and then there is evidence. The
opening statement cannot be taken by the jury as evidence. Your statement here
is an "opening statement" only. There is no evidence. Your case has no foundation.
The best you'll do, I'm sure is, "well, Stevens kicked your butt in showing
you that the ancient Jews were not genocidal people," and "sinclair ripped
your resume to shreds."
ROTFL
CSL
Do you have anything of substance to say?
RG
Gardiner
> >Perhaps you think that scientists are principally interested in
> >lowering production costs for the stamping out of atheist/robot #1064?
>
> Your smarminess duly noted. You don't get a second chance. You have
> failed to demonstrate that western science has a hubristic program
> expressed by Genesis.
Mr. Schulman,
Try to understand that our atheist friend, Addesign, is not up to speed with the
scholarly literature on this issue. A good introduction is posted at the
Columbia University Website
(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html), and since we
really ought to keep these forums on the topic of early america, I would simply
suggest that Addesign pick up a few of Dr. Jaki's books on this topic (he is
generally regarded as the leading authority on the question.
RG
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> And here I thought Gardiner wanted to get back to real history.
>> Doesn't seem to be that way.
>
>Sure do, but I can't seem to get a response to http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
The absence od absence doesn't mean there is an absence of absence.
For every little moment of propaganda you design it takes at least
three times as long in research to put all back in context and
perspective, Gardiner. Plus I do think there has been responses to
some of your stuff. I, for one, haven't the free time to play as you
do.
[snip]
>And Curtis' immediate response was:
>
>"We are who we associate with."
You work with those people such as Amos quite closely. As far as I can
tell Jim Alison hasn't worked closely with these people who want to
point people to his web page. I understand that you can't see the
difference and that is very telling.
[snip]
>> >I ignore three main types of posts.
>>
>> >1) Any post in which it is clear that the poster has clearly put forth no
>> >effort to respond in a personal fashion, but has instead simply cut and pasted
>> >unedited material,
>>
>> Which are original documents written by the very people you take out
>> of context.
>
>Alison's "dumps" of his digital library is not the correct approach in a
>newgroups. You used to even have the common sense to see this:
>"on usenet you could point to an URL and write about the important parts of
>the [citation] as you see it. This would be much more informative and also
>will take up less bandwidth on my hard drive."
Like Locke I can change my views.
This is what people do.
>What happened? did you lose your common sensibilities?
I changed my opinion. Alison has been refuting your out of context
quotes by showing people the proper context.
>> > some of which might be relevant, but most of which is
>> >peripheral; even if it does have a one sentence commentary attached.
>>
>> Doesn't matter since you don't read the material. I thought the
>> primary material was all you needed according to you and
>> Richard "Ad Hominem" Schulman? I guess this isn't so true after all is
>> it?
>
>It's one thing to post relevant parts of primary sources. It is quite another
>to simply upload one's files into the newsgroup. Alison might as well just
>provide the LOC website URL everytime he wants to make a point, and say "it's
>in there somewhere."
Actually, your just upset that he can provide the proper context for
your disembodied quotations. He even knows when the quotations are
bogus. Others seem to have recognized your dishonesty.
>> >2) Any post, the purpose of which is to use inflammatory innuendoes for the
>> >sake of arousing political sentiments rather than having an honest debate.
>>
>> Like your atheist nonsense above? Remember that when you claim that
>> "he does it too," that is a debate fallacy and a waste of time.
>
>Is that why you just said "LIKE YOUR atheist nonsense..."? You engage in a tu
>quoque fallacy and immediately follow up with a charge of tu quoque fallacy
Jeez, you aren't very swift are you? You made the tu quodue in the
first place dummy, I simply pointed it out.
>> >3) Any post that is beyond common standards of decency.
>> >
>> >You have been mostly guilty of (1), but you occasionally engage in (2). You
>> >sink to (3) now and again, but nowhere near as much as your
>> >anti-holocaust-denier friends.
>>
>> Which friends are those? Oh, and do point to a single indecent post of
>> mine.
>
>Danaher and Sinclair come immediately to mind as toilet mouths. Mr. Schulman
>has had to ask you to keep your barnyard epithets in the barnyard.
What epithets have I used, Gardiner?
>A single indecent post of yours? that's easy: your "pure horse ****" retort
>was quite inappropriate and indecent for scholarly discourse (http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=478803790.1&CONTEXT=948153046.1024655388&hitnum=19)
You poor dear. Most of what you write is pure horse shit. <smile>
You didn't really want to stick to history at all. It was a
propagandistic diversion that lead to attacking Alison again.
>> >> >:|Can we move on to something substantive?
>> >>
>> >> Sure and we can begin with the 35 or so posts that deal with your
>> >> inaccurate claims about Madison that you have carefully avoided
>> >
>> >Can you show me where in any of those threads where you have made a systematic
>> >argument, editting the pertinent information, showing clearly and succinctly
>> >where you have shown that James Madison was significantly different than John
>> >Witherspoon in his religious views?
>>
>> Since not much is known about Madison's religious views it is
>> difficult to say. Much more is known NOW about Jefferson's views. The
>> issue being discussed by Jim isn't Madison's religious views.
>
>That's the issue I was interested in discussing.
You could have fooled me.
>> What is
>> being discussed is politics and the law concerning religion and civil
>> government.
>
>I have no disagreement with Alison on the fact that Madison wanted to separate
>civil and religious. The fact that Alison doesn't understand is the "why?" The
>answer is at http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
Tell me what Alison doesn't understand. I've read your propaganda. Now
tell me what Alison doesn't understand.
>> Jim did, in fact, post a clear difference of opinion on
>> that very matter between Witherspoon and Madison. That they disagreed
>> on the issue of religion and civil government does not mean that they
>> were enemies.
>
>Nope. No primary sources have been posted demonstrating a difference on this
>issue between Witherspoon and Madison. Witherspoon closely followed Locke on
>this issue, as did Madison.
Yes, it has. But keep on lying and maybe you'll convince yourself that
it is true. LOL.
>Madison disagreed with Locke insofar as he preferred the word "liberty" over
>"toleration." "Toleration" smacks of the idea that what is being "tolerated"
>is somehow a bad thing. Since Madison didn't want to think of religion as a
>bad thing, he preferred religious "liberty" to religious "toleration."
And this is based on what primary source?
>> > No one is interested in wading through the
>> >contents of your hard drive to find that needle in the haystack you claim you have.
>>
>> You didn't even bother to look so you haven't much credibility. You
>> never have. You don't even understand what the argument is about. You
>> are too darn busy reframing it to suit your needs.
>
>And why didn't I bother to look? I'll let you answer--
Ignorance is bliss is the reason you didn't look.
>> >Pull out one or two primary sources at a time, editting the irrelevant
>> >portions, for me which you think prove your point, and I will happily concede
>> >if you can.
>>
>> Read the Meet Madison posts. There are a few but it'll enable you to
>> be on the same page.
>
>If Alison will put forth enough effort to provide the aspects of the material
>which address the question directly,
He did and you ignored it. Doesn't matter much since no one else
ignored it. That's why you have no credibility in this group.
>> >You don't want to do this for two reasons: 1) because the evidence
>> >is not there, and 2) because you are lazy and you really don't engage in
>> >debate in these forums, you simply vomit your cut-and-pastes and walk away
>> >like you have proven something.
>>
>> Well, Gardiner, he has proven his point. Those who read the actual
>> writings of Madison can see that for themselves.
>
>I agree fully with your last sentence.
But you ignored them. Good show!
>> >BTW, I've shown the whole protestant history behind Madison's assertion that
>> >"Luther led the way" in the proper separation between church and state, and
>> >I've archived it at http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
>>
>> Yes, and it is really trivial in the context of what Madison WAS
>> actually writing. Propagandists like you do not find context to be
>> important at all.
>
>Yes, LOL, and "Propagandists" like Bailyn say that Madison was "confessedly
>influenced by the Presbyterians" when arriving at his views on Church and State.
Did you know that Locke was a sconian? Unitarian? Skeptic? You
apparently didn't.
>> >> About the other issue, say what you will, you are properly linked to your
>> >> co-autjor, the two of you actively worked together to produce a book. A
>> >> book that is biased.
>> >> Your co-author is associated with certain groups that are on record as
>> >> having certain goals, certain tenets, etc.
>> >
>> >Blah, Blah, Blah, and my grandmother's best friend's niece's neighbor is a
>> >Mormon. I guess that means you can't trust anything I say with all my Mormon
>> >associations and all.
>>
>> Working together to produce a book is a tighter relationship than
>> having Wiccans refer to Jim's web page.
>
>I don't have a problem with being associated with G.Amos whatsoever; none of
Good. Then you get to share the burdens and the baggage he represents
since you WORKED on your book WITH him.
>you seem to really know much about his views. Who he associates with, however,
>has nothing to do with me. Most of the "poisoning the well" which has been
>done towards me has had to do with who the associates of my associate are.
Your connections to him and what he represents is closer than any kind
of connections you tried to wrap around Jim Alison.
>> >> This has been documented.
>> >>
>> >> The fact that you spend so much time and effort and have since last spring
>> >> trying to repair that damage by trying to make it appear that web page
>> >> links, etc., equal active participation, shows a lot of scrambling on your
>> >> part.
>> >
>> >Can you get a new game plan? The old "Gardiner is a fundamentalist" has run
>> >out of gas.
>>
>> Mine is that you are simply a propagandist and a poor historian.
>
>In a legal argument there is opening statement and then there is evidence. The
>opening statement cannot be taken by the jury as evidence. Your statement here
>is an "opening statement" only. There is no evidence. Your case has no foundation.
Oh yes it does. And you know it does. You even admitted as much to me
in the past, You may not remember but it'll be far to easy to reprint.
Gardiner wrote in the colonial news group:
I think youre wrong. I will concede this, my book was written in
opposition to the mainstream view in the academies that the United
States never had a dominant culture, but that it has always been the
product of a diversity of cultures. Although it is very true that a
diversity of people and opinions have always existed since the
colonial period, it is a distortion of the establishment to say that
all ethnic and religious groups participated equally in the formation
of our socio-cultural identity. For although Native Americans, African
Americans, Roman Catholics, Quakers, Deists, and other minority groups
were present in the beginning, it is wishful thinking to conclude
therefore, that there was an egalitarianism among these groups in the
colonial setting. Although it offends our modern values and
sensibilities, Protestant Christianity was dominant in the colonial
era. I have been called a bigot just for saying that. We impose the
way things "ought to be" onto the way things were, and it's dishonest.
I am dedicated to correcting this distortion.
Mike Curtis:
> When I look at the past I tend to see all the facets of the
> regime and not just the religion. I try to give emphasis to those
> things that deserve it when it is due.
Gardiner:
The role of religion is usually understated by historians. If more
were balanced, I would not have to emphasize the religious.
Later:
Gardiner:
> >I think youre wrong. I will concede this, my book was written in opposition to
> >the mainstream view in the academies that the United States never had a
> >dominant culture,
Mike:
> What mainstream is that?
Gardiner:
Houghton Mifflin, e.g.
Mike:
> What you are saying, sir, is that you accuse them of propaganda to
> some end so you respond with propaganda at the other end. Possibly if
> we mesh this mainstream propaganda with your propaganda we might be
> closer to the truth?
>
> I feel vindicated for suggesting that you are simply a propagandist.
> Thanks.
Gardiner:
There is a difference between a corrective and propaganda. Scholars
often offer correctives, and in doing so will emphasize the other side
of a coin to the received view.
***************************
So he admitted it. It's there for all to see, His book has hit the
dusty floor of propaganda material.
He went on in the course of discussion to show how flawed and biased
his thinking was. Now his resource site is very good. It needs to be
used properly however. Original sources and a novice at history will
be just like Mickey Mouse and the Sorcerer.
>Do you have anything of substance to say?
See above.
Mike Curtis
Richard A. Schulman
>>Did your creator -- lower or upper case as the
>>case may be -- endow you with a fast enough chip and enough RAM so
>>that you could comprehend that the central idea of the Genesis passage
>>is that man is enjoined to acquire mastery over nature, over the
>>entirety of creation? What is it that motivates scientists if not
>>that?
Jeff/addesign/atheist #1063:
>No, scientists are motivated by the desire to understand nature. That
>their search for knowledge also allows capitalists to find ways of
>harnessign nature, is usually a pleasant byproduct.
You foolishly suppose there is some neat wall between the theoretical
and the practical, just as you foolishly suppose that there is no
important synergy between religious ideas and science.
How did Mendel discover basic laws of genetics? By contemplating earth
from the far side of the moon? Or by the controlled alteration of
plant species?
Jeff/addesign/atheist #1063:
>...
>As for robots, the cloned mentalities are usually found amoung those
>who find revelation in the Bible.
No, it's those who stumble to the end of the Bible and can't find
Revelation. Like you, fool.
Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >Mike Curtis wrote:
> >>
> >> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> And here I thought Gardiner wanted to get back to real history.
> >> Doesn't seem to be that way.
> >
> >Sure do, but I can't seem to get a response to http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
>
> The absence od absence doesn't mean there is an absence of absence.
> For every little moment of propaganda you design it takes at least
> three times as long in research to put all back in context and
> perspective, Gardiner. Plus I do think there has been responses to
> some of your stuff. I, for one, haven't the free time to play as you
> do.
And yet when Alison dumps a gigabyte of madison's letters in this group, I'm
supposed to have the free time to respond to each and every megabyte.
Hypocrisy.
> >"We are who we associate with."
>
> You work with those people such as Amos quite closely.
As much as I like Gary Amos, and have no reason to dissociate myself from him,
the truth of the matter is that I haven't had much contact with him in the last
year. Even when we were writing the book, we weren't working "quite closely." I
mainly worked with Dr. Bill Dembski, the academic editor, whom I know quite well
and have worked with quite closely.
The bottom line is that the reason why this forum has become so boring is
because you and your pals have transformed it from a history discussion to a
"resume critiquing group."
Any chance you might commit to returning to the proper topic?
> >Alison's "dumps" of his digital library is not the correct approach in a
> >newgroups. You used to even have the common sense to see this:
>
> >"on usenet you could point to an URL and write about the important parts of
> >the [citation] as you see it. This would be much more informative and also
> >will take up less bandwidth on my hard drive."
>
> Like Locke I can change my views.
>
> This is what people do.
In other words, you went from an independent thinker to a cronie.
> >> >3) Any post that is beyond common standards of decency.
> >> >
> >> >You have been mostly guilty of (1), but you occasionally engage in (2). You
> >> >sink to (3) now and again, but nowhere near as much as your
> >> >anti-holocaust-denier friends.
> >>
> >> Which friends are those? Oh, and do point to a single indecent post of
> >> mine.
> >
> >Danaher and Sinclair come immediately to mind as toilet mouths. Mr. Schulman
> >has had to ask you to keep your barnyard epithets in the barnyard.
>
> What epithets have I used, Gardiner?
The one that Schulman had in mind was
http://x39.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=563363853&search=thread&CONTEXT=948171776.1865678901&HIT_CONTEXT=948171776.1865678901&HIT_NUM=3&hitnum=110
> You poor dear. Most of what you write is pure horse shit. <smile>
That's intelligent.
> >I have no disagreement with Alison on the fact that Madison wanted to separate
> >civil and religious. The fact that Alison doesn't understand is the "why?" The
> >answer is at http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
>
> Tell me what Alison doesn't understand. I've read your propaganda. Now
> tell me what Alison doesn't understand.
Read Alison's answer to Clem's question, then read Madison's Memorial and
Remonstrance, and you'll see what he is missing.
Well, let me take that back, an educated person would see what Alison has
missed; you on the other hand, well, I have serious doubts.
> >> Jim did, in fact, post a clear difference of opinion on
> >> that very matter between Witherspoon and Madison. That they disagreed
> >> on the issue of religion and civil government does not mean that they
> >> were enemies.
> >
> >Nope. No primary sources have been posted demonstrating a difference on this
> >issue between Witherspoon and Madison. Witherspoon closely followed Locke on
> >this issue, as did Madison.
>
> Yes, it has. But keep on lying and maybe you'll convince yourself that
> it is true. LOL.
Kindly refer me to a single primary source citation already provided by Alison
which proves that Madison and Witherspoon disagreed on the civil/religious
matter.
You can't cause it aint there.
> >Madison disagreed with Locke insofar as he preferred the word "liberty" over
> >"toleration." "Toleration" smacks of the idea that what is being "tolerated"
> >is somehow a bad thing. Since Madison didn't want to think of religion as a
> >bad thing, he preferred religious "liberty" to religious "toleration."
>
> And this is based on what primary source?
James's DOCUMENTARY HISTORY has the records of the Virginia Convention of 1776
where Madison objected to Mason's "toleration" wording.
A synopsis is available at http://www.fac.org/publicat/cground/ch03_1.html
> >If Alison will put forth enough effort to provide the aspects of the material
> >which address the question directly,
>
> He did and you ignored it. Doesn't matter much since no one else
> ignored it. That's why you have no credibility in this group.
No one else ignores Alison's multi gigabyte dumps?? That is a huge surprise to
me. I didn't realize that everyone here is unemployed?
In terms of credibility, you seem to think that having credibility is synonymous
with being applauded by a host of american atheists, # 1414, # 1678, and # 1890,
and others whose foul language is their hallmark.
I'm glad I'm not credible by your criteria.
> >> >You don't want to do this for two reasons: 1) because the evidence
> >> >is not there, and 2) because you are lazy and you really don't engage in
> >> >debate in these forums, you simply vomit your cut-and-pastes and walk away
> >> >like you have proven something.
> >>
> >> Well, Gardiner, he has proven his point. Those who read the actual
> >> writings of Madison can see that for themselves.
> >
> >I agree fully with your last sentence.
>
> But you ignored them. Good show!
I've spent a good deal of time in Gaillard Hunt, editor, The Papers of James
Madison, 9 Volumes
>
> >> >BTW, I've shown the whole protestant history behind Madison's assertion that
> >> >"Luther led the way" in the proper separation between church and state, and
> >> >I've archived it at http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
> >>
> >> Yes, and it is really trivial in the context of what Madison WAS
> >> actually writing. Propagandists like you do not find context to be
> >> important at all.
> >
> >Yes, LOL, and "Propagandists" like Bailyn say that Madison was "confessedly
> >influenced by the Presbyterians" when arriving at his views on Church and State.
>
> Did you know that Locke was a sconian? Unitarian? Skeptic? You
> apparently didn't.
>
> >> >> About the other issue, say what you will, you are properly linked to your
> >> >> co-autjor, the two of you actively worked together to produce a book. A
> >> >> book that is biased.
> >> >> Your co-author is associated with certain groups that are on record as
> >> >> having certain goals, certain tenets, etc.
> >> >
> >> >Blah, Blah, Blah, and my grandmother's best friend's niece's neighbor is a
> >> >Mormon. I guess that means you can't trust anything I say with all my Mormon
> >> >associations and all.
> >>
> >> Working together to produce a book is a tighter relationship than
> >> having Wiccans refer to Jim's web page.
> >
> >I don't have a problem with being associated with G.Amos whatsoever; none of
>
> Good. Then you get to share the burdens and the baggage he represents
> since you WORKED on your book WITH him.
Is this the best you can do? Can we move on to something substantive?
> >you seem to really know much about his views. Who he associates with, however,
> >has nothing to do with me. Most of the "poisoning the well" which has been
> >done towards me has had to do with who the associates of my associate are.
>
> Your connections to him and what he represents is closer than any kind
> of connections you tried to wrap around Jim Alison.
Perhaps no one who has ever published anything would want to be connected to
Alison.
RG
Jeff/addesign
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 05:37:28 GMT, adde...@interaccess.com
>(Jeff/addesign) wrote:
>>I'm up on the creation stories. I'll match my literacy level against
>>someone who can't tell one usenet author from another, any day.
>Glad to hear you think you're literate. Why don't you take the other
>Jeff under your wing for tutoring, so that he can qualify for fourth
>grade?
You couldn't quite parse what I said, I take it.
>Schulman:
>> If you understand
>>>science and can bring yourself to qualify for advancement to fourth
>>>grade by reading Genesis I, 26-28, you will see there an admirable
>>>early expression of the hubristic program of western science.
>Jeff/addesign, atheist #1063:
>>Sorry, that answer just doesn't cut it. You postulated it, you can
>>substantiate it.=20
>Do you have a full name, or just a number stamped on your left buttock
>at the robot factory? Did your creator -- lower or upper case as the
>case may be -- endow you with a fast enough chip and enough RAM so
>that you could comprehend that the central idea of the Genesis passage
>is that man is enjoined to acquire mastery over nature, over the
>entirety of creation? What is it that motivates scientists if not
>that?
No, scientists are motivated by the desire to understand nature. That
their search for knowledge also allows capitalists to find ways of
harnessign nature, is usually a pleasant byproduct. Those who call
themselves environmental scientists also seek to understand nature,
but they would prefer to let nature control us.
>Perhaps you think that scientists are principally interested in
>lowering production costs for the stamping out of atheist/robot #1064?
Your smarminess duly noted. You don't get a second chance. You have
failed to demonstrate that western science has a hubristic program
expressed by Genesis.
As for robots, the cloned mentalities are usually found amoung those
who find revelation in the Bible.
Richard Tree
>richar...@hotmail.com (Richard Tree) wrote:
>
<snipped for brevity's sake>
Mr. Allison;
I apologize for removing the material you provided in response -- I
try and keep the relative size of the posts small. I have found this
makes them easier to digest. I did find the information rather good.
However, I would remind you that I have not called secular humanism a
religion (at least to my knowledge). On the contrary, I simply
referred to a potential hidden agenda. My interest lies in the
philosophical position of a secular humanist. Secular humanists
accept a world view or philosophy called naturalism, in which the
physical laws of the universe are not superseded by non-material or
supernatural entities such as demons, gods, or other "spiritual"
beings outside the realm of the natural universe. (1)
In my experience I have found it rather ironic that an individual with
a humanistic view often vehemently opposes a religious person's views
or beliefs. Perhaps ironic is not appropriate -- rather hypocritical
is most effective. Particularly considering a humanist is one who is
concerned with the interests and welfare of human beings.
Again, I thank you for the history regarding the establishment of the
Secular Humanist term. I would be delighted to discuss this with you
off line -- I really don't want to bore everyone. In spite of me
bringing it up, this is best discussed somewhere other than a
revolutionary war NG.
R/
Richard
(1) http://www.secularhumanism.org/Introduction/whatis.htm
Note: There are far more references on the web regarding the "secular
humanist" position and efforts. I just grabbed a quick and easy one.
Richard Tree
>richar...@hotmail.com (Richard Tree) wrote:
>
>>:|I am a man of faith. I have a deep love of Christ and the Church.
>>:|However, I too *do not* believe that Christianity was the most
>>:|important influence -- directly. I simply view the most important
>>:|influence was the desire for liberty. But, I am inclined to believe
>>:|that Christianity -- Protestant Christianity to a large degree --
>>:|shaped the fundamental views of Liberty. Perhaps this is "splitting
>>:|hairs"
>
>
>Ah, yes. blasphemy laws really enhanced the liberty of free speech.
>Sunday laws that could and did result in fines and even jail time really
>enhanced liberty.
>Taxes that were used to support the dominant religion, or any religion
>really enhanced liberty
>Required attendance in church, etc really was a great example of liberty
>Civil liberties and rights denied because of ones religion or lack thereof
>really enhanced liberty
>All those democracies and republics that are to be found in the Bible
>really provided great models for liberty
I think you have jumped to a conclusion regarding Christianity that
many folks often arrive at without a fair consideration of all the
elements. Particularly the shortcomings of the church. You are quite
correct to point out the human failures in Christianity -- but to do
so at the expense of the successes is really unfair.
At a minimum, one must consider the truths contained within the
teachings of Christ and the principal apostles -- not the manner in
which we screw them up. With that in mind, I would really be
interested in a legitimate proof that Christian teachings and ethics
-- not the body of people called the 'Church' -- were largely ignored
or disagreed with by the founders. For example, Jefferson may not
have agreed with the divinity of Christ, but he went to great lengths
to study the Gospels -- which most likely helped shape his views of
liberty.
<snip>
>The men who eventually founded this country were influenced first and
>foremost by their own personal experiences. (Madison began his personal war
>against unions between church and states because of his observations of
>religious persecution, not in Europe, but in his own home state.)
>Next they were influenced by personal reasons, some noble, some not so
>noble. They were influenced by what they had studied and learned and this
>took the form of studies of the classics, European Enlightenment, law,
>religion, European history, etc. and despite Gardiner's best efforts to
>show otherwise, his view that religion was the most important, just does
>not hold up.
>
<snip>
And I am grateful they were able to identify the limitations of
mankind in power and place restrictions in law to prohibit or mitigate
the abuse of power -- particularly between church and state. This
again, however, does not diminish the profound effect that
Christianity has had on the "classics, European Enlightenment, law,
religion, European history, etc."
R/
Richard
Jeff/addesign
>"Federal" as used by Calvinists, as were the preponderance of those living in
>the founding generation (I believe Alison says it was 90% or so) in America, had
>clear connotations as it referred to the essense of their theological
>presuppositions
>(http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,27085+1,00.html)
Archaic usage has always been common in religion. By the 18th century,
the secular definition (OED 2nd definition) was coming into vogue, and
by the time of the revolution, Federal was commonly understood as a
covenant, treaty, or agreement of a politcal nature, as between
states, or between the colonies and the mother country.
>The "Federalism" which Schlesinger wrote about had to do with the system of
>republicanism which is part and parcel of Presbyterian polity, as set forth by
>its architect, John Calvin.
>http://www.flash.net/~jaybanks/books/reformed/8.htm
Still a fascinating quote. Still totally irrelevent to the etymology
of "Federal," which is from the Latin for treaty or agreement, and
need not have any religious implication.
Federal, as used by the founders, (dating from at least 1707) refers
to "Of or pertaining to, or of the nature of, that form of government
in which two or more states constitute a political unity while
remaining more or less independent with regard to their internal
afairs." [OED]
This (OED definition 2, the one that is not obsolete), and its further
variations, pertaining to political states, represent the usage
understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
The OED cites the Constitution and Jefferson et al, as exemplars for
this definition.
Jeff/addesign
>Jeff/addesign wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Jeff/addesign wrote:
>> >>
>> >> buc...@exis.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >> >Do you understand that among the various things that Gardiner has claimed
>> >> >or implied is:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> >That when asked to show the religious evidence in the Constitution stated
>> >> >that the whole idea of a **federal** constitution, **federal** government,
>> >> >etc was based on Religion because the word federal means compact with God.
>> >>
>> >> Funny, I thought Federal was from the Latin _Foedus,_ treaty,
>> >> agreement; not from the Latin word for faith _fides_, or faithful,
>> >> _fidelis_. I can't find compact with God in there anywhere.
>>
>> >"Foedus" was routinely translated "Covenant" by the Puritans. Thus, their most
>> >fundamental commitment was to FEDERAL THEOLOGY, also called COVENANTAL THEOLOGY.
>>
>> I guess their scholarship was just as poor as yours.
>Their Latin Scholarship was FIRST RATE
>http://www.universitylake.org/history/harvard.html
Spare me the wild goose chases. Is that going to tell me how many
Puritans studied Latin, or something equally irrelevent?
Foedus may be roughly translated as covenant, yes. A covenant is an
agreement or treaty. Federal, in its ARCHAIC meaning, can refer to a
covenent between man and god. Federal in the modern sense (dating from
at least 1707) refers to "Of or pertaining to, or of the nature of,
that form of government in which two or more states constitute a
political unity while remaining more or less independent with regard
to their internal afairs." [OED]
This (OED definition 2, the one that is not obsolete), and its further
variations, pertaining to political states, represent the usage
understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
The OED cites the Constitution and Jefferson et al, as exemplars for
this definition.
>> >http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,27085+1,00.html
Good source, that Britannica. Nothing at that cite about etymology.
Only that federal can be interchanged with covenant, meaning
agreement.
>> >When the founders championed a "federal" system, there was a clear connection to
>> >the covenantal history which preceded the founding.
>> >http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm10_samson.html
Meaning agreement or treaty? Yes, there were previous agreements and
treaties. So? I don't think Calvinists have any proprietary claim to
the word _federal,_ or to any other words in the common lexicon of the
18th century.
>> About as clear as the connection between Reform Judaism and Calvin.
>> IOW, imaginary.
>An imaginary fantasy which has sure fooled these Ph.D.'s:
I'll pass on the PhDs. Federal, as understood by the framers, was the
second definition in OED, as demostrated by OED's reference to that
period of American history for exemplars. OED knows what the founders
meant. It's a pity you don't.
<snip>
>Donald S. Lutz:
Oh yes, Lutz. He placed references to Montesquieu second in
importance in his "The Relative Importance of European Writers on
Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought," American
Political Science Review 189 (1984), 189-97. You know, that study of
carefully selected documents, excluding the notes from the
Constitutional convention. Montesquieu laid the foundations for the
concept of a federal republic.
Where did Montesquieu get his inspiration? Why, from Locke, of course.
It's a shame that Montesquieu's critics considered him either a deist,
a Spinozan, or possibly both.
Oh, and thanks for enightening me to the Britannica online. My sister
got our Eleventh Edition when the estate was settled, and I no longer
have access to it.
From your source:
"By the end of the 18th century, in addition to becoming a dominant
religious attitude among English, French, and German intellectuals,
Deism had crossed the Atlantic to shape the religious views of
upper-class Americans. The first three presidents of the United
States all subscribed to Deist beliefs."
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,30261+1,00.html
and:
"In 1652 [John Locke] entered Christ Church, Oxford. Puritan reforms
at Oxford had not yet altered the traditional Scholastic curriculum
of rhetoric, grammar, moral philosophy, geometry, and Greek; Locke
found the course insipid and interested himself in studies outside the
traditional program, . . . In 1660, as a newly appointed tutor in his
college, Locke enthusiastically welcomed the end of the Puritan
Commonwealth and the restoration of Charles II to the throne."
"To remedy the narrowness of his education he read contemporary
philosophy, particularly that of René Descartes, the father of modern
philosophy."
"These movements prepared Locke for the antidogmatic, liberal school
of theology that he would later encounter in Holland, a school in
revolt against the narrowness of traditional Calvinism."
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,114881+2+108465,00.html
And so much more that can be used to refute nearly anything you post.
Thanks for sharing.
Jeff/addesign
>Jeff/addesign wrote:
>> >Perhaps you think that scientists are principally interested in
>> >lowering production costs for the stamping out of atheist/robot #1064?
>>
>> Your smarminess duly noted. You don't get a second chance. You have
>> failed to demonstrate that western science has a hubristic program
>> expressed by Genesis.
>Mr. Schulman,
>Try to understand that our atheist friend, Addesign, is not up to speed with the
>scholarly literature on this issue. A good introduction is posted at the
>Columbia University Website
>(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html), and since we
>really ought to keep these forums on the topic of early america, I would simply
>suggest that Addesign pick up a few of Dr. Jaki's books on this topic (he is
>generally regarded as the leading authority on the question.
If they wanted me to read that page, they would not have chosen that
color scheme. Thanks, but I don't need any more Christian propaganda.
I glanced through it. In my spare time, I may amuse myself by
converting it to plain text and actually reading it. But I know BS
when I smell it, and I know Christian distortion of history when I see
it. You don't honestly believe that swill, do you?
This page seems to completely discount the scientific contributions of
the Greeks and Romans. Historically, Christianity is most noted for
its repression and sometimes even persecution of scientists.
Get your head out of your indoctrinated butt.
mscu...@my-deja.com
RichardAS...@att.net wrote:
> Schulman:
> >>Did your creator -- lower or upper case as the
> >>case may be -- endow you with a fast enough chip and enough RAM so
> >>that you could comprehend that the central idea of the Genesis
passage
> >>is that man is enjoined to acquire mastery over nature, over the
> >>entirety of creation? What is it that motivates scientists if not
> >>that?
>
> >No, scientists are motivated by the desire to understand nature. That
> >their search for knowledge also allows capitalists to find ways of
> >harnessign nature, is usually a pleasant byproduct.
>
> and the practical, just as you foolishly suppose that there is no
> important synergy between religious ideas and science.
>
> How did Mendel discover basic laws of genetics? By contemplating earth
> from the far side of the moon? Or by the controlled alteration of
> plant species?
You are absolutely right to a dergree. Even Newton was discovering his
theories in a search to find out how God's world worked. Cotton Mather
accepted much of the scientific theories with a shrug. I believe he
said something like, "That's the way God meant it to be." However, that
was in the 17th and early 18th century.
> Jeff/addesign/atheist #1063:
> >...
> >As for robots, the cloned mentalities are usually found amoung those
> >who find revelation in the Bible.
>
> No, it's those who stumble to the end of the Bible and can't find
> Revelation. Like you, fool.
Ah, yes, Richard "AD Hominem" Schulman contributes again.
--
Mike Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mscu...@my-deja.com
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> Mike Curtis wrote:
> >
> > Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Mike Curtis wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> And here I thought Gardiner wanted to get back to real history.
> > >> Doesn't seem to be that way.
> > >
> > >Sure do, but I can't seem to get a response to
http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
> >
> > The absence od absence doesn't mean there is an absence of absence.
> > For every little moment of propaganda you design it takes at least
> > three times as long in research to put all back in context and
> > perspective, Gardiner. Plus I do think there has been responses to
> > some of your stuff. I, for one, haven't the free time to play as you
> > do.
>
> And yet when Alison dumps a gigabyte of madison's letters in this
group, I'm
> supposed to have the free time to respond to each and every megabyte.
The lie is the gigabyte and megabyte assertions. What oyu do is read
the letters for Alison is addressing your distortions by posting them.
> Hypocrisy.
I read them and save them on a zip drive. I like electronic copies of
things.
> > >"We are who we associate with."
> >
> > You work with those people such as Amos quite closely.
>
> As much as I like Gary Amos, and have no reason to dissociate myself
from him,
> the truth of the matter is that I haven't had much contact with him
in the last
> year. Even when we were writing the book, we weren't working "quite
closely." I
> mainly worked with Dr. Bill Dembski, the academic editor, whom I know
quite well
> and have worked with quite closely.
>
> The bottom line is that the reason why this forum has become so
boring is
> because you and your pals have transformed it from a history
discussion to a
> "resume critiquing group."
ACtually, you were the one getting your butt kicked so you started off
on the credential game while pointing your out. So people looked at
your credentials. Don't start what you can't finish, Gardiner.
> Any chance you might commit to returning to the proper topic?
Then don't reply to my post. How's that for a thought. I posted a
thread on why the Pilgrims came here two or three days ago. Seems to
have been thorough since the silence is so loud. So, when are you going
to get back on topic or areb you going to continue responding and
fomenting pissing contests?
> > >Alison's "dumps" of his digital library is not the correct
approach in a
> > >newgroups. You used to even have the common sense to see this:
> >
> > >"on usenet you could point to an URL and write about the important
parts of
> > >the [citation] as you see it. This would be much more informative
and also
> > >will take up less bandwidth on my hard drive."
> >
> > Like Locke I can change my views.
> >
> > This is what people do.
>
> In other words, you went from an independent thinker to a cronie.
No, I changed my view on the matter. I looked at what you were doing
and then looked at how Alison was responding. I discovered that he was
taking you apart by posting the actual letters in question. It turns
out that Madison wasn't saying, in context, what you were wanting him
to say in sound bite. I decided that if he responds by placing original
documents in a reply that address exactly the assertions you are making
then it is a valid way to proceed.
Initially I thought he was simply putting stuff on the group that
really didn't address your assertions. The problem I had is that they
used to be so large that I couldn't find the corrective. Now he has
improved his style.
> > >> >3) Any post that is beyond common standards of decency.
> > >> >
> > >> >You have been mostly guilty of (1), but you occasionally engage
in (2). You
> > >> >sink to (3) now and again, but nowhere near as much as your
> > >> >anti-holocaust-denier friends.
> > >>
> > >> Which friends are those? Oh, and do point to a single indecent
post of
> > >> mine.
> > >
> > >Danaher and Sinclair come immediately to mind as toilet mouths.
Mr. Schulman
> > >has had to ask you to keep your barnyard epithets in the barnyard.
> >
> > What epithets have I used, Gardiner?
>
> The one that Schulman had in mind was
> http://x39.deja.com/getdoc.xp?
AN=563363853&search=thread&CONTEXT=948171776.1865678901&HIT_CONTEXT=9481
71776.1865678901&HIT_NUM=3&hitnum=110
So you are Richard "Ad hominem" Schulman now? You two share a brain?
> > You poor dear. Most of what you write is pure horse shit. <smile>
>
> That's intelligent.
It's honest.
> > >I have no disagreement with Alison on the fact that Madison wanted
to separate
> > >civil and religious. The fact that Alison doesn't understand is
the "why?" The
> > >answer is at http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
> >
> > Tell me what Alison doesn't understand. I've read your propaganda.
Now
> > tell me what Alison doesn't understand.
>
> Read Alison's answer to Clem's question, then read Madison's Memorial
and
> Remonstrance, and you'll see what he is missing.
You tell me what he is missing. I'm not here to play guessing games or
to read minds.
> Well, let me take that back, an educated person would see what Alison
has
> missed; you on the other hand, well, I have serious doubts.
Good show. You join the ranks of Richard "Ad hominem" Schulman.
Strike 1.
> > >> Jim did, in fact, post a clear difference of opinion on
> > >> that very matter between Witherspoon and Madison. That they
disagreed
> > >> on the issue of religion and civil government does not mean that
they
> > >> were enemies.
> > >
> > >Nope. No primary sources have been posted demonstrating a
difference on this
> > >issue between Witherspoon and Madison. Witherspoon closely
followed Locke on
> > >this issue, as did Madison.
> >
> > Yes, it has. But keep on lying and maybe you'll convince yourself
that
> > it is true. LOL.
>
> Kindly refer me to a single primary source citation already provided
by Alison
> which proves that Madison and Witherspoon disagreed on the
civil/religious
> matter.
Yes, it is there. Two letters were written that address Witherspoon
teaching on the matter and Madison's conflicts. I'll give you the data.
The letters canbe found in the The Papers of James Madison, ed.
Hutchinson, volume 1, Letters to William Bradford on 1 Dec, 1773 and 24
January 1774, 1 April 1774, and 28 July 1775. The passage using these
letters was posted in this news group. You chose to ignore it. Good
show!
> You can't cause it aint there.
Strike 2.
[snip, for brevity, I'll have to look this over. Gottaput everything in
context where Gardiner is concerned.]
> > >If Alison will put forth enough effort to provide the aspects of
the material
> > >which address the question directly,
> >
> > He did and you ignored it. Doesn't matter much since no one else
> > ignored it. That's why you have no credibility in this group.
>
> No one else ignores Alison's multi gigabyte dumps?? That is a huge
surprise to
> me. I didn't realize that everyone here is unemployed?
Apparently some must be reading them. Your suport in this group isn't
all that impressive.
> In terms of credibility, you seem to think that having credibility is
synonymous
> with being applauded by a host of american atheists, # 1414, # 1678,
and # 1890,
> and others whose foul language is their hallmark.
You ought to find out if, in fact, Alison is associated with this
person at all before you make your claims.
> I'm glad I'm not credible by your criteria.
My criteria is based on the lies, distortions, immediately attacking
*anyone* who would disagree with you, redesign of arguments, and the
ignoring of information that *directly* contradicts your claims. No,
you are not credible at all.
> > >> >You don't want to do this for two reasons: 1) because the
evidence
> > >> >is not there, and 2) because you are lazy and you really don't
engage in
> > >> >debate in these forums, you simply vomit your cut-and-pastes
and walk away
> > >> >like you have proven something.
> > >>
> > >> Well, Gardiner, he has proven his point. Those who read the
actual
> > >> writings of Madison can see that for themselves.
> > >
> > >I agree fully with your last sentence.
> >
> > But you ignored them. Good show!
>
> I've spent a good deal of time in Gaillard Hunt, editor, The Papers
of James
> Madison, 9 Volumes
Good for you. Seems you only see what you want to see and learn only
that which supports your preconceived notions.
> > >> >BTW, I've shown the whole protestant history behind Madison's
assertion that
> > >> >"Luther led the way" in the proper separation between church
and state, and
> > >> >I've archived it at
http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/liberty.html
> > >>
> > >> Yes, and it is really trivial in the context of what Madison WAS
> > >> actually writing. Propagandists like you do not find context to
be
> > >> important at all.
> > >
> > >Yes, LOL, and "Propagandists" like Bailyn say that Madison
was "confessedly
> > >influenced by the Presbyterians" when arriving at his views on
Church and State.
> >
> > Did you know that Locke was a sconian? Unitarian? Skeptic? You
> > apparently didn't.
Apparently you didn't.
> > >> >> About the other issue, say what you will, you are properly
linked to your
> > >> >> co-autjor, the two of you actively worked together to produce
a book. A
> > >> >> book that is biased.
> > >> >> Your co-author is associated with certain groups that are on
record as
> > >> >> having certain goals, certain tenets, etc.
> > >> >
> > >> >Blah, Blah, Blah, and my grandmother's best friend's niece's
neighbor is a
> > >> >Mormon. I guess that means you can't trust anything I say with
all my Mormon
> > >> >associations and all.
> > >>
> > >> Working together to produce a book is a tighter relationship than
> > >> having Wiccans refer to Jim's web page.
> > >
> > >I don't have a problem with being associated with G.Amos
whatsoever; none of
> >
> > Good. Then you get to share the burdens and the baggage he
represents
> > since you WORKED on your book WITH him.
>
> Is this the best you can do? Can we move on to something substantive?
It is substantive, Gardiner. It's based on fact and not guess work.
Good snip of your admitting being a propagandist. Good show!
Strike 3.
[snip]
buc...@exis.net
>:|On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:23:56 -0500, buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|
>:|>richar...@hotmail.com (Richard Tree) wrote:
>:|>
>:|
>:|However, I would remind you that I have not called secular humanism a
>:|religion (at least to my knowledge).
No you didn't, however that doesn't change the fact that the words secular
humanism do have a history. It was the history that was presented.
>On the contrary, I simply
>:|referred to a potential hidden agenda.
Potential hidden agenda? By whom?
So let me see if I understand this.
You are saying that secular humanists, a basically invented phrase,
whomever they may be, have a potential hidden agenda, but the radical. or
ultra, religious right doesn't have any potential or real hidden agenda?
There isn't even a remote possibility that they (and people like Gary Amos,
R. Gardiner) have no agenda to officially or de facto establish
Christianity ( just so long as all Charismatic, evangelical, fundamental
Christian sects, denominations are included---maybe they would allow the so
called liberal mainstream Christian denominations be included and maybe
Catholics as well)
They have no agenda, hidden or otherwise, to sell the idea that the
founders only wanted to prevent one Christian denomination from being
declared a national religion? That establishing Protestant Christianity was
perfectly fine and very much in line with the wishes of the founders?
No such agenda exists within the framework of any religious right group or
organization?
>:|My interest lies in the
>:|philosophical position of a secular humanist. Secular humanists
>:|accept a world view or philosophy called naturalism, in which the
>:|physical laws of the universe are not superseded by non-material or
>:|supernatural entities such as demons, gods, or other "spiritual"
>:|beings outside the realm of the natural universe. (1)
Sort of what some of the founders believed, huh?
buc...@exis.net
>:|On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:24:09 -0500, buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|
>:|>richar...@hotmail.com (Richard Tree) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:|I am a man of faith. I have a deep love of Christ and the Church.
>:|
And you are overlooking a very important element.
What was the religion the men of the founding era knew?
The religion, or church, etc., they knew did the things listed above. You
are using your 1999/2000 eyes, mind, understanding, insights to history,
etc to look back at them and say this or that. They didn't have that
luxury. The church/religion they know was the ones that existed, the ones
that used the power of the state to establish and enforce these rules and
laws, etc.
Many of these very men helped pass statutes and constitutional provisions
that helped the church maintain those powers and abuses.
Jefferson studied the gospels, yep, and he had no use for the opinions of
the apostles Saul/Paul, etc.
Do you have any evidence that he developed any of his ideas about liberty,
etc from such study?
Jefferson spent a lifetime studying a great many different writings of
different people.
You are doing the same thing that Gardiner is trying to do, you are
speculating and elevating one thing above all else. In fact you haven't
even mentioned the other groups of writings that Jefferson was educated in
and had studied.
buc...@exis.net
>:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|>Jeff/addesign wrote:
>:|>>
>:|
You are wasting your time. Gardiner knows all this. We went through all
this last spring when he first made the claim linking federal to religion.
I went to the library and copied all the [OED] definitions that were
relative, including the dates they came into usage. it didn't matter, as
you can tell. he will, spend the rest of his life making the same claims
over and over, and no amount of evidence is going to make one bit of
difference to him
In fact, now as I recall, I even posted the comments of founders present at
the Constitutional convention, because, horrors to be, a few of them
actually defined the term federal, gave the meaning they were using. So I
posted those actual comments of theirs. Did it make any difference to
Gardiner? Well, you can determine that from this current discussion you are
having with him
Hell, we should all know that Gardiner would know the real meaning, why
should we even remotely think that the editors of the OED or the men
actually present at the Constitutional convention who have a clue to the
meaning of that term? Yea, right!!!!
buc...@exis.net
alt.history.colonial,alt.history,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.deism,alt.deism,soc.history,alt.atheism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Re: the role of religion in early america
April 6, 1999
10.55 a.m.
=======================================================================
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Could you kindly point out all this large Christian influence in the
>:|> Constitution?
>:|
>:|Just for starters:
>:| The root principle of the new Constitution was denoted by the word
>:|“federal,” a term based in Calvinist theology.
Gee, something must be wrong here.
John Calvin (1509-1564)
FEDERAL adj. 1645 foederal pertaining to or based on a treaty, especially a
covenant between God and the individual; formed in English from Latin
foedus covenant, league (genitive foederis; related to fides FAITH) +
English - al The Anglicized spelling federal is first recorded in 1737
(earlier then the French federal, 1789)
The sense of relating to a government comprising independent states
is first recorded in 1707 from the context of phrases such as federal
union, in which federal refers to the earliest sense of a treaty;
therefore, a union based on a treaty.
FEDERALISM n. 1789 Federalism formed in American English from federal + ism
FEDERALIST n. 1787, formed in American English from federal + ist.
(The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology)
Hmmmmmm, interesting, no mention of Calvin though.
Rather, the above also indicates a secular meaning and use of the word.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL
(1) (a) Of or pertaining to a convenant, compact or treaty.
1660 Stillingfl
1701 Grew.
1789 G. White
(b) Pertaining to a convenant of works, etc etc (This one is quite
religious) (federal theology, etc)
1645 Ussher
1649 Jer. Taylor
1673 True Worship of God
1737 Waterland
1800 etc
(2) Of or pertaining to, or nature of, the form of government in which two
or more states constitute a political unity while remaining more or less
independent with regard to their internal affairs.
1707 Seton
1777 Robertson
1787 J. Barlow
1832 etc etc
(b) Of or pertaining to a political unity so constituted, as distinguished
from the separate states forming it.
1789 T. Jefferson
1796 Washington
1844, etc etc
(3) U S Hist. (a) Favoring the establishment of a strong federal i.e.
central government.
1788 Lond.
1789 T Jefferson
1796Morse
1839 etc etc
(Oxford English Dictionary)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:| The word “federal” signified
>:|two things. First, it referred to the nature of the new union. Second, it
>:|referred to the new way that the government was organized, and particularly to
>:|the relationship between the individual states and the whole American nation.
>:|The founders called their new government a “federal” government. They called
>:|the constitution a “federal” constitution.
Yep, they did, they employed the secular meaning to the word.
That does not prove your point.
>:| In the American colonies, the words “federal” and “federal head” were widely
>:|known and generally understood because of the widespread influence of
>:|Calvinist Christianity.
Widespread basically in New England, and don't even bother with your
Dominion stuff. As early as 1707 there was a very real secul;ar meaning to
the words under discussion.
>:| To many in the Founders’ day, to say that America was
>:|a “federal” government, with a “federal” constitution was to imply that
>:|Calvinist principles were assumed in the nature of the new union.
Yea right.
For some in the New England area, you might be right. However, the uproar
that came about over the No religious test clause shows you to be far more
incorrect then correct.
>The English
>:|word “federal” came from the Latin word foedus, which meant “bond” or union.
>:|Foedus was often used in the Latin Bible to translate the Hebrew word for
>:|“covenant.” The Puritans and other Calvinists were people of “federal” or
>:|covenant theology. The word federal in American culture was widely known to be
>:|linked to the Puritans and to the Westminster Confession and Catechism (1646).
Hmmmmm, that began changing at least as early as 1707.
>:|In the New England states where Calvinism was particularly strong, many
>:|Christians viewed the Constitution in this light.
Many big whoop.
I know, you are still convinced that new England was the center of life
learning, and was responsible for the founding of the world, but tain't so.
Wonder how many many really is?
>:| By 1787, federal political principles had been prevalent for some time,
>:|particularly in New England, due to the influence of the Puritans. As
>:|Historian Herbert Schneider observed:
>:|
The meanings of the word Federal can be stated as follows:
While it does give a religious example, as an example, there is nothing
from the founding era that indicates that they used the word federal--in
relation to the constitution or form of government they were forming-- to
indicate a treaty between God and individuals.
You forgot to include that in your definitions. I wonder why?
I don't see Calvin mentioned anywhere.
I do see a religious meaning, but more importantly I see a very strong
secular meaning, and a secular meaning that was the meaning when the
founders used the word federal in relation to the constitution they had
framed and the government it was forming.
There is no evidence indicating your meaning was meant.
Why did you try so hard to slant your discourse?
if this is how your book is constructed, it seems to rest a lot on half
truths, misrepresentations, and a lot of other questionable scholarship.
buc...@exis.net
alt.history.colonial,alt.history,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.deism,alt.deism,soc.history,alt.atheism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Re: the role of religion in early america
3:25 P.M.
=======================================================================
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|With regard to the word federal, you seem to have consulted a few
>:|dictionaries, particularly the OED, in which you found that the etymology of
>:|the word (L=foedus) implies a compact or covenant between a community and God.
>:|But then you also noted that beginning around 1707 or so a second use of the
>:|word began to be employed, particularly in a political context indicating a
>:|union of states.
>:|
>:|You claim that the founders used the words with the secondary meaning in mind.
Uhhhhh, no, I provided evidence showing the meaning as they understood it
and meant it.
>:|I claim that they were quite aware of both of the meanings of the term and new
>:|good and well the connotations of the word federal in the people's mind,
>:|especially in places such as Pennsylvania where the Scotch-Irish were
>:|prevalent, in places like the hills of North Carolina (Mecklenberg) where
>:|Presbyterians dominated the Whig population, and in places like New England
>:|where federal theology was required to be taught to children by law in various
>:|colonial municipalities.
That's nice, but doesn't prove your case, sorry.
>:|
>:|Problem is, according to your unorthodox approach to history, unless I can
>:|show you a diary from George Washington where he explicitly states that the
>:|word had a Christian connotation to it in the colonies, then in your mind, it
>:|didn't.
I showed you historical evidence supporting what I said, why can't you
provide any supporting what you say?
Could it be because there isn't any? LOL
>:| That's baloney.
No, that's called calling your bluff.
Something from the legal system, but is also well and alive in any form of
research, proving theories, etc..
A judge instructs the jury in a manner along the following lines.
The arguments of the lawyer is not evidence, and is not to be considered as
evidence. Speculation, argument is not evidence, it is only speculation and
argument. It is opinion, it is not evidence, nor is it fact.
The jury is told they are to weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion as
to what the facts of the case really are and from that what the truth is
from the evidence, not from the arguments, speculations, opinions etc. of
the lawyers.
You spend an awful lot of time speculating and then trying to defend your
speculations, usually by trying to attack anyone who disagrees with those
speculations.
But you are very short on actual documentation.
That is poor scholarship.
buc...@exis.net
alt.history.colonial,alt.history,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.deism,alt.deism,soc.history,alt.atheism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Re: the role of religion in early america
1:51 P.M.
=======================================================================
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:|I appreciate the research. Shows that you actually give some consideration to
>:|the discussion occasionally.
Oh, another barb. More and more lately, what was it you once said, a
person who doesn't have anything resorts to such.
>:|
>:|> >:| The word “federal” signified
>:|> >:|two things. First, it referred to the nature of the new union. Second, it
>:|> >:|referred to the new way that the government was organized, and particularly to
>:|> >:|the relationship between the individual states and the whole American nation.
>:|> >:|The founders called their new government a “federal” government. They called
>:|> >:|the constitution a “federal” constitution.
>:|>
>:|> Yep, they did, they employed the secular meaning to the word.
>:|
>:|Is that your interpretation of the data you have posted above regarding your
>:|study of the word "federal"? Are you alleging that the founders were oblivious
>:|to the religious implications of the word.
Nope, and you are trying once again to shift the subject and or enter into
game playing.
Aware is not the issue. What the various founders may or may not have been
aware of is not the issue and would be very difficult to prove at any rate.
We would be engaged once more in your favorite tactic, speculating.
Speculating and trying to build your case on the idea that IF they were
aware of something or had been exposed to something, then everything they
say and do has to mean that or be connected to that.
The issue:
You had stated and implied previously that the Christianity had such a big
influence on the founding.
I simply asked you a very simple question:
>:|> >:|> Could you kindly point out all this large Christian influence in the
>:|> >:|> Constitution?
>:|> >:|
You answered as follows:
*******************************************************************************
Just for starters:
The root principle of the new Constitution was denoted by
the word “federal,” a term based in Calvinist theology. The word “federal”
signified two things. First, it referred to the nature of the new union.
Second, it referred to the new way that the government was organized, and
particularly to the relationship between the individual states and the
whole American nation. The founders called their new government a “federal”
government. They called the constitution a “federal” constitution.
In the American colonies, the words “federal” and “federal head”
were widely known and generally understood because of the widespread
influence of Calvinist Christianity. To many in the Founders’ day, to say
that America was a “federal” government, with a “federal” constitution was
to imply that Calvinist principles were assumed in the nature of the new
union. The English word “federal” came from the Latin word foedus, which
meant “bond” or union. Foedus was often used in the Latin Bible to
translate the Hebrew word for “covenant.” The Puritans and other Calvinists
were people of “federal” or covenant theology. The word federal in American
culture was widely known to be linked to the Puritans and to the
Westminster Confession and Catechism (1646). In the New England states
where Calvinism was particularly strong, many Christians viewed the
Constitution in this light.
By 1787, federal political principles had been prevalent
for some time, particularly in New England, due to the influence of the
Puritans.Very few historians have denied some link from the Fundamental
Orders of Connecticut, which was an explicitly Christian constitution, and
the Federal Constitution.
******************************************************************************
The above was your basic answer, you saw Christianity again in everything
again..
>:|If so, do you have any evidence to
>:|that fact. If not, isn't it accurate to believe that the founders were quite
>:|competent vocabularists.
Here we go with the irrelevant speculations and game playing again.
>:|
>:|> That does not prove your point.
>:|
>:|You have not "proven" otherwise.
Actually I have, that is why you have once more resorted to game playing
again.
>:|
>:|> Widespread basically in New England, and don't even bother with your
>:|> Dominion stuff. As early as 1707 there was a very real secul;ar meaning to
>:|> the words under discussion.
>:|
>:|But not exclusively. Even your research shows that the religious meaning
>:|persisted into the 19th century.
Sure persisted into the 19ty century. So what?
Begriming in 1707 the meaning as employed by the vast majority of the
founders began to come into use.
How many founders can you produce personal writings from {during the period
of 1785 to 1800} showing they thought that the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION was a
compact or treaty between God and the individual?
How many founders can anyone produce writings from during this same time
period that says they believed that they had created something that would
fit any or all of the secular meanings of the word federal as it began to
be defined beginning in 1707 and continuing till after the founding period.
Look at the various names under the various dates, especially from 1707 to
1800, look at the definitions associated with those time periods, Even
Thomas Jefferson's name appears there and I know he wasn't using any
religious meaning of the word federal.
Try again.
_______________________________________________________________________
John Calvin (1509-1564)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL
>:|
>:|> >:| To many in the Founders’ day, to say that America was
>:|> >:|a “federal” government, with a “federal” constitution was to imply that
>:|> >:|Calvinist principles were assumed in the nature of the new union.
>:|>
>:|> Yea right.
>:|
>:|They sure could have used a different word than federal. They could have
>:|called it a "central" government or a "national" government, or a "general"
>:|government (all of which they occasionally did), but they specifically
>:|preferred this term "federal" Hmmmm.... I wonder why? Hint: Because it had a
>:|particular connotation linking the form of Government to covenantal principles
>:|such as those found in the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut.
Prove it. Time to crap or get off the pot
I don't have the time to play these stupid games of yours, to waste time
with irrelevant speculations, that you can't back up.
Post the writings, from letters diaries, whatever you have, from the
founders that prove your position.
*********************************************************************************
Mr. Gov. Morris, explained the distinction between a FEDERAL and
NATIONAL, SUPREME Govt. the former being a mere compact resting on good
faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and complusive
operation. He contended that in all communities there must be one supreme
power, and only one.
(the context here was a debates over State Governments, and a supreme
Executive, Legislative, & Judiciary -- i e sharing of power, etc.)
pp 35
Mr. Hamilton, A FEDERAL Govt he conceived to mean an association of
independent communities into one.
The plan last proposed departs itself from the FEDERAL idea, as understood
by some, since it to operate eventually on individuals.
The great & essential principles necesary for the support of the Government
are (1) An active & constant interest in supporting it. This principle does
not exist in the stattes in favor of the FEDERAL Govt. They have evidently
in a high degree, the esprit de coprs. They constantly persure internal
interests adverse to those of the whole.
pp 130
TEUSDAY JUNE 19th IN COMMITTEE OF WHOLE ON THE PROPOSITIONS OF Mr.
PATTERSON
The substitute offered yesterday by Mr Dickenson being rejected by
a vote now taken on it; Con. N. Y. N. J. Del. ay. Mas. Pa Va. N. C. S. C.
Geo. no. Mayd. divided.
Mr Patterson's plan was again at large before the Committee.
Mr MADISON. Much stress had"" been laid by some gentlemen on the
want of power in the Convention to propose any other than a FEDERAL plan.
To what had been answered by others, he would only add, that neither of the
characteristics attached to a FEDERAL plan would support this objection.
One characteristic, was that in a FEDERAL Government, the power was
exercised not on the people individually;" but on the people collectively
on the States. Yet in some instances as in piracies, captures &c. the
existing Confederacy, and in many instances, the amendments to it proposed
by Mr Patterson, must operate immediately on individuals. The other
characteristic was that a FEDERAL Govt. derived its appointments not
immediately from the people, but from the States which they respectively
composed. Here too were facts on the other side. In two of the States,
Conneci and Rh. Island, the delegates to Cong. were chosen, not by the
Legislatures, but by the people at large; and the plan of Mr P. intended no
change in this particular.
It had been alledged [by Mr. Patterson], that the Confederation
having been formed by unanimous consent, could be dissolved by unanimous
Consent only. Does this doctrine result from the nature of compacts? does
it arise from any particular stipulation in the articles of Confederation?
If we consider the FEDERAL union as analogous to the fundamental compact by
which individuals compose one Society, and which must in its theoretic
origin at least, have been the unanimous act of the component members, it
can not be said that no dissolution of the compact can be effected
without unanimous consent. A breach of the fundamental principles of the
compact by a part of the Society would certainly absolve the other part
from their obligations to it. If the breach of any article by any of the
parties, does not set the others at liberty, it is because, the contrary is
implied in the compact itself, and particularly by that law of it, which
gives an indifinite authority to the majority to bind the whole in all
cases. This latter circumstance shews that we are not to consider the
FEDERAL Union as analogous to the social compact of individuals: for if it
were so, a Majority would have a right to bind the rest, and even to form a
new Constitution for the whole, which the Gent" from N. Jersey would be
among the last to admit. If we consider the FEDERAL Union as analogous not
to the social compacts among individual men: but to the conventions among
individual States.What is the doctrine resulting from these conventions?
Clearly, according to the Expositors of the law of Nations, that a breach
of any one article, by any one party, leaves all the other parties at
liberty, to consider the whole convention as dissolved, unless they choose
rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach. In some
treaties indeed it is expressly stipulated that a violation of particular
articles shall not have this consequence, and even that particular articles
shall remain in force during war, which in general is understood to
dissolve all subsisting Treaties. But are there any exceptions of this sort
to the Articles of confederation? So far from it that there is not even an
express stipulation that force shall be used to compell an offending member
of the Union to discharge its duty. He observed that the violations of the
FEDERAL articles had been numerous & notorious. Among the most notorious
was an act of N. Jersey herself; by which she expressly refused to comply
with a constitutional requisition of Congs. and yielded no farther to the
expostulations of their deputies, than barely to rescind her vote of
refusal without passing any positive act of compliance. He did not wish to
draw any rigid inferences from these observations. He thought it proper
however that the true nature of the existing confederacy should be
investigated, and he was not anxious to strengthen the
Proceeding to the consideration of Mr Patterson's plan, he stated
the object of a proper plan to be twofold. 1 to preserve the Union. 2. to,
provide a Governmt that will remedy the evils felt by the States both in
their united and individual capacities. Examine Mr P'.s plan, & say whether
it promises satisfaction in these respects.
I. Will it prevent those violations of the law of nations & of Treaties
which if not prevented must involve us in the calamities of foreign wars?
The tendency of the States to these violations has been manifested in
sundry instances. The files of Congs. contain complaints already, from
almost every nation with which treaties have been formed. Hitherto
indulgence has been shewn to us. This can not be the permanent disposition
of foreign nations. A rupture with other powers is among the greatest
of national calamities. It ought therefore to be effectually provided that
no part of a nation shalt have it in its power to bring them on the whole.
The existing Confederacy does not sufficiently provide against this evil.
The proposed amendment to it does not supply the omission. It leaves the
will of the States as uncontrouled as ever.
2. Will it prevent encroachments on the FEDERAL authority? A tendency to
such encroachments has been sufficiently exernplified, among ourselves, as
well'" in every other confederated republic antient and Modern. By the
FEDERAL articles, transactions with the Indians appertain to Congi Yet in
several instances, the States have entered into treaties & wars with them.
In like manner no two or more States can form among themselves
any treaties &c. without the consent of Cong: Yet Virg? & Mary" in one
instance--Pena. & N. Jersey in another, have entered into compacts,
without previous applicatiun or subsequent apology. No State again can of
right raise troops in time of peace without the like consent. Of all cases
of the league, this seems to require the most scrupulous observance. Has
not Massts. notwithstanding, the most powerful member of the
Union. already raised a body of troops? Is she not now augmenting them,
without having even deigned to apprise Congs. of Her intention? In
fine--Have we not seen the public land dealt out to Con" to bribe her
acquiescence in the decree constitionally awarded agst. her claim on the
territory of Pena? for no other possible motive can account for the policy
of Cong! in that measure!--If we recur to the examples of other
confederacies, we shall find in all of them the same tendency of the parts
to encroach on the authority of the whole. He then reviewed the
Amphyctionic & Achsean confederacies among the antients, and the Helvetic,
Germanic & Belgic among the moderns, tracing their analogy to the U.
States--in the constitution and extent of their FEDERAL authorities--in the
tendency of the partlcular members to usurp on these authorities; and to
bring confusion & ruin on the whole.--He observed that the plan of
Mr. Pat-son besides omitting a controul over the States as a general
defence of the FEDERAL prerogatives was particularly defective in two of
its provisions. 1. Its ratification was not to be by the people at large,
but by the legislatures. It could not therefore render the Acts of Congs.
in pursuance of their powers, even legally Paramount to the Acts of the
States. 2. It gave to the FEDERAL Tribunal an appellate jurisdiction
only---even in the criminal cases enumerated, The necessity of any such
provision supposed a danger of undue acquittals in the State
tribunals.
pp 140-143
THURSDAY JUNE 21. IN CONVENTION
Mr MADISON was of the opinion that there was (1). less danger of
encroachment from the GenL Govt than from the State Govt. (2). that the
mischief from encroachments would be less fatal if made by the former than
if made by the latter. (1). All the examples of other confederacies prove
the greater tendency in such systems to anarchy than to tyranny; to a
disobedience of the members than to usurpations of the FEDERAL head.
pp 164-165
(All the above comes from the pages listed in the general index under
FEDERAL, in the Bicentennial Edition NOTES of the Debates in the FEDERAL
CONVENTION of 1787. Reported by JAMES MADIOSN, with an introduction by
Adrienne Koch. W. W. Norton & & Company (1987)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't see anything that supports your assertions in the above.
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|"Federal" as used by Calvinists, as were the preponderance of those living in
>:|> >:|the founding generation (I believe Alison says it was 90% or so) in America, had
>:|> >:|clear connotations as it referred to the essense of their theological
>:|> >:|presuppositions
>:|>
>:|> Ahem! Why did you include me in this?
>:|> Exactly what are you saying I said this time?
>:|>
>:|> I'll call you one more time, though I don't know why I waste my time, you
>:|> never do produce all these things you have invented me saying when I call
>:|> you on them. You better hope no one reads these threads because if they do
>:|> your credibility drops each time you pull this stunt.
>:|>
>:|> Would you mind producing whatever it is that you say I said that has to do
>:|
Well it is nice that you have demonstrated once more you can't tell one
person from another.
I would suggest maybe you make that determination before you begin claiming
someone said this or that.
Now, how about all the other recent ones where you have claimed I said
this or that or I was this person or that person?
After all you are the one saying these things.
Now why aren't you doing the substantive thing?
Why will I find responses each day to this type of post but not to, well
say the Gardiner meet Mr. Madison series?
They are substantive, they are a combination of secondary and primary
sources, many, probably half at least are BRAND new (just to nip in the bud
your standard excuse that they have ben posted before) and they take claims
YOU have made regarding Madison and show them to be totally incorrect or
badly over inflated by you.
[BTW, for those that have been posted before, it just goes to show how you
are not interested in truth but rather are interested in spreading your
propaganda. They had to be posted again, because you are still claiming the
same false trhings that you have been shown in the past was not correct.
Definitely shows closed mindedness on your part.]
Why do I find your name in red each morning after i download and when i
click on that red name I find you responding to pissing contests , but in
areas were there are substantive posts and replies by me and others i don't
find any red Rick Gardiner?
Wonder why that is?
You have any ideas?
Of course you will respond to this, because it is one of the pissing
contest type posts/replies.
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|> There is information on the web about this co-authoir that very much places
>:|> >:|> >:|> that person well within the framework of the far religious right.
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|There is information on the web that places Alison within the framework of the
>:|> >:|> >:|Wiccan Pagan cult. (http://members.aol.com/Talendear/whoidx.html)
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|> No one has to explain Gardiner to anyone else, he does it all by himself.
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|Alison is unquestionably associated with American Atheists
>:|> >:|> >:|http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Kindly compare the information from the following that was posted by Jeff
>:|> >:|> to the two URLs provided by Gardiner
>:|> >:|
From: Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,sci.skeptic,alt.deism
Subject: Setting the Record Straight (Part 3 of 4)
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 05:38:12 GMT
<<Part 3 of 4>>
=================
It is also instructive that the book of his that he has been touting
since nearly the beginning of last year was co-authored by Gary Amos, a
law professor at the Pat Robertson School of Government at Regent
University, supported by Pat Robertson’s organization. Gardiner has
said that his views concerning church and state issues differ from
Amos. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Gardiner has characterized his co-author as a supported of Americans
United for the Separation of Church and State. However, Gardiner’s
claims have been shown consistently to be untrustworthy. How might
these claims be examined critically?
Gary Amos’es positions of these matters and relevant associations have
been well documented on several places on the internet and in several
sources. Below are a number of these sources:
[but they are not the only sources that are on the internet -JA-]
------------------------------------------------
THE COALITION ON REVIVAL
Some of the most substantial interaction between reconstructionists and
religious right leaders has occurred under the auspices of` the
Coalition on Revival (COR). Founded as a non-profit thinktank and
evangelical networking agency by Jay Grimstead in 1984, COR seeks to
bridge theological differences in order to foster a conservative
Christian regeneration of American culture -- notably by means of
political action.
COR is not a reconstructionist group: its steering committee has
included many of the country's leading evangelicals, including some who
have had little if any affiliation with the religious right movernent.
The foundation of COR's mission, its major documents -- a "Manifesto
for the Christian Church," 17 Worldview," position papers on different
issues, and 42 doctrinal articles -- are conservative, but not
expressly theocratic.
However, the group's heavy reconstructionist presence, Grimstead's
pronouncements, and the stated aims of the group's activist arm all
suggest that COR at least flirts with -- if it has not pledged itself
to -- theocracy, and that it engages other extreme notions
RECONSTRUCTIONISTS IN COR
In 1986, when COR's "Manifesto" was drafted, the group's steering
committee included R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, and Gary DeMar. Several
other committee members had publicly endorsed reconstructionist
thinkers or championed theocratic notions, including Dennis Peacocke of
Strategic Christian Services (who once said, "Their 'wall of
separation' between church and state is, in reality, not a wall but a
coffin") and Rus Walton, executive director of the reconstructionist-
associated Plymouth Rock Foundation. Non-steering committee signees of
COR's document included David Chilton, Joseph Morecraft and Robert
Thoburn, sympathizers ***Gary Amos*** and Joseph Kickasola of Regent
University and Steven Hotze, a Harris County Texas, Republican Party
official. Hotze reportedly favors the death penalty for homosexuals and
has hosted Gary DeMar at GOP functions.
Among the prominent religious right figures on the steeling committee
during this time and in subsequent years were Donald Wildmon, Robert
Simonds, Beverly LaHaye, Tim LaHaye, D. James Kennedy, former
congressman Mark Siljander, recent Virginia lieutenant governor-
candidate Michael Farris, leading creationist Duane Gish, past Free
Congress Foundation executive vice-president Connaught "Connie”
Marshner, and Dee Jepsen, Chairman of Regent University.
By 1993, several of these figures had defected, reportedly due to COR's
reconstructionist affiliations. The LaHayes, Wildmon, Simonds, and
Kennedy, along with other more mainstream figures had left the group; a
number of mainstream evangelicals remain on the steering committee,
however. (R.J. Rushdoony has also left COR.)
(Source of Information: The religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance &
Pluralism in America, A publication of the Anti-Defamation League.
(1994)
pp 127)
Amos is prominently listed here as at least a sympathizer of a group
devoted in part or in whole to tearing down the wall of separation
between church and state. There are other sources as well, which point
to the unlikelihood of Gary Amos being a separationist as Gardiner says
that he is:
http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/97mar/s03.htm
“No one after reading this work will ever be convinced the Founders
were, by and large, secularists bent on undermining a Christian
society; they may have been naive at some points; they were not
disingenuous. Jasper Adams supported the legal disestablishment of any
particular Christian church in the nation, but not the legal
disestablishment of the Christian religion. This is the present
reviewer's position. Other recent works expressing this general
viewpoint include M. E. Bradford's Religion and the Framers (Plymouth
Rock Foundation [P.O. Box 577, Fisk Hill on Water Street, Marlborough,
NH 03455], 1991) and A Worthy Company (Plymouth Rock, 1982); John
Eidsmoe's Christianity and the Constitution (Baker, 1987); and Gary
Amos's Defending the Declaration (Providence Foundation [P.O. Box 6759,
Charlottesville, VA 22906], 1994). All are worth serious attention.”
http://www.phoenix.net/~prosocs/riterev.html
“Reconstructionists’ insistance on incorporating dominion over all
mankind in order to initiate the "second coming" should be of concern
to us all. The presence of influencial
Reconstructionists in areas of public policy, education and politics is
definitely an alert to the wise. In order to challenge a movement that
would change our form of government to a Christian-based theocracy, we
must be knowledgeable of who these people are. They are already at work
behind the scenes to change our government through the passage of laws,
court rulings and the election of public officials who have accepted
the support of those in this movement in return for votes. It is
imperative that we do not accept these changes as benign through
ignorance of the real motives. These "Christian Elites" will call the
shots once they have accomplished their political goals.
The beliefs of reconstructionists are described in a document called A
Manifesto for the Christian Church. Signers of the Manifesto include:
Dennis Peacocke, Strategic Christian Services; Dr. Ted Baehr, Good News
Communications; Dr. Gary Amos, Rregent University, Law & Public Policy;
Gary DeMar, American Vision and Worldview Magazine; Ted DeMoss,
Christian Business Men's Committee; Dr. Jay Grimstead, Coalition on
Revival; Dr. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church; Dr. Tim
LaHaye, American Coalition for Traditional Values; Mrs. Connie
Marshner, Free Congress Foundation; Dr. Gary North, Institute for
Christian Economics; Dr. R. J. Rushdoony, Chalcedon Institute; Mark
Siljander, Global Strategics, Inc.; Dr. Robert Simonds, Citizens for
Excellence in Education; Rev. Donald Wildmon, American Family
Association; David Chilton, Pastor, Church of the Redeemer; Dr. Steven
Hotze, political activist, Houston, Texas.
Other public figures who, although they are not listed as signers of
the Manifesto, adhere to its mandates, are:
William Dannemeyer, former Member, U. S. Congress; Dennis Peterson,
Creation Resource Foundation; Randall Terry, Operation Rescue and U. S.
Taxpayers Party; Cyrus Zal, Rutherford Institute.
These signers network with many organizations across the nation to
implement Reconstructionism into every facet of our lives. R. J.
Rushdoony is considered to be the modern day father of Christian
Reconstruction. His son-in-law is Gary North, who heads the Institute
for Christian Economics in Tyler, Texas. Jay Grimstead, who heads the
Coalition on Revival (COR), has been very active in the movement but
declines to refer to himself as a Reconstructionist.
The "Foundation Documents" are the heart of Reconstructionist religious
philosophy. They include A Manifesto for the Christian Church, 42
Articles on Historic Christian Doctrine and the Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy. Included in the Manifesto is A Statement of Essential Truths
and A Call to Action. Numbers one and two of this document assert the
inerrancy of the Bible based on The Chicago Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy.(2)
Number three states:
"The Bible States Reality for All Areas of Life and Thought.
"We affirm that the Bible is not only God's statements to us regarding
religion, salvation, eternity, and righteousness, but also the final
measurement and depository of certain fundamental facts of reality and
basic principles that God wants all mankind to know in the spheres of
law, government, economics, business, education, arts and
communication, medicine, psychology, and science. All theories and
practices of these spheres of life are only true, right, and realistic
to the degree that they agree with the Bible. The Bible furnishes
mankind with the only logical and verbal connection between time and
eternity, religion and science, the visible and invisible worlds."
(Emphasis added.)
In the Christian World View Documents, it is explained exactly in what
way this world view will effect "every sphere of life and thought." ”
Amos is listed here again. He is associated with a group whose goals
are 180 degrees opposite from that of AUSCS. If indeed he subscribes to
their publication, it is almost certainly because he is keeping an eye
on what the opposition is saying.
He is associated with an organization, namely the Christian Coalition,
through his tenure at Pat Robertson’s Regent University and his
publicly demonstrated sympathies, that has urged political candidates
associated with it to hide their sympathies from the public:
http://www.pfaw.org/issues/right/bg_cc.shtml
“In 1992, Reed told a Coalition gathering, "The first strategy, and in
many ways the most important strategy, for evangelicals is secrecy."
The Christian Coalition's initial approach to elections, popularly
known as "stealth" tactics, has three essential parts: targeting low-
profile elections that normally attract few voters, focusing get-out-
the-vote efforts on certain conservative churches, and instructing the
candidates to hide its views from the public by avoiding public
appearances and refusing to fill out questionnaires.
The Coalition's strategy first attracted national attention in 1990,
when a coalition of right-wing groups, led by the Christian Coalition,
helped candidates in San Diego win 60 of 90 races for a variety of
offices, from school to hospital board. Apparently indifferent or
oblivious to the threat posed to democracy by "stealth tactics," Reed
boasted of their success. "[S]tealth was a big factor in San Diego's
success," he said. "But that's just good strategy. It's like guerrilla
warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your
opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move
quietly, with stealth, under cover of night." He expanded the metaphor
elsewhere, "I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my
face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a
body bag. You don't know until election night." “
This contradicts what Gardiner has had to say about his co-author quite
decisively. Either Amos did not tell the whole truth to Gardiner over
the phone, or Gardiner does know the truth about Amos’ sympathies and
is choosing to use such “stealth tactics” both on Amos’ behalf and on
his own.
Interestingly enough, the critique of Amos book comes from a history
professor, Gary Schultz, who Gardiner himself uses as a source in one
of his “rebuttals” of a recent post of mine. It is in a journal which
in several articles appears to be at least somewhat conservative is not
itself accomodationist. I will post what I feel to be relevant
comments; readers are invited to see the whole article to check for
context. Admittedly, there are some positive comments in this article
as seen by the reviewer of Amos’ book as well which the reader can see
in the entire article. The critiques are included here to contradict
Gardiner’s point that “, I don't think you will find much fault with
Dr. Amos' work”. It also demonstrates that the central purpose of this
is not as an objective history but as a debating manual, stressing a
polemical purpose to this extended political tract, not dissimilar to
what Gardiner has been doing:
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/reviews/cm01_rev_declaration.html
“The book is engaging, polemical, and vigorously argued; Amos admits
that it was designed to be something of a "debater's manual". He
relentlessly challenges liberal historians, and takes to the woodshed
the neo-evangelical historians who parrot their theories. This pit-bull
approach to history makes the book interesting, and does not hurt its
effectiveness, since Amos is up-front about his approach and makes no
pretence of being a detached, dispassionate historian….
Amos's treatment of the Enlightenment and its influence on America,
however, falls short. He has an excellent section on "demythologizing"
the myth of the American Enlightenment, showing that radical forms of
continental deism, which claimed that God was never involved in the
world - winding up the world and letting it run by itself - were rare
in America and had limited influence. Furthermore, he correctly argues
that Americans, while not all born-again believers, did have a largely
Christian worldview and were nurtured in the Judeo-Christian tradition,
and that Christianity was a major feature of the colonial intellectual
milieu. But one only wishes Amos were more sophisticated in developing
this idea. The first problem with the book is that it leaves the idea
that Americans were either devout Christians or radical deists,
whereas, in fact, there was probably some middle ground.
His treatment of Jefferson is an example of this. Though noting that
Jefferson was not a Christian, Amos argues that he was raised in a
pious colonial atmosphere and had great respect for Christian ethics
(the famous Jefferson Bible summarized the valuable moral principals of
Christ). While this is true enough, Amos fails to explore the possible
Enlightenment influence on Jefferson and his political ideas, including
those expressed in the Declaration. In short, Amos tries too hard to
sanitize Jefferson and the Declaration.
Secondly, Amos is largely content with a simplistic type of
intellectual genealogy. While it is true that roots for the ideas of
the Declaration are found in the Pauline epistles and medieval
theology, they are found elsewhere as well. What does it matter, for
instance, if Thomas Aquinas used ideas of natural law? Did Jefferson
read Aquinas, or did he glean his ideas about natural law from some
other source? Amos does not mention secular sources for these important
terms, or explore the contexts in which they were used. He does not,
for instance, mention Gary Wills's Inventing America, a seminal work on
Jefferson's thought arguing for the influence of Scottish Realism.
(Amos believes Locke was the primary philosophical influence.) Amos
limits the power of his work by neglecting these dimensions of
intellectual history.
Historians will be disappointed, thirdly, with Amos's historical
methodology. He largely ignores secondary sources on the Declaration,
arguing that they are too biased. He claims, somewhat naively, that he
uses only the primary sources to get the true picture of the period.
Yet his study of the primary sources for Jefferson is weak, a major
limitation in a study of the Declaration.
Finally, it is not clear that Amos really proved his point. If he was
trying to prove that Christianity was an influence on the Declaration,
he succeeded. But it is open to question if it was the influence.
Furthermore, while Amos shows that the Declaration includes much
theological terminology, he never proves that it is used in a
Christian, not a deistic or Unitarian sense. Though he capably brings
the Judeo-Christian tradition to center stage in the discussion of the
Declaration, the Enlightenment always lurks behind the curtains ”
=========================================================