tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post9100684310706820472..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Don't Know Much About History - K. C. DavisBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81980211777406068372011-07-07T16:01:08.251-06:002011-07-07T16:01:08.251-06:00The last thirteen presidents added SHMG. There mig...<i>The last thirteen presidents added SHMG. There might have been up to five presidents who added SHMG before that. That adds up to no more than eighteen presidents who have added SHMG</i><br /><br />Ah, if true, "some presidents" would fit. I'd probably write "some but definitely not all," but that's more a term of art.<br /><br />As for Davis at CNN, I gave my reasons why: he attempts to close the book on the whole discussion with a handful of quotes from the usual handful of suspects, the T of T, and the questionable premise that "America" began with the ratification of the Constitution. Poppycock.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27734620881539290582011-07-07T08:35:41.228-06:002011-07-07T08:35:41.228-06:00Here are two more two more not so shoddy, good rea...Here are two more two more not so shoddy, good reads by Kenneth C, Davis: 1) <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-History-of-Religious-Tolerance.html" rel="nofollow"><i>America's True History of Religious Tolerance</i></a>, Smithsonian magazine, October 2010, and 2) <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-c-davis/highlights-in-the-history_b_571670.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Highlights in the History of a 'Christian Nation'</i></a>, Huffingto Post, 05/12/2011.Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3391910820131200932011-07-07T07:57:17.830-06:002011-07-07T07:57:17.830-06:00Tom, thanks for the comment. Obama is our 44th Pre...Tom, thanks for the comment. Obama is our 44th President. The last thirteen presidents added SHMG. There might have been up to five presidents who added SHMG before that. That adds up to no more than eighteen presidents who have added SHMG, which means most presidents are not known to have added SHMG.<br /><br />I grant the possibility that some legends can be true, so that if Adams and every other president who followed GW did indeed add SHMG, then one could dispute the legendary characterization by the numbers and believe the legend to be true. But that's not the case.<br /><br />What's interesting about KC is his March 26, 2004 New York Times Opinion article, <br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/opinion/jefferson-madison-newdow.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Jefferson, Madison, Newdow?</i></a> would have been more compelling if he had been aware of the evidence for GW having said SHMG being a legend.<br /><br />As for his CNN article KC deserves more than just a "shoddy work" write-off. Other than his use of the Treaty of Tripoli factoid, how about your critiquing his article with a few more specifics.Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27292181930806332332011-07-07T05:49:15.710-06:002011-07-07T05:49:15.710-06:00Anonymous I don't know who you are responding ...Anonymous I don't know who you are responding to. I think it was me because of the Roman Catholic line.<br /><br />"Furthermore, you project you own feelings and experiences on the matter. An example: merely because you have a distant relationship with the RC church, even though you were baptized n that confession, it cannot be rationally extrapolated that the founders had a similar circumstances."<br /><br />I did no such thing. Rather I used a personal example to illustrate a common sense point not to confuse formal/nominal affiliation with actual beliefs. All of the Founders, including Jefferson and Franklin had nominal connections to orthodox churches. Yet they were not "Christians" in a way that would satisfy an evangelical's standard.<br /><br />I tend to take their public God talk at their word and do not read in or out anything into their public utterances.<br /><br />Re the oaths issue it's more complicated. As I noted, there is no evidence that 50+/55 took "oaths" to their churches' official doctrines. However, some of them did; and there ARE some examples, like Jefferson becoming a vestrymen of taking oaths to doctrines in which one personally rejects to achieve an "end." Finally, I'll point out again, the Anglicans when they took their oaths pledged loyalty to the crown. Simply rebelling against the crown as they did in 1776 would make them "lairs, cynics and hypocrites" according to your standard.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69930761436763116132011-07-07T04:45:37.282-06:002011-07-07T04:45:37.282-06:00Are you seriously suggesting that America was not ...Are you seriously suggesting that America was not a profoundly Christian nation and society in 18th and 19th Century?<br /><br />How could this be possibly be so?<br /><br />Sounds to me that you are projecting your beliefs and desires on the historical record. You engage in historical revisionism. Your only sources appears to be secondary pseudo-histories written by left of center academics and "writers" of dubious intent and integrity. Furthermore, you project you own feelings and experiences on the matter. An example: merely because you have a distant relationship with the RC church, even though you were baptized n that confession, it cannot be rationally extrapolated that the founders had a similar circumstances. This is a wholly unfunded allegation based not on anything but you imagination. I would point out as well that this amount to a accusation that the founders were lairs, cynics and hypocrites, and that their public utterances were somehow "coded speech". One doubts that all of this is true.<br /><br />You seem to not be able to understand the age that you woild describe, but rather use that age to describe the current one.<br /><br />I would not, BTW, be proud to be featured on CNN if I were. That pack of Media Maoists have particularly vile agenda. Their support harms and not helps you "argument". The only way this could be viewed as positive would be if you too are a Leftist. Are you? It is certainly starting to look that way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36530589291330825932011-07-06T20:06:52.892-06:002011-07-06T20:06:52.892-06:00Ray, in my disinterested opinion, Davis correction...Ray, in my disinterested opinion, Davis correction/addendum of<br /><br />"according to legend"<br /><br />acknowledges yr objection. I read that as "possible, but unsubstantiated as fact" or even "not impossible, but unsubstantiable as fact." <br /><br />"This report is disputed" seems superfluous and actually clouds the waters more. Since Davis is going for as few words as possible in this massive overview---not wanting to get into the tall weeds off the thing---he should have left it at "according to legend." <br /><br /><i>Since then, every president has customarily said the same words.</i><br /><br />"Every president" is grossly inaccurate. Yr objection sustained!<br /><br />"Many presidents have" is enough for a massive overview of the type Davis is attempting. "Some" would connote too few, "most" is probably too extravagant. "Many" to me connotes 60-40 either way, unobjectionable.<br /><br />___________<br /><br />I think Davis' CNN essay stinks to high heaven, unworthy of an historian, esp in its declaration that the "Christian nation" question is closed in favor of "no."<br /><br />As our friend Dr. Fea writes--as do some of us around here as well--it's far too complicated a question to leave to a handful of factoids and the Treaty of Tripoli.<br /><br />I'm not impressed with this Davis fellow, Ray, either or both for your reasons or mine. Shoddy work.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com