Chris Rodda Begins to Deconstruct "Monumental":
I think Rodda identifies a new logical fallacy. I too have witnessed an argument Barton's followers make: Because Barton OWNS these documents, as a collector, that somehow means he can't lie or make an erroneous report about them. You don't OWN these documents like Barton does, therefore you are wrong and he is right!
46 comments:
I don't know if it's a new fallacy or a form of the Argument from Authority. Barton's use of his documents as authoritative on their own is not much different than arguing from the authority of sacred scriptures. The document is then used to confer authority on the user, either explicitly or implicitly.
Once that connection's established and you have an audience that is not likely to consult the texts or outside sources, you can manipulate and obfuscate at will.
Or, of course, attempt to make a good faith and honest interpretation. (Not useful if preaching toward a preordained conclusion such as "we were founded as, or to be, a Christian Nation.")
.
And, isn't that just too terribly sad, JRB?
.
See the movie, Melancholia.
.
On FB, I posted this on my Wall and stated that it was more important to give credibility to those that have their Ph.Ds n a particular subject, such as history, due to thier subjection of their understanding of history to "collective consensus".
In the case of history, isn't it true that there is disagreement about certain specifics of "history" and that historians attmept at best to promote an open mindedness toward further information that would shed light more fully on their specialized interests?
In Barton's case, as with anyone seeking to promote their view over everyone as an authoritarian, it doesn't matter the facts of the case, as much as the power grab over the minds of the people!
Our political environment has gotten much less civil because of such opinions about "authority"! And it is only a step away from dictating to others what they should or should not believe or do!
I disagree with Chris Rodda on her modified argument from authority point. I do think it's somewhat reasonable to initially assume that someone who is a collector of an era's documents would honestly and cogently represent those documents to his audience. That's part of the beauty of David Barton's con.
For those of us who study American history and attempts to distort that history, we came to David Barton based on empirical falsification that his assertions were lies. Christianists mostly did not, they come to him via their leaders, informal and formal, presenting him as an expert whose so passionate about the topic he's an avid collector- where these Christianists are by definition unthinkingly submissive to what their leaders proclaim. Even if they didn't suffer from this failure in thinking, it would be reasonable to assume such a person wouldn't be such a serial liar.
So I think we should cut them some slack on this point. It is however ironic and a great illustration of Mr. Barton's depravity.
Great work Chris Rodda, as always.
Transcript, please. Videos are lazy. You can't fisk them back, chapter and verse.
This is no way to go about things, especially the study of historical documents.
I say this as someone who upholds Chris Rodda's objections to Barton the majority of the time, especially since her comments are not on everything he says, only on what she can nail him on.
It's about nailing Barton on his flaws, not considering his whole thesis and what he might be right about.
So please, Chris, Jon, et al.---you have to quote Barton directly in print, then rebut him in print. This video stuff is Garbage In, Garbage Out, and Garbage in Between.
From what I've heard so far of Barton's latest, it's even more indefensible than his previous work. But propping up a video that few will watch and even fewer have the facility to evaluate, that's GIGO.
Put it down in words. With footnotes. Like it's supposed to be.
And Ms. Rodda, I've read your rebuttals of Barton, most of which I've upheld upon peer review, esp the Kaskaskia Indian thing that Barton bizarrely keeps insisting on.
Which is to say, I'm the closest thing to 'peer review' that you're likely ever to get, both of us lacking academic credentials. but in props to both of us, you get one past my objections, you probably nailed it.
But this video thing will not do. It has no more weight than Fox News, MSNBC or talk radio, here today gone tomorrow. Gotta put it down in black & white, in cyberink.
.
Tom is most likely correct in his commentary.
.
.
When people take on an issue for discussion on subjects that rely a great deal on opinion and perspective, it is difficult to cover every detail of origin. Our experience of life is much more complicated than something that can be put in a math book.
.
Rhoda is addressing the matter in a reasonable way--she is giving us light in an otherwise unlit place. She deserves a great deal of applaus for her determination as well as her well thought out arguments.
.
Jon, upon further review maybe there is a new fallacy. The I Own It Why Would I Desecrate It fallacy? Seems to be a separate issue than authority but Barton does appear to use both. At least implicitly.
TVD, I agree that written is the best. Rhodda has obviously written extensively on the Aiken Bible (1782) claims but I'm not sure about the subscription Family Bible (1798) claim. I dropped a note in comments at her place to see if she's put it down in writing yet. And I say yet because she's currently working to finish the second volume of Liars for Jesus.
@ Tom ...
I make videos for one audience and do written versions for another. And I'm so "lazy" that I stayed up all night to squeeze making that video in while trying to finish volume 2 of my book, which I need to squeeze in while working full time for MRFF!
You know damn well that there is a complete and thoroughly documented written debunking of Barton's Aitken Bible lie in my book. I even have a PDF download of that chapter on the homepage of my website if anyone wants to read it.
http://www.liarsforjesus.com/downloads/LFJ_chap_1.pdf
The lie about this other 1798 Bible was a new one so I haven't debunked that one in writing yet, but, rest assured, I will be doing so in volume 2 of my book.
And I guess Tom thinks that David Barton is lazy, too. Right, Tom? After all, Barton makes videos. Lots of them!
Right now, for the chapter of my book that I'm currently working on, I had to buy a copy of Barton's book "Pastors and Christians in Civil Government." Why? Because in his American Heritage Series VIDEOS he shows clips from his Pastors and Christians in Civil Government VIDEO. These VIDEOS do not contain his sources for the claims he makes in them. So I had to buy the written version of what's in this VIDEO to be able to see his footnotes and check them, just like anyone can read my book to check my sources for my Aitken Bible debunking.
As I replied at your place, thanks Chris. I see you cut to the heart of the matter. :)
I'll add, looking forward to v. II.
One of the more interesting parts of the video is Barton's befuddlement over why atheists, agnostics, and deists might support distribution of bibles to the public when the answer is found in an unrelated article at his own wallbuilders page:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=58
In the letter, Ben Franklin cautions Thomas Paine about his anti-religious writings. He observes that many "weak and ignorant men and women" need religion to restrain them from vice. Atheists, agnostics, and deists could readily support religion on that ground. That possiblity eludes Barton's keen intellect.
Oh--
I think the fallacy related to the ownership issue is simply a variation on the circumstantial argumentum ad hominem, i.e., linking one's opinion to one's particular circumstance. "I own the documents so my conclusions about them are true." More generally is a fallacy of relevance because the conclusion is logically unrelated to the premise.
I don't really care, Ms. Rodda. Only somebody who already agrees with you is going to sit through the video. You want to marginalize yourself, it's no skin off my nose.
Only people who already agree with me are going to sit through my videos? Really? Then how come I get emails like this one that cam in yesterday every time I put out one of these videos? The subject line of this video was "your videos."
"i am a christian and what most call fundamentalist.... tho i rather prefer just being someone who takes the claims of the bible seriously. Love your videos I have been trying to explain this stuff to members of my church and family for well over a year now.... i must confess for most of my christian life i believed david bartons dribble and have even helped him to amass a vast fortune (I purchased his crap and passed it along). I can tell you it took my breath away when i realized how this man is using gererally good americans to propogate a false history. anyway keep up the good work as I will be praying for you... btw from experience less condescending i could get more people to watch more of them."
People like the author of this email are more likely to watch a video than to find my website or buy my book. They usually stumble upon my videos by accident because they come up as "related" videos on Youtube for the videos of the people I'm debunking. Some of those people then go to my website and start reading the written versions of my debunkings. As I've always said, most Christians aren't liars and don't want to be spreading lies. For some of these people, all it takes is one of my videos to raise enough doubt in their minds about what they've been hearing from people like Barton to get them to start looking things up so they can decide for themselves what the truth is. That's led to quite a few Christian homeschoolers emailing me to ask me to recommend a curriculum to them because they don't want to use Barton's or any other inaccurate materials to teach their kids. These are my favorite emails to get.
So, Mr. Van Dyke (apparently we're not even on a first name basis anymore), I really don't care what you think of my videos. I know that they're getting enough people to start thinking and questioning that it is absolutely worth putting out there.
Whoops ... not enough coffee yet ...
That should have said: The subject line of this EMAIL was "your videos."
And, of course, "cam" = "came"
Oh, and I forgot to say that I will take the suggestion from that emailer about me being less condescending in my videos so that people like him can get more people to watch them much more seriously than any criticism from Mr. Van Dyke. A suggestion from the people I'm reaching with my videos carries much more weight with me than suggestions or criticism from anybody else ever will.
Honestly I think the medium through which the information is conveyed is for the most part irrelevant. What's important is what said. If someone doesn't want to sit through the videos then they can sit out of that round of the debate.
I'm not demanding a transcript of "Monumental." I'm going to have to sit through it. :).
.
Something about Chris Rodda makes me think of the Masters of Suspicion.
.
Keep up the good work, lady.
.
Mr. Rodda, there's no way to double-check your work unless you quote David Barton directly.
Who watches the Watchers? Are you never in error?
I have no desire to start up with you. Your quibbles on Barton's phrasings aren't of great importance to me in the larger scheme of things.
But obliging myself to sit through one of your videos last September, I believe you misrepresented what he said.
If so, this doesn't make you a bad person or a "liar"; however, it would be better to quote him directly in black and white instead of the amorphousness of videos, where double-checking you is just as hard as double-checking him.
If you are indeed in error here, Chris, I'm not going to stalk you all over the internet and attack your credibility. I write about your work only when we are subjected to it here at American Creation.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2011/09/rodda-and-barton-on-black-robe-regiment.html?showComment=1315365
September 6, 2011
Links/footnotes appear at the original
__________________
Everybody:
I hope you'll help out here. I hate sitting through videos of any kind, agree or disagree. They waste my time, because I read faster and life is too short.
In this video
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/debunking-beck-university_b_665816.html
The words appear on the screen
Beck University
Faith 102
David Barton's lie that more than half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers
Lie? I hear him claim they "trained for the ministry." The official University of Pennsylvania website says that prior to 1751,
"The four colleges then in existence in the English colonies -- Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, and Princeton -- were all schools for educating the clergy, rather than preparing their students for lives of business and public service.
Did David Barton claim they were ministers, or just that they "trained for the ministry"? Did I miss anything?
I don't want to start a war with Chris Rodda. She has always been treated with respect at American Creation when she's stopped by to comment here.
But am I missing something here? By Chris Rodda's own use of the word, people who are in error are "liars." If the University of Pennsylvania is in error here, then they are "liars" too.
And if Chris Rodda is in error here, then...
My question is only: Do we have a direct quote from David Barton saying more than half the signers of the Declaration were "ministers"?
Because looking at the prosecution's [Chris'] video, all I hear is "trained for the ministry" being mutated into "ministers," something I can't find David Barton saying.
Yeah, I'm offended by the words "Liars for Jesus," but right now, I just want to stick to the allegation made in Jon's original post.
Since we're "history detectives," surely we can get to the bottom of what was said in the 21st century with video evidence.
I don't want to call anybody a liar. I prefer to think when people are in error, they're simply mistaken, perhaps reading or hearing what they want to see or hear.
But after wasting my time looking at the video in question--I don't give a shit about Barton or his critics--I'm seeing one thing typed on the screen but another thing coming from Barton's mouth.
Let me---and us @ American Creation---know what you see & hear. Mebbe I'm in error.
That's all ya got, Ms. Van Dyke?
And, actually, I do have video of Barton directly saying that half the signers of the Declaration were ministers. Sometimes he says it more directly than other times, but he does in fact say it. But I'm working on another video right now (got Barton's new Jefferson book today) so I'm not going to go looking for it now. You're just not worth that kind of bother.
You screwed up, Chris, not me. Your video was in error. You put words in David Barton's mouth that you didn't prove. I'm the least of your problems.
It's not right to slime me like this. I buried your error down in the comments sections at American Creation, never went to the front page. You should be thanking me for the gentle correction instead of dissing on me.
You're just not worth that kind of bother.
Oh, I certainly am that kind of bother, because you just bothered with me. I'm the only one who actually double-checks your work. The rest of them, they don't. They believe what you say the same as Barton's people believe what he says, uncritically. O Chris Rodda, thank you! I used to believe the fundamentalists, now I believe you!
Your video screwed up here, Chris, Ms. Rodda, and you just got nailed cold. Attacking me back isn't right. You're the one who screwed up here.
____________
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2011/09/rodda-and-barton-on-black-robe-regiment.html?showComment=1315365
September 6, 2011
Links/footnotes appear at the original
__________________
Everybody:
I hope you'll help out here. I hate sitting through videos of any kind, agree or disagree. They waste my time, because I read faster and life is too short.
In this video
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/debunking-beck-university_b_665816.html
The words appear on the screen
Beck University
Faith 102
David Barton's lie that more than half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers
Lie? I hear him claim they "trained for the ministry." The official University of Pennsylvania website says that prior to 1751,
"The four colleges then in existence in the English colonies -- Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, and Princeton -- were all schools for educating the clergy, rather than preparing their students for lives of business and public service.
Did David Barton claim they were ministers, or just that they "trained for the ministry"? Did I miss anything?
I don't want to start a war with Chris Rodda. She has always been treated with respect at American Creation when she's stopped by to comment here.
But am I missing something here? By Chris Rodda's own use of the word, people who are in error are "liars." If the University of Pennsylvania is in error here, then they are "liars" too.
And if Chris Rodda is in error here, then...
My question is only: Do we have a direct quote from David Barton saying more than half the signers of the Declaration were "ministers"?
Because looking at the prosecution's [Chris'] video, all I hear is "trained for the ministry" being mutated into "ministers," something I can't find David Barton saying.
Yeah, I'm offended by the words "Liars for Jesus," but right now, I just want to stick to the allegation made in Jon's original post.
Since we're "history detectives," surely we can get to the bottom of what was said in the 21st century with video evidence.
I don't want to call anybody a liar. I prefer to think when people are in error, they're simply mistaken, perhaps reading or hearing what they want to see or hear.
But after wasting my time looking at the video in question--I don't give a shit about Barton or his critics--I'm seeing one thing typed on the screen but another thing coming from Barton's mouth.
Let me---and us @ American Creation---know what you see & hear. Mebbe I'm in error.
.
The problem, it seems to me, Thom, is that your position appears more and more driven by an ideology that, in the past, you were able to keep pretty well under covers. Now, you are exposing yorself. And, everything you write becomes suspect. You get into vendettas and that is not becoming.
.
-I don't give a shit about Barton or his critics-
But Tom, apparently you do as evidenced by your extensive commentary half defending Barton. And, I thought this was a family blog. :)
Barton is a shameless religio-political propagandist. His intentional distortions and misrepresentations are a result of him bending the facts to support the conclusion that he wants. He is intentional and relentless and, unless he's sub-moronic, he knows the extent of his distortions and the extent to which he misinforms his Christian audience. Regardless of whether a kernel of truthiness that can be squeezed out here and there, his efforts amount to propagating lies.
I give Cameron the benefit of the doubt and assume he's accepting Barton's BS in good faith and just doesn't know enough about the subject to realize the untruthiness. Still, Cameron, with the slightest reflection and a smidgeon of critical thinking should be able spot the fallacy in, "...the leading expert in the country for original source documents during the founding era. David Barton has the largest private collection...(not official transcript)" I assume that we all see the error here - equating volume and ownership with expertise, thus bolstering the authority Barton's pseudo authority. And where are the rebuttal experts?
This would be dishonest in a balanced documentary but I don't think that Cameron presents this as anything other than a build-the-faith effort. Of course, his audience might take it as factual. Like Barton he's applying the evidence to get to the conclusion he's trying to support.
And, as Chris points out at the end of the video, most of the people seeing this will leave with their heads full of, as a leading pugilist in the culture wars would say, mush. And they will spread the mush, and by doing so become unwittingly part of the lie.
And Chris, just to be fair, TVD really doesn't like the video format....or modernity in toto.
And, at about 11:48 Cameron wraps up the Barton misinformation into the final polished lie, "...so hold on, the United States Congress was commissioning and printing Bibles to be given to all the people..." (not official transcript). This is almost verbatim the formulaic approach and conclusion reached in every interview Barton has given whether with Beck or Huckabee or anyone else.
And it is simply a deliberate and convenient untruth.
Tom seems to think he's some big problem for me that I should be concerned about, which is just ridiculous. I wouldn't even have known who he was if he didn't comment on Jon's posts. The only time I ever even give the slightest thought to this guy, who for some reason thinks it's his job to be my "peer reviewer," is when he comments here. And I wouldn't even know he's commented about me if I didn't have to do Google searches on my and everybody else's names at MRFF to see if there's anything being written about MRFF that warrants our attention.
You screwed up. Own it.
Chris and Tom,
I read and enjoy your generally thoughtful and informed commentary and learn from it and only seldom add my own comments.
Not that it is my place to mediate your discussion, but I'll nonetheless venture that the petty sniping I see here about video v. text and about whether Barton used a precise phrase in this or that video clip is beneath each of you--and is not up to your customarily high standards.
I recommend taking deep breaths, forgiving perceived slights, and moving on to better things.
Thx, Mr. Indeap, but I'll hold to my objection that Barton [or anyone] must be quoted directly. In this case, Barton was misquoted. It was sloppy work.
As for the video thing, that's admittedly my personal preference, but again, it's impossible to double-check the video-izer's work.
If and when Jon Rowe [or anybody else] fisks this "Monumental" thing, direct quotation is absolutely necessary. We see what happens when direct quotation is not used.
So I appreciate your input, Doug, but it's not my work that's sloppy here, and I won't be lumped in with those whose work was. My objection here is purely formal, on the method, not the content, and it's not fair to give me heat for pointing it out.
Who Watches the Watchers?
Gee ... I wish I had time to respond to Tom, since he's apparently decided that he's been appointed to set the rules for debunking, but I'm too busy making my next video ... LOL
Chris Rodda misquoted David Barton. Let's just be clear about that, because none of the comments have addressed that fact. It's shoddy work, and no retraction, no correction has been issued. The rules apply the same to everybody.
Chris, you often complain you're too busy to do proper work, harping on the same handful of issues over and over again.
Keep on with the videos, then, that only a handful of people sit through. But he's winning, not you. I'm not particularly a supporter, more a defender against faulty attacks. But his website is better
http://wallbuilders.com/
and far more substantive than yours. For every faulty and sloppy attack you make, you likely drive someone into his arms. Rock on.
Chris Rodda misquoted David Barton.
I'm confused. In this video or back in September?
Tom apparently found one video that I made at some point in which I didn't say precisely what Barton said in a clip I used in that video. It's something that Barton has been saying for years in every presentation he's given, so he's worded it slightly differently over the years in various videos I have of him saying it, and I must have used one of his wordings from a different video than the the clip I showed.
Tom is now desperately making a lame attempt to use what he seems to think is some sort of "smoking gun" that he's found to entirely discredit everything I've ever written or said. It's all really pretty pathetic, and I think anyone reading his comments here will see that.
After I finish working on the new video I'm making right now, I might go look for the clip where Barton did use the wording I used and post it to put this silliness to rest.
Keep it clean and rigorous, Chris, that's all I ask. As for videos, my objections are stated: they are culture war, not scholarship. That goes for you, that goes for David Barton.
He has plenty of stuff in black and white at his website, wallbuilders.com. His "Christian Nation" argument is lucid and much more modest than one might expect from reading his critics], and unlike videos, is easily discussed, pro or con.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=23909
Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:
"[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world."
So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.”
...
Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed:
"[W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it."
Christianity is the religion that shaped America and made her what she is today. In fact, historically speaking, it can be irrefutably demonstrated that Biblical Christianity in America produced many of the cherished traditions still enjoyed today, including:
A republican rather than a theocratic form of government;
The institutional separation of church and state (as opposed to today’s enforced institutional secularization of church and state);
Protection for religious toleration and the rights of conscience;
A distinction between theology and behavior, thus allowing the incorporation into public policy of religious principles that promote good behavior but which do not enforce theological tenets (examples of this would include religious teachings such as the Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc., all of which promote positive civil behavior but do not impose ecclesiastical rites); and
A free-market approach to religion, thus ensuring religious diversity.
Consequently, a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations 12 but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists.
Tom, you're apparently not getting that I don't care what YOU ask. You're just not somebody whose opinion matters to me.
I just came back to see if a comment I tried to post last night had appeared, which it hasn't for some reason, but other than that, I'm done with this whole ridiculous thread.
Good, Chris, because my objection was to posting your "work" here at AC and videos in general, as it's very time-consuming to double-check them for accuracy, and seldom worth the trouble.
I see Rachel Maddow scotched a quote.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2012/03/26/rachel-maddow-caught-doctoring-quote-jefferson-her-book-drift
I'm sure you'll be on top of this one too, with your never-ending search for truth and accuracy. That you're an avowed ideological enemy of David Barton is just a coincidence, I'm sure.
I looked back at the September archives and apparently the kerfuffle is about the use of "ministers" v. "trained in the ministry/trained as minsters." Since TVD is relitigating this as a rebuttal to this more recent video I'll put up the link:
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2011/09/rodda-and-barton-on-black-robe-regiment.html
It seems a trivial argument to rebut with; a one time occurrence of a minor interpretive matter v. Barton's relentless campaign to misconstrue history for his cause. But c'est la vie. And, as Chris says, she may be able to provide additional exculpatory documentation.
If fighting to maintain the integrity of the historical record is an ideological partisan matter then count me as aligned with Rodda and the forces of light and goodness.
And, if there's anything that "shaped America and made her what she is today" it's the culmination of centuries of rising secularism, humanism, and unshackled empirical observation and reason, that eventually allowed a small band of peoples, separated by an ocean from the old continent, to finally separate themselves from millenia of superstition, religious bigotry and dogma, tyrannical/monarchical/empirical rule, and the resulting relentless warfare and trampling of anything resembling a true right of conscience.
RE: I see Rachel Maddow scotched a quote.
I hate to blow the minds of so many but the quote that Maddow uses can be traced to:
The Jeffersonian cyclopedia: a comprehensive collection of the views of Thomas Jefferson classified and arranged in alphabetical order under nine thousand titles relating to government, politics, law, education, political economy, finance, science, art, literature, religious freedom, morals, etc (Google eBook).
- By Thomas Jefferson
p. 55
548, ARMY, An unnecessary. – One of my favorite ideas is, never keep an unnecessary soldier. – The Anas. Ix, 431, Ford Ed., i, 198. (1792)
Here: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZTIoAAAAYAAJ&q=soldier#v=snippet&q=unnecessary&f=false
Jack Coleman at Newsbusters- "A sharp-eyed Barry Popick caught this and wrote about it at RedState over the weekend."
Soooooo, when Jack revisits this, in the name of fairness and accuracy, I'm sure that he'll attribute this correction to a sharper-eyed jimmiraybob.
Who busts the busters? I do. /unnecessary hubris
RE: I see Rachel Maddow scotched a quote.
Given its relevance to the AC mission and ongoing discussions and its freshness on the intertubes, someone might want to check out and elevate the substance of my last comment to front page. Unless I'm late to the debunking of the debunking.
aligned with Rodda and the forces of light and goodness.
Ezactly!
Full Quote: If fighting to maintain the integrity of the historical record is an ideological partisan matter then count me as aligned with Rodda and the forces of light and goodness.
Ezactly!
Dagummit. I've been out strategerized and exposed as a partisan for historical integrity. [shakes fist and starts to slink away...]
Before I go though, has Jack Coleman or sharp-eyed Barry "I’m a quotation researcher" Popick called yet?
Printing on a printing press is not free. Its NOT like clicking a button on Amazon saying you will buy the book when the publisher prints it.
In today's term's it is like a venture capitalist. If there is something that is made that is deemed valuable to the public, but is cost prohibitive for the inventor to create on his own dime, he MUST bring on investors to bring the product to market.
If Jefferson was one of the "subscribers" could it mean that he was an investor, thereby being a bonafide supporter of the document? Even if he didn't actually put one penny into the production, couldn't his name be used as a way to endorse the Bible to attract other investors?
Mark, I think there's a certain amount of "support" expressed for a printing project by the subscribers who pay in advance. They did print the names of the subscribers, for instance, unlike a magazine subscription.
Just what that "support" means is hard to say, and no doubt different from one subscriber to the next.
This seems reasonable
http://worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/print.php?&ArticleID=8119
I don't endorse every conjecture, but it appears that Barton's phrasings are less defensible than Throckmorton's.
In this whole mess with Ms. Rodda, it's been about the lack of black-and-white that Throckmorton righteously provides here.
DIRECT QUOTES.
Sorry for shouting, but I want to be sparkling clear. Direct quotes. My objections to these videos is a formal objection to the lack of direct quotes, along with the "poisoning the well" technique of "I'm too busy to do a proper job right now, but in the meantime here's some previous videos where I prove Barton a liar."
That is crap, crap and crap. Poisoning the well is not proper discourse. Paraphrasing is not proper fisking.
As for what Throckmorton wrote, I have no problem with it. I've never found Jefferson saying he believed the Bible is "the word of God"; on the other hand many of the other fellows certainly did believe the Bible is the word of God, and subscribed not only to get a copy, but to support the publishing project.
What a couple of jackasses! Tom and Chris, nobody cares! Neither of you matter. Grow up. Is this a history blog or a daycare? Quit being a couple of divas and get a life!
>>Before I go though, has Jack Coleman or sharp-eyed Barry "I’m a quotation researcher" Popick called yet?<<
My name is Barry Popik, NOT Barry Popick. I had some free time this Thanksgiving weekend and decided to check up on those who misspell my name.
If you want to dispute my work, you can easily email me directly, but that wasn't done. So I must apologize for this late response.
Yes, Rachel Maddow botched the quote. I am not partisan about this--I've also called out Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and many others.
If you go to Google Books, search directly for "The Anas" and type in "unnecessary," you will see that it reads just as I've transcribed it. "One of my favorite ideas is, never keep an unnecessary soldier" is not an accurate quotation of Thomas Jefferson.
Post a Comment