.... David Barton got the nomination for criticizing someone else for passing on a fake quote from the Founding Fathers when no one in the history of the nation has been responsible for passing on more such fake quotes than David Barton.
See, here’s the difference between David Barton and an intellectually honest person. I criticize him for passing along false quotes. I also criticized the atheist group in California for doing so. And I’ve criticized Christopher Hitchens for claiming that Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were atheists, an absolutely ridiculous position given their voluminous writings on the subject.
And I’ve criticized other atheists and secularists (those aren’t necessarily the same thing, by the way — and I figure I’d better tell you that because you always seem to think that anyone you disagree with must all be wrong in precisely the same way and must be in league with one another) for taking John Adams’ famous “this would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it” line out of context (he was actually saying the exact opposite of that when read in context). That’s what an intellectually honest person does. It is not, of course, what people like you and David Barton do.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Ed Brayton's Bryan Fischer Award
From this post:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Jon,
The intellectually honest can't be honest, really, can they? or they will be stoned, by those that 'know better'. Human knowledge is limited knowledge, because we are limited by our many contexts.
Don't we construct our realities in the social realm in free societies? Isn't this what individual conscience is about? not so in the natural sciences, as these are "hard sciences" and they can be "proven by mathmatics" and/or experimentation.
Social psychologists can study group behavior, which usually does not "end well", unless there is an authority that is respected. And this is where religion comes to the rescue. Religion defines for the "group"/herd what is to be the "norm".
The Founders were diverse in their views as to their religious persuasion, but were classically educated, just as the bibilical Paul was. Myth was useful, in this sense, to appeal to the higher principles of human value, rather than a transcendentalist, or materialist value. But, the Founders never suggested a "communist view" of reality, because they were for liberty of choice, and limited government, granting the individual equality under law, in the pursuit of his own interests. Though this was not the case for certain segments of society, it has become the case, as our social norms have expanded to include the slave and female. This is a liberalizing of traditional values, but where does it or should it end? That is a question for the globalist...
Humans define themselves in their ethnicities, which have caused conflict in many cases. Our country valued diversity such that many ethnic groups could find a "place in the heart of America" for them. Now, we are stretched beyond measure by illegals, and the "entitled" such that it becomes a question of survival.
When survival is an issue, does one have a right of defense? Yes, as this is what boundaries and law is about; respect and mutuality. But, at the same time, we cannot allow those that want to circumvent our values to protect their "sectarian views" to undermine liberty for us all! Our Constitution is not Shairia, nor is our government a theocracy. Our government nor its laws should be defined by religion....(the individual is free to define his own convictions in free association to various religions and religious organizations, though America was primarily influenced by a Judiac-Christian ethic)
"See, here’s the difference between David Barton and an intellectually honest person. I criticize him for passing along false quotes. I also criticized the atheist group in California for doing so. And I’ve criticized Christopher Hitchens for claiming that Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were atheists, an absolutely ridiculous position given their voluminous writings on the subject. "
What a joke, as if he "criticizes" them all with equal vehemence.
Fortunately, few care what this bottom-feeder thinks about anything.
Post a Comment