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.
A common impression has Galileo, John Locke and the Enlightenment dropping in from Mars one day in the 1600s to save mankind from sin and error pining, but Western Civilization was already off to a pretty good start.
7 comments:
JMS
said...
Tom – I don’t get your point. Almost all scholars (as opposed to TV docudramas) who study or teach any era or aspect of the Middle Ages in the past thirty years avoid the misleading and inaccurate term “Dark Ages,” or refer to it as the “so called Dark Ages,” because of its anachronistic and negative connotations.
But Tom, AC should not try to share knowledge about the religious influences on America’s founding by invoking Dennis Prager’s “university” and diving down his ultra-right-wing rabbit hole. Ideology distorts history. I only remember Prager as the jerk who harassed Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison because he wanted to take his oath of office on Jefferson’s Koran. Prager said Ellison had to use a Bible instead, or it would violate the First Amendment.
Poisoning the well. If you want to attack Anthony Esolen of Providence College, who gave the talk, than do so if you feel you must.
Dennis Prager's "attack" on Keith Ellison or your clear animus against the right wing are not relevant here.
As for my own purpose, I believe the proper study of the American Founding indeed starts 500+ years before 1776, not just with the Enlightenment and the 1600s, which is as deep as many or most go.
Prager didn't claim the First Amendment meant Ellison had to use a Bible instead of a Quran, of course. Now that you yourself have made a Barton-esque overstatement, what shall we do with you?
I'm not a big fan of ad hom and in this case, guilt by association.
Tom – I completely agree with going back 500 years and delving into the deep background for the American founding. My point was – and still is – nobody who teaches any realm of the Medieval era refers to any period as “the Dark Ages,” so we don’t learn much by attempting to debunk something that does not exist.
I also have no qualms about the professor in the video clip (whom I know nothing about).
But I do object to ideologically inspired history, whether from the right or the left. That is not an ad hominem attack or poisoning the well. Friend of AC, John Fea, repeatedly makes the same point. And clearly, Praeger University has an ideological axe to grind, and is therefore suspect because of its inherent biases.
Saying I am as guilty as Barton is ridiculous. I did not misattribute, misquote or take anything out of context about what Praeger said about Congressman Ellison’s taking his oath of office on a Koran. Here is a direct quote from Praeger followed by its web source: ““Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran. He should not be allowed to do so.” “Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.” http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on/page/full
My point remains: Praeger clearly does not understand the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment, or “no religious test” in Article. VI, Paragraph 3.
My point was – and still is – nobody who teaches any realm of the Medieval era refers to any period as “the Dark Ages,” so we don’t learn much by attempting to debunk something that does not exist.
Your point is trivial. The term 'dark ages' appears in the title. The video itself a brief discussion of the high middle ages and the term 'dark' is uttered precisely twice in five minutes. The title is for catching the attention of the potential viewer.
And clearly, Praeger University has an ideological axe to grind, and is therefore suspect because of its inherent biases.
JMS, I submit that Prager "University" is balance to the overwhelming leftist bent of the academy.
I believe most [all?] of his "teachers" are like Anthony Esolen, credentialed scholars at accredited schools. [Such as Tim Groseclose, ex-UCLA, now George Mason.] Prager is quite aware that the left have their knives out for him. This is not Bartonism.
You are correct that the use of "Dark Ages" here was inaccurate. It was a bit of rhetorical flourish--"How Middle Were the Middle Ages?"just don't sing.
You're correct about Prager's [single, I believe] and unfortunate use of "shouldn't be allowed" re Ellison's use of a Quran. But if we're quibbling, your statement
Prager said Ellison had to use a Bible instead, or it would violate the First Amendment.
isn't quite accurate either, since Prager didn't invoke the First Amendment.
As for his "university" being an "ultra-right-wing rabbit hole," such hyperbole is signature of the left. Prager's quite to the left of, say a Ted Cruz. And before you start with the "ultras" you folks need to clean your own house of Zinnism, which operates freely and openly,
https://zinnedproject.org/
and unlike Prager's volunteer enterprise, extends its influence to our public schools.
Unfortunately, the use of the derogatory term "dark ages" is used quite frequently in the university. I am a doctoral student at a public university in Texas and they continually use the phrase dark ages. In fact, I had on professor state that the Europe was in the dark until the Renaissance and Enlightenment when they created the universities. I politely asked, "didn't Oxford, Cambridge, etc. get started in the middle ages?" He said of course but they were religious. Which was the point I was making anyways.
7 comments:
Tom – I don’t get your point. Almost all scholars (as opposed to TV docudramas) who study or teach any era or aspect of the Middle Ages in the past thirty years avoid the misleading and inaccurate term “Dark Ages,” or refer to it as the “so called Dark Ages,” because of its anachronistic and negative connotations.
But Tom, AC should not try to share knowledge about the religious influences on America’s founding by invoking Dennis Prager’s “university” and diving down his ultra-right-wing rabbit hole. Ideology distorts history. I only remember Prager as the jerk who harassed Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison because he wanted to take his oath of office on Jefferson’s Koran. Prager said Ellison had to use a Bible instead, or it would violate the First Amendment.
Poisoning the well. If you want to attack Anthony Esolen of Providence College, who gave the talk, than do so if you feel you must.
Dennis Prager's "attack" on Keith Ellison or your clear animus against the right wing are not relevant here.
As for my own purpose, I believe the proper study of the American Founding indeed starts 500+ years before 1776, not just with the Enlightenment and the 1600s, which is as deep as many or most go.
And although he made a dopey argument
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2006/11/28/america%2c_not_keith_ellison%2c_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on
Prager didn't claim the First Amendment meant Ellison had to use a Bible instead of a Quran, of course. Now that you yourself have made a Barton-esque overstatement, what shall we do with you?
I'm not a big fan of ad hom and in this case, guilt by association.
Tom – I completely agree with going back 500 years and delving into the deep background for the American founding. My point was – and still is – nobody who teaches any realm of the Medieval era refers to any period as “the Dark Ages,” so we don’t learn much by attempting to debunk something that does not exist.
I also have no qualms about the professor in the video clip (whom I know nothing about).
But I do object to ideologically inspired history, whether from the right or the left. That is not an ad hominem attack or poisoning the well. Friend of AC, John Fea, repeatedly makes the same point. And clearly, Praeger University has an ideological axe to grind, and is therefore suspect because of its inherent biases.
Saying I am as guilty as Barton is ridiculous. I did not misattribute, misquote or take anything out of context about what Praeger said about Congressman Ellison’s taking his oath of office on a Koran. Here is a direct quote from Praeger followed by its web source: ““Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran. He should not be allowed to do so.” “Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.” http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on/page/full
My point remains: Praeger clearly does not understand the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment, or “no religious test” in Article. VI, Paragraph 3.
My point was – and still is – nobody who teaches any realm of the Medieval era refers to any period as “the Dark Ages,” so we don’t learn much by attempting to debunk something that does not exist.
Your point is trivial. The term 'dark ages' appears in the title. The video itself a brief discussion of the high middle ages and the term 'dark' is uttered precisely twice in five minutes. The title is for catching the attention of the potential viewer.
And clearly, Praeger University has an ideological axe to grind, and is therefore suspect because of its inherent biases.
JMS, I submit that Prager "University" is balance to the overwhelming leftist bent of the academy.
I believe most [all?] of his "teachers" are like Anthony Esolen, credentialed scholars at accredited schools. [Such as Tim Groseclose, ex-UCLA, now George Mason.] Prager is quite aware that the left have their knives out for him. This is not Bartonism.
You are correct that the use of "Dark Ages" here was inaccurate. It was a bit of rhetorical flourish--"How Middle Were the Middle Ages?"just don't sing.
You're correct about Prager's [single, I believe] and unfortunate use of "shouldn't be allowed" re Ellison's use of a Quran. But if we're quibbling, your statement
Prager said Ellison had to use a Bible instead, or it would violate the First Amendment.
isn't quite accurate either, since Prager didn't invoke the First Amendment.
As for his "university" being an "ultra-right-wing rabbit hole," such hyperbole is signature of the left. Prager's quite to the left of, say a Ted Cruz. And before you start with the "ultras" you folks need to clean your own house of Zinnism, which operates freely and openly,
https://zinnedproject.org/
and unlike Prager's volunteer enterprise, extends its influence to our public schools.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112574/howard-zinns-influential-mutilations-american-history
Unfortunately, the use of the derogatory term "dark ages" is used quite frequently in the university. I am a doctoral student at a public university in Texas and they continually use the phrase dark ages. In fact, I had on professor state that the Europe was in the dark until the Renaissance and Enlightenment when they created the universities. I politely asked, "didn't Oxford, Cambridge, etc. get started in the middle ages?" He said of course but they were religious. Which was the point I was making anyways.
Post a Comment