A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.
Defib unit tested and ready - checkCommunication with life flight unit tested and ready to go - checkEmergency hospital units notified - checkOK, ready.
I can't get into any video under 6 hours.
Don't tell me you're going to complain about the length of this video, Tom! When I make a short video, you say that I don't provide enough information for anyone to fact check me. Now I've made a video containing all the details, and even inserted the footnotes for everything I quoted in it. Naturally, this makes the video long.I challenge you to watch the whole video and find even one thing in it that not completely accurate and verifiable.
Hello, Life Flight? We may have a go.
"I can't get into any video under 6 hours."Not to worry. Let's see, that's one chapter down with seven more and the conclusion to go. That leaves....subtract the one, multiply by two.... about 14 more hours coming up. :)As to the video that's currently up, I got about 1/2 way through and decided to start over and do in 30 minute segments. Hey, I'm stocked up on coffee, adult beverage, pencils and legal pads. I'm ready.
Write it down in words like a regular person Chris. Even David Barton managed that much.I already wasted my time on your book, which had some good parts [the Kaskaskia Indians thing, which you harp on endlessly] and some laughably petty and incoherent parts [the Franklin section]. Pass. The thing is, because you're both advocates with an agenda, I don't rate either you or David Barton, although his website is far more informative than yours.www.wallbuilders.com
In this case, it's all already in written words, Tom. Everything in my video is also in the chapter of my book titled "Thomas Jefferson and Public Education." So, you don't have to watch the dreaded video. You can fact check the written version.So, I'll change my challenge to you. I challenge you to find anything in my 'written down in words like a regular person' chapter "Thomas Jefferson and Public Education" that isn't completely accurate and verifiable.
I'm sure it's acceptable, Chris in the tiny little orbit you inhabit around tiny little David Barton.Did you know Jefferson wanted the "proofs of God", i.e., classical theism per Aquinas and/or Samuel Clarke, taught at his University of Virginia? Now that's interesting.Did Jefferson want the Bible taught in schools? I suppose Barton claims that, but I don't.Did Benjamin Rush, who did real work in education? Yeup, he did. As long as you confine yourself to your jihad on Barton, the greater truths are not at hand. Since I don't read Barton, there's no reason to read [or God forbid, force myself to watch] your polemics against him. Knock yourself out; see also my comments to Warren Throckmorton, who does a fine job in my eyes, without all the insults.
Translation: Tom can't find anything inaccurate in the entire 95 page chapter on Jefferson and education in my book.
Oh, and you do realize, Tom, that that stuff about teaching of the "proofs of God" at UVA never actually happened, right? And that unless Jefferson expected a lawyer or a political economist to be teaching this religious subject, he never intended it to be taught.
Actually, the "proofs of God" were to be taught as part of ethics. You clearly are unaware of that: you're interested only in fighting. You clearly don't care about the truth of these matters, Chris, only in proving Barton wrong. In the end, you know little more than what you started with, and that's the tragedy.Have you withdrawn your unsubstantiated charge in your anti-Barton Beck University video? Withdrawn the video?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/debunking-beck-university_b_665816.htmlI see you have not. And you want me to invest more time in your rantings? I don't care about them in the first place, and regret having given them the time of day in the first place.
So who did Jefferson get as this supposed "ethics" professor that was supposed to be teaching this? Well, nobody, really. When it came time to actually choose the professors, Jefferson just disregarded all that stuff he put in the Rockfish report to keep people from freaking out over there being no divinity professor and get the report approved by the legislature, renamed the"ethics" professor the professor of "political economy and natural philosophy" and hired a political economist, who was also a science fiction writer on the side. The other two candidates considered by Jefferson for the position were lawyers. Get it, Tom? There WAS NO professor of ethics! And the correspondence between Jefferson and Madison on the subject shows that they never even gave a thought to what the put in the Rockfish Report about an ethics professor teaching the "proofs of God" or any of the other religious stuff they said this nonexistent ethics professor would teach. It was just something Jefferson stuck in the Rockfish Report to get it approved by the legislature, but didn't stick to seven years later when he was actually choosing the professors.If you can read the correspondence between Jefferson and Madison regarding the choosing of professors and look at what the professors they did choose actually ended up teaching and draw some other conclusion than what I did, please do share it with everybody. And, please do it with the same level of documentation that I did, not just a single quote from one report like Barton does.
I don't know what Barton says. I do know that it's only your opinion what Jefferson's motivation was. What we do know from one of Madison's letters is that he spoke of Samuel Clarke's metaphysics approvingly. But again, your reader here or elsewhere would never learn that because you're not interested in telling the whole story, just the part that fits with your anti-Barton jihad.Chris, the problem with your work is not what you get wrong, it's what you don't include. And I don't charge with with dishonesty---you only find what you're looking for, and that's Barton's error, not the larger truth. You write polemics; your purpose is solely to discredit Barton, not to educate our reader about the whole truth. You got a bug up your ass about the Religious Right, and are disinterested in anything that doesn't destroy your enemy. Therefore, your readers end up no less ignorant than Barton's, and you have rendered not a service to the truth, but a disservice.Because I see your high-fiving comments. Few have any substantive relation to your videos; it seems few have watched them. Mostly they wave your flag around instead of Barton's, because you do not acknowledge what he gets right.So go fix your video, Ms. Truthteller, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/debunking-beck-university_b_665816.htmlor withdraw it from the internet. Until then, kindly get off my back.
Me get off YOUR back? That's priceless!
Chris, my initial remark was addressed to the AC blog, and to the author of the OP, Jonathan Rowe. After you jumped in with remarks addressed to me, I explained why I have found investing time in your work unrewarding.
Good, then don't invest any more of your precious time in worrying about what I'm doing! Then you can spend all your time kissing David Barton's butt. Maybe he'll even stop by AC here again to give you another thrill! As for me, I'm gonna keep doing exactly what I've been doing. Those "few" people who watch my videos (over 6,500 so far on the one about Monumental, and over 7,500 on that one that you have such a bug up your butt over) are going to keep getting more videos from me! And it won't be too much longer before Volume 2 of Liars For Jesus is out for those people who prefer to read rather than watching videos. ;-)
Post a Comment