an Assortment of Christian Nationalists
by Brad Hart
While surfing Godtube -- a fantastic source for Christian nationalism and general historical nonsense -- I came across a couple of clips from Coral Ridge Ministries, a Christian ministry that is passionately dedicated to the "Christian America" cause. Pastor John Rabe, who has worked with the likes of David Barton and Peter Lillback in the past, arrogantly asserts that the modern Evangelical understanding of America's founding is the only historical truth that has any relevance, even though the overwhelming majority of the historical community laughs at such an assertion -- an issue we have dealt with ad nauseum on this blog.My favorite line from John Rabe is, "Are those of us who believe that America was founded as a Christian nation ignoring our history?"
Short answer: HELL YES!
The first clip is nothing more than an advertisement or preview for their upcoming "10 Truths About America's Christian Heritage" video. Unfortunately, I was unable to discover these mysterious "10 truths" due to the fact that Coral Ridge Ministries is charging $20.00 for the video. Oh well, I guess the rest of us will have to make due without these mysterious pearls of wisdom.
Anyway, here is the first video:
Also, here is an old "classic" of David Barton...well...being David Barton:
I never tire of Barton's assertion that the majority of our nation's founding fathers were, "Evangelical Christians." If that is so, then why does Barton push the "Christian nation" argument? After all, this nation's earliest Evangelicals were some of the most passionate defenders of a separation of church and state.
40 comments:
Seems like every 3rd or 4th American Creation post either bashes John McCain, Sarah Palin, or David Barton. Almost like clockwork.
You said it yourself, Brad. We've dealt with this topic ad nauseum. How much more needs to be said?
I agree that David Barton, the late D James Kennedy, and some of the other individuals you and others have so routinely and so often criticized have indeed been incorrect on several occasions.
But good grief. There's just as much error (and I would say more so, at times) from the other 'extreme' in this debate.
And what's more, at least Barton has publicly corrected himself on many of his errors. And not only that, but some of the "errors" are still in dispute.
A lot of this boils down to how you define "Christian" and how you categorize the "Founders."
Anyway, I could go on - and have in other comments here.
But hey, I predict that several others here will once again jump in and start beating up Barton again. It's all predictable.
Brian states:
"There's just as much error (and I would say more so, at times) from the other 'extreme' in this debate."
That is where you are very wrong. The problem is that Christian nationalists keep bringing this nonsense up all the time.
As for there being as much "error" on this "extreme," I don't see historical intergrity as an extreme. This isn't politics, it's fact v. fiction, and sadly people like Barton are usually on the side of the fiction.
Don't take offense to Brian's bias, Brad. If someone cannot understand why we continuously attack Barton it is probably because they agree with his crap.
Brian, how can you possibly think that it is ok for Barton to constantly rant about America's "Christian" heritage, but it's somehow inappropriate for this blog to counter his B.S.? Doesn't Barton have his own lame blog over at wallbuilders? Sounds to me like we need to go after people like Barton EVEN MORE!
Kudos to Brad and the others of this blog for not givin in to the whining of Barton supporters. There is more than enough room for it here and in other blogs. If you don't like it Brian then go hang out with the wallbuilders crowd. There will be less for you to whine about over there.
Brad: "As for there being as much "error" on this "extreme," I don't see historical intergrity as an extreme. This isn't politics, it's fact v. fiction, and sadly people like Barton are usually on the side of the fiction."
I think Brian imagines the critique to be motived by anti-christian zealotry and that those who critique Barton's history are hiding behind the claim that their actions are in defense of history.
Brian: "[...] some of the "errors" are still in dispute."
I don't think so. If Barton makes a claim he needs evidence ... this is about recorded history, not what Barton imagines it to be.
To be honest, I see the same problem with organized religion. Too many favor their religious sentiments over the material evidence, or trust the religious sentiments to be sufficient to reach material conclusions for which there is no evidence. Some on this blog reveal this behavior in spades! ... but none are as good examples as Barton.
Come on, folks - get a life. This blog is just as irrelevant and inconsequential as practically every other atheist/free-thought/post-modernist historical revisionism, back-alley secular humanist "vocal minority" blog and website out there. The facts that count are that 84% of the US population claim to be Christians and the vast majority of those acknowledge Christianity's irrefutable impact on the foundation and proliferation of this nation. Historical fact is what it is, regardless of how the vocal minority attempt to twist it to their personal agenda. Let them rant - it gives them a false sense of self-importance.
.
I'm just now beginning the 24th lecture in this series out of The Teaching Company:
Emerson, Thoreau, and the Transcendentalist Movement
(24 lectures, 30 minutes/lecture)
Course No. 2598
Taught by Ashton Nichols
Dickinson College
Ph.D., University of Virginia
.
I don't think I would be able to say anthing against David Barton's assertions--on my own--unless I had discovered the rest of the story.
.
Barton surely takes the ignorant sheep to the slaughter--every day.
.
And, the sheep love it.
The facts that count are that 84% of the US population claim to be Christians and the vast majority of those acknowledge Christianity's irrefutable impact on the foundation and proliferation of this nation.
Well that's the point. Are 84% of Americans really "Christians"? Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey both claim to be Christians. Yet they both assert there are many paths to God and other things incompatible with historic Christianity. How many of that 84% are "real Christians" and how many are Oprah Winfrey and Phil Donahue Christians.
A similar dynamic of nominal, deistic and unitarian Protestant Christianity existed during the Founding era.
And in terms of "vocal minority," the historical academy [perhaps unfairly] laughs at the "Christian America" thesis. And we are to the right of them here.
.
Rowe sez, "A similar dynamic of nominal, deistic and unitarian Protestant Christianity existed during the Founding era."
.
Taking the reverse look at America's Founding and going back into the twentieth and nineteenth centuries on our way to sixteenth century beginnings, we should be able to see that who we are today came to us from who we were in those early days. And, our existence is not a game of leap frog.
.
The study of America clearly shows an evolving people with an ethic that is steadily away from its earliest Puritanism and that we have continued to change. We were changelings then and we are changelings today.
.
When we refuse to accept the faults and errors of our past and choose to only remember what we think of as the "good" we cut a part of our own existence out of our being and we set our selves up as easy targets for the biggest mouth among us.
.
To tell you the truth about my own being, I get a kick out of these people who refuse to open up to the fact of who it is they have been and who it is that they are changing to be (becoming).
.
Supposedly, that is what this blog site is all about, i.e., learning who it is from whence we are evolving.
History--change it and deny who it is that we were? And, we end up doomed to be overtaken by our own foolishness.
.
How can we talk of change unless we bring the most honest understanding of our past with us?
.
Ideology will never win the argument.
.
Brian says, Seems like every 3rd or 4th American Creation post either bashes John McCain, Sarah Palin, or David Barton. Almost like clockwork.
I think you should double check your facts before you make a claim like this. Having gone over EVERY SINGLE post IN DETAIL to create our labels section, I count that only 8 posting (out of 232) have been dedicated to what you call "Barton Bashing." So instead of "every 3rd or 4th post" as you claim, it is only 3.4% of this blog's posts.
Mr. Ph.d. J.D. (whatever your name is) if you think our discussions are irrelevant, then why are you wasting your time here?
phd-jd states:
Come on, folks - get a life. This blog is just as irrelevant and inconsequential as practically every other atheist/free-thought/post-modernist historical revisionism, back-alley secular humanist "vocal minority" blog and website out there. The facts that count are that 84% of the US population claim to be Christians and the vast majority of those acknowledge Christianity's irrefutable impact on the foundation and proliferation of this nation.
Oh I am so glad that you have graced us with your knowledge and presence Mr. high and mighty. Like Lindsey said, if you think the blog doesn't matter then go away! Your comment is beyond ridiculous.
Let me just say that this is NOT the first time Brian and I have disagreed over this issue. Yet despite our differences of opinion I feel we have been able to maintain at least a minimal level of politeness and respect. I hope that others who have commented on this thread can learn to do the same.
Look, I for one maintain that it is not only appropriate but also necessary to attack Barton on his nonsense. He regularly distorts historical truth to benefit his objective. For this reason alone Barton is fair game. After all, it is he that puts himself out there.
I do want to make it clear though that an attack on Barton is NOT an attack on a person's religious beliefs, and I hope that nobody will see it like that. By nature, history is a field that will brutally attack you if your take is wrong, and unfortunately for Barton, he regularly finds himself in such a predicament (a predicament he brings upon himself).
Thanks for the stats, Lindsey. I agree that it is appropriate to point out Barton's flaws on this blog. For those that are against such a practice, I would say to you that you are free to make your own posts that attack the other side. In fact, it is something we have been desperately wanting on this blog for some time. Unfortunately, those of a conservative perspective have not taken the time to make such posts (and I understand that this is due to the fact that you are busy with life and not due to laziness, so please don't think I am attacking you).
American Creation was designed to discuss these issues. Since Barton takes such a dramatic stance against what the overwhelming majority in the historical community teaches, it would be foolish for us to omit him from our discussions. And keep in mind that Barton is far from the only person that is attacked on this blog. Even successful historians like Gary Nash have received a shellacking at the hands of this blog’s Christian apologists.
Here is the bottom line: if you choose to put yourself out there as a champion for the “Christian America” cause you better be prepared to hear the opposition. The same holds true for any historian that has published on this issue.
.
There's a lot should probably be said here that won't. I think it's quite healthy for the educated to engage each other in their differences especially when students like myself can observe.
.
I have noticed a strategy that shuts the opposition down. "The surge is working!" Is it? I don't think so.
.
I am very interested in the comments Barton makes in the video. He comes off as being very well referenced and it is difficult for me to see where he is wrong; but, I can see it. So, don't misunderstand my position.
.
I know that when preachers speak to the faithful, their references are seldom questioned. The opposition is seen as coming from every "...atheist/free-thought/post-modernist historical revisionism, back-alley secular humanist 'vocal minority' blog and website out there"--enemies of God on a mission from Hell to fight the eternal battle against the angelic hosts of Heaven. Barton is a great hero of this war being fought by the Evangelical Right.
.
Brian is just practicing.
.
;<)
Lindsey,
I appreciate all the hard work you put into this blog.
Nevertheless, I think you need to go back to what I said. My quote was: "Seems like every 3rd or 4th American Creation post either bashes John McCain, Sarah Palin, or David Barton."
Was that an exaggeration? Yes. But you have quite cleverly and effectively enhanced the exaggeration by focusing on Barton. I remind you that I mentioned attacks on Sarah Palin and John McCain as well. And...
Given my mention of McCain and Palin, my context was intended to be "recent" and not the overall history of the blog.
What's more, it isn't the criticisms of Barton, Palin, and McCain that bother me. Jon Rowe, for example, usually can criticize Barton without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Frankly, though, many (if not most) of the criticisms levelled against Barton, McCain, Palin, and other figures associated with the "Christian Nationalists," "Religious Right," or whatever categorical label is applied fall into the category of insults, attacks, cheap shots, etc. And to see that taking place more and more here at American Creation is disappointing.
For the record, I accept Brad's comments that the "conservatives" (including myself) haven't been as prolific with the blog, and thus I have myself to blame in part for the obvious and irrefutable left-wing slant of American Creation.
But let me repeat....
I appreciate the hard work of those who have contributed to this blog, especially its founder, Lindsey.
And, let me also say, that there's far more to LIKE and APPRECIATE about the blog than there is to criticize.
And when I do criticize things, I'm not intending that criticism to be a personal attack.
I agree that the best road to take is say what you need to say and criticize what you will without making ad hominen attacks. That makes you look better and will make folks more open minded to what you have to say.
Yes, let me jump in here and second the previous two posts. This thread got too ugly for my taste, and I'd prefer that people park their animus at the door.
By the use of the word "we," Friend Raven seems to indicate a belief that this is indeed a militantly secular blog. But there is no "we" here, as in a single viewpoint. At least that's not what I signed up for.
I dislike "we" a lot; it gives me the creeps and implies groupthink. I find myself in agreement with Brian Tubbs often, but we are not a "we." [If you follow that.] Hopefully, everyone speaks for his/herself, with enough diversity and individuality that "we" is not a viable concept here.
As for David Barton, it's well-known he made many scholarly errors at the beginning of his public life. This video seems to be an "old" one, which I'm sure he'll never live down.
But he's cleaned up his act, and I for one would prefer that disputations of his thesis focus on what he's saying now. As for the Coral Ridge church, its founder D. James Robinson is dead, and probably has already passed its high-water mark. If it does survive, I suspect it'll begin to reform around David Barton's cleaner act.
I guess what I'm saying is that the only thing worse than shooting fish in a barrel is shooting dead fish in a barrel.
Mr. Pinky, you're certainly entitled to argue that the "surge" isn't working. Just not here. ;-[D>
.
TVD tells me, "Mr. Pinky, you're certainly entitled to argue that the "surge" isn't working. Just not here. ;-[D>"
.
My point was not about the surge; but about strategy to shut people down. Did that go over your head? Seems to me it would be better to watch a turkey do its dance than to chase it away.
.
.
Had Brad's post been along the lines of...
Barton claims X, and in fact, history shows us Y.
And on and on.
I wouldn't have objected to the post.
But instead of doing that, Brad subtitles his post "More Christian Nation Nonsense from
an Assortment of Christian Nationalists," calls GodTube a "a fantastic source for Christian nationalism and general historical nonsense," and later takes a personal jab at David Barton for "...well...being David Barton."
He's not the only one that does this. Several others have done so.
Now, I respect Brad a great deal, and agree with him often. But I'm simply pointing out the things about his post that bother me.
But, whatever, I don't want to beat a dead horse here. My point is simply this...when you criticize someone (whoever it might be), I think the criticisms (ESPECIALLY the official blog posts) should be focused on the points of disagreement -- on the ISSUES.
Quite frankly, I think it's just smart debating too. Think about it, and I say this to all those who relish attacking the so-called "Christian Nationalists"...
What are you trying to accomplish?
Are you just venting? If so, then is that the nature of this blog? Is that what you want American Creation to be?
Or are you trying to educate and persuade people? If persuasion and/or education is your goal, then I don't think you accomplish that with name-calling, personal attacks, and choice adjectives like "nonsense" to describe people's strongly-held views.
But, again, I don't want to beat a dead horse. So, I'll leave it at that.
To all those who work hard at this blog, I appreciate your diligence, your research, and your hard work. If you're offended by my criticism, that was not my intention.
Pinky, your dragging in the contemporary partisan issue of the surge is part of what Mr. Tubbs is talking about. Surely there was a less contentious way to make your point.
Over my head? Not bloody likely, sir. Nor over anyone else's, we all caught it: There are no mental midgets here, at least since a certain contributor quit to create his own alternative blog. Hehe.
Test
.,
AKA Pinky
Well, then, TVD, your comments went over my head.
.
I picked the wrong photo. I'll fix that later.
Tom: "I dislike "we" a lot; it gives me the creeps and implies groupthink."
Tom, Raven didn't use that word.
Raven took issue with phd-jd's critique/ridicule of *all* of us and began with; "I am so glad that you have graced us with your knowledge and presence Mr. high and mighty."
That said, I am in total agreement on the objection of some claiming to represent a larger group of individuals when the reality is that there is good reason to expect many/most do not.
However, I don't think most of us would object to Raven's position in this instance.
Brian,
David Barton has no credibility as a historian. There may be things you like or even admire about him ... but if you have mentioned them, I missed it.
Why should anyone give him a second's thought to his claims regarding the Nation's founding?
He is documented to have defended and propagated lies ... and in the event that his quotations have not been shown to be frauds, it is up to him as a historian to substantiate them. To take the his position that such quotes are "questionable", because there is no proof one way or the other, is juvenile (imo).
Phil/Pinky: "My point was not about the surge; but about strategy to shut people down. Did that go over your head? Seems to me it would be better to watch a turkey do its dance than to chase it away."
I got your point quite clearly ... perhaps the issue is that Tom doesn't see "the surge is working" in the same light that I (and I assume you) do.
In any event, your point struck home for me because of the way it resonated with my position. Had you attempted to find some less contentious example, it wouldn't have hit as hard.
For what it's worth, I expect Tom grasped the point as well ;-)
Tom, regarding you use of the word "we" ... I hope I can cease my rant there without "going over your head" ;-)
Ok, Brian. In an effort to make you feel better about my limiting your point of view, I added ALL of our posts that deal with Barton, McCain and Palin together. And the grand total is...18...our of 233. That means that only 7.7% of this blog's postings deal with topics that obviously get you upset.
Again, being honest, I think the more conservative readers and contributors of this blog need to lighten up a bit. This blog is NOT on the attack against your conservative/Christian views no matter how much you think it is. As an Evangelical myself, I do not get riled up over this stuff. I would ask that you all do the same.
Brad is more than appropriate in this post, and I am not simply defending him because he is my friend. In many respects it is absolute nonsense (based on the historical evidence available) for people like Barton and others to invoke this "Christian Nation" arguement.
If you get offended over this, I would remind you of the old saying that goes, "Sometimes the truth hurts."
And as for our "lean to the liberal left" I think you should be very careful with this kind of generalization. We are debating some very specific issues on this blog that are anything but representative of a person's overall political views. Just because we may disagree on these SPECIFIC issues does not entitle Brian to go around labeling the blog (or its contributors) as being "liberal" or leaning to the left.
For myself, I am actually conservative leaning most of the time. Brad is a self admitted Independent, while Jon has defined himself many times on this blog as a Libertarian.
So the next time we start labeling this blog as "liberal" keep in mind that rejecting the Christian Nation NONSENSE is hardly representative of our overall political views.
If we are to account for our political leanings, I reject all doctrine for the privilege of reaching my own conclusions.
Count me as an independent.
Don't take offense to Brian's bias, Brad. If someone cannot understand why we continuously attack Barton it is probably because they agree with his crap...
Doesn't Barton have his own lame blog over at wallbuilders? Sounds to me like we need to go after people like Barton EVEN MORE!
Kudos to Brad and the others of this blog for not givin in to the whining of Barton supporters. There is more than enough room for it here and in other blogs. If you don't like it Brian then go hang out with the wallbuilders crowd.
Italics mine.
So let's stop insulting each other's intelligence with the disingenuousness game. I strenuously object to my blogbrothers or blogsisters being told to take their business elsewhere, or to be disrespected like this.
Or even our commenters. I assure you my ire has nothing to do with Brian Tubbs' leanings, but what I can say is I've seen him have to defend himself and his intellectual honesty far too often around here for this to be much fun for him. This is just the latest example, and it's not right.
I also object to attempts [like the above] to divide us into opposing camps. Philosophers, truly open-minded people, don't travel in packs.
Lindsey, we might include the comments sections as part of Mr. Tubbs' overall impression of the leanings of this blog. I share it.
Not that it bothers me---I'm quite content, and indeed prefer, to be the minority view most everywhere I go on the internet. I learn little in the company solely of those who agree with me.
As for the surge, I won't be polluting this blog with rebuttals on current issues, so our friends of lefter persuasion are merely taking advantage by pressing them.
I don't mind the occasional sly dig---in fact I enjoy them---but there are better ways for me to spend my time than aping the disrespect and non-communication that is rest of the internet.
As for the actual topic of this thread---David Barton---please see my remarks above. Mr. Barton often has it coming to him, even now after he's cleaned up his act. Surely we can do better than rehash his past sins against scholarship.
Best to all.
Tom, thank you for your encouragement. You hit the nail on the head as to how I feel. I appreciate it.
Again, I think it is silly for us to be on the constant lookout for what postings may offend others.
Here is the bottom line: none of us are going to agree on everything nor should we. If we are constantly worried about offending others when we take a stance then this blog will get really lame, really fast. I think people need to act like adults (that goes for everyone) and realize that just because we don't agree doesn't mean we are being personally attacked all the time.
What I love about this blog IS the disagreement. However, if that disagreement cannot be handled in an adult fashion then we end up simply pointing fingers and calling each other names. It is pointless.
So, in the future, whenever anyone posts something that comes across as personally offensive or unpleasant, let us try to not jump the gun. The very nature of this blog's topic is heated, so EVERYONE should be aware that your personal feelings/beliefs WILL in all likelihood be attacked at some point. Again, it isn't anything personal, it's simply the nature of our chosen topic. I'll say it again, let's all try to be adults here.
I think Lindsey is right. We have all had our positions attacked at some point, and frankly I hope it continues. Honest disagreement is how we can learn. I don't want to get all philosophical here (since I think the argument on this thread has spun out of control and is actually a waste of time now) but I think we all need to not worry so much about the stupid Liberal v. Conservative argument and focus on the history. In all honesty that was my only reason for this posting.
If we feel attacked or "ganged up" on, then simply agree to disagree. There's no need for us to pull out the old "liberal v. conservative" card. Let's stop worrying about what bothers us in each other's postings.
Thanks for the stats, Lindsey. I am glad to see that we do not focus as much on politics as I thought.
I don't know what drives 'Net snipers like PhD-JD.
.
But, one thing seems fairly certain. They seldom put their money where their mouth is.
.
.
And you have, Phil, ex-Pinky. Let me extend my props for your decision to go public and join the real world.
Brad and Lindsey, I don't feel I've ever been unfairly attacked here. I do think Brian Tubbs has, not just with an occasional jibe, but with sustained attack. Brian has a tremendous amount to offer this blog, both in diversity, depth of knowledge, and his customary solidity of argument.
[And not a small bit of good cheer even when spat upon.]
I'd get your backs the same if the colors and proportions of sentiment were all reversed. I'd look out for our principled commenters---friends, and you know who you are---the same way.
Our late, unlamented former colleague who went off to start his own blog, not so much. He has some lessons to learn, and shielding him from them would not qualify even as Christian charity.
You know what I mean...
Tom: "I don't feel I've ever been unfairly attacked here. I do think Brian Tubbs has [...]"
The time to raise your objection is at the time of the attack ... when the points are fresh and may be addressed.
Personally, I am mixed on Brian's positions. I offer kudos, as well as critique, when I see fit.
This entire thread is a PERFECT example of why I hate political parties. All they do is breed bias and make people feel that they are being "attacked" when someone doesn't agree with them. And make no mistake, both parties are equally yokes in this distortion of reality.
Oh I can't wait until this election is over. I predict that when it is over, a lot of this percieved political "bias" will disappear from American Creation...or at least diminish.
I believe I have raised my objection at the time of attack, Ben.
Don't take offense to Brian's bias, Brad. If someone cannot understand why we continuously attack Barton it is probably because they agree with his crap...If you don't like it Brian then go hang out with the wallbuilders crowd.
Will this stuff diminish after the election, Brad? I'd like you to be right, but I don't see why it would.
.
Not being one of the bloggers, I'm not exactly sure about how I should go about making any comments here; But, that hasn't stopped me so far.
.
I'm thinking I might have an edge on the rest of you in the sense that I can be a little more objective and in more ways than one
.
It's easy to see where some of you start out at this site--in academia and the church and I don't know what else. But, where do I come from?
.
Just to give any one who might have any interest, I was born in 1931 during a doleful time in American history. I saw a lot of poverty all around me and didn't know I was living in it. My family was instrumental in bringing Christian Fundamentalism to North Eastern Michigan. I can talk about that and tell how it affected many people from my own personal experiences.
.
This particular blog on Coral Ridge Ministries and David Barton is my focus as it relates to the unfolding discussion.
.
There is a clash taking place and it goes far beyond what Brian is upset about. Even so, he is in a cultural gulch out of which he will have a difficult time ever escaping. His stream is pre-modern and it is in opposition to what the great Enlightenment has brought to Western Civilization. He takes a particular stand and so it is that much that comes out of academia seems like a threat to him.
.
Wasn't there a time not so long ago that people argued that the sun revolved around the flat earth that floated on a sea with a dome overhead? Didn't almost everyone believe that it was all created out of nothing in six days?
.
What I see, in this discussion, is the vestige of the culture shock that came down on Western Civilization when men like Copernicus broke the hold superstition had on all people. One of the appeals of Republicanism defends that pre-modernist ideology while the opposition is dragging a kicking and screaming society into the future--like it or not.
.
In the larger picture, ideology cannot win. It is a cultural gulch in a land of fantastic promises; yet, it still feeds enough of us that it isn't going to find its way out of its narrow pathway any time soon.
.
Brian and I have a lot in common. I truly appreciate his predicament.
.
In the final analysis, it is important that intelligent people pursue the conversation involved in this blog. Very important. Don't put it out of your thoughts.
Lindsey, hold on a minute. It's one thing for you to pull up the stats to show that there haven't been as many attacks on Barton, Palin, McCain, et al as there SEEMED to be. That's a legit point.
But it's quite another for you to accuse me of being childish - which is precisely what you did.
If you'll go back to the very beginning, I raised the point that there have been (in my opinion) too many shots taken at Barton, McCain, and Palin in a blog that purports to be non-partisan. What's more, many of these shots have been more attack than scholarly criticism.
I raised the point. And you and Brad and a couple others here disagreed with me (that's fine) and/or pointed out where you agreed or disagreed. That's all fine.
But the tone of this thread clearly got ratcheted up by Raven, and went on from there.
Now, I'm fine to move on. I've BEEN fine to move on. But I refuse to let this thread die with the blog founder chalking this whole thing up to simple childishness. That's not fair, Lindsey.
But, whatever, to those of you who have been respectful and polite - even in disagreement - I appreciate it. Special thanks to Tom.
And to the others, I appreciate your hard work and your passion on these issues. And I especially include Lindsey, who has worked EXTREMELY HARD to make this blog what it is. For that, she deserves nothing but kudos.
Okay, I'm done.
Phil: "My family was instrumental in bringing Christian Fundamentalism to North Eastern Michigan."
Hmmm ... your family might responsible for some of *my* extended family ;-)
My mother was instrumental in the founding of this church.
.
http://immanuelbiblechurch.com/heritage.html
.
Several famous names in the early days of Christian Fundamentalism in America.were common to me in my childhood.
.
If you go to that site, you will see a small photo of the early congregation of that church. I'm probably in the picture.
Post a Comment