tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post3868666669372042914..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: David Barton's Other DistortionsBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8899935014010316382009-04-02T21:07:00.000-06:002009-04-02T21:07:00.000-06:00Brian,I haven't fully investigated the matter yet ...Brian,<BR/><BR/>I haven't fully investigated the matter yet but will let you know when I have.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11700019062895124172009-04-02T19:30:00.000-06:002009-04-02T19:30:00.000-06:00Jon & Chris,If the original has the black scre...Jon & Chris,<BR/><BR/>If the original has the black screens with white lettering - the screens that say "Democrats = Slavery" and those things, then I'd have to agree that the video is WAY over the top. <BR/><BR/>Even without the screens, I think Barton does a poor job in not clarifying that the vast majority of modern-day Democrats are sincerely and passionately opposed to racism. <BR/><BR/>Of course, it's possible that Barton does make some of those clarifications in the full version of the video. <BR/><BR/>I'd be interested to hear what you all find out, if one of you has the full version.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43144042430293288042009-04-01T16:10:00.000-06:002009-04-01T16:10:00.000-06:00Jon...If you can't find the original Barton video,...Jon...<BR/><BR/>If you can't find the original Barton video, I can take a look and see if I have it. I have the DVD box set of Barton's entire "American Heritage" TV series, and in that series there are lots of clips from his other videos. One of the DVDs is the several episodes of the series on black patriots, civil rights, etc., so there's a chance that this video is in there somewhere.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58489936139609053292009-04-01T15:39:00.000-06:002009-04-01T15:39:00.000-06:00Brian,It's my pleasure. I'm not sure whether thos...Brian,<BR/><BR/>It's my pleasure. I'm not sure whether those white words were added by the "RWW." I suspect they were. I've seen Barton's original before and I don't see much difference between the two. BUT I would note IF Barton's untouched were up there (and I found it) I would have used it. I grabbed this one because it was the first that came up. I'll check to see if the untouched exists on YouTube.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91363657823258416502009-04-01T15:31:00.000-06:002009-04-01T15:31:00.000-06:00I understand, Chris. I rate these things about as...I understand, Chris. I rate these things about as important as proclamations of National Avocado Day, but what the hell. <BR/><BR/>Looks like grandstanding by Shields and his co-sponsors for the folks back home and is going absolutely nowhere. But if it ever gets out of committee, I'll give you a dollar.<BR/><BR/>What's funny is that even if it were possible under the US constitution to declare the Bible to be the word of God, with the zillion sects around now and at the Founding, it'd be tough to even come up with a legally enforceable definition of what the Bible even <I>is</I>. KJV? Douay-Rheims? NIV? The Torah?<BR/><BR/>For practical reasons alone, the government was taken out of deciding such things.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30896203289206142292009-04-01T15:13:00.000-06:002009-04-01T15:13:00.000-06:00.I second Brian's comments regarding Rowe's work h....<BR/>I second Brian's comments regarding Rowe's work here.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59726212911701679002009-04-01T15:12:00.000-06:002009-04-01T15:12:00.000-06:00Question about the video....Jon, I see that the vi...Question about the video....<BR/><BR/>Jon, I see that the video was posted on YouTube by RightWingWatch, rather than by Wallbuilders or David Barton. <BR/><BR/>Do you know if the black screens with white lettering were added by the RWW folks or were those screens part of the original video?<BR/><BR/>Note that the YouTube video is apparently only excerpts, as opposed to the whole thing. So, if it was edited, I wonder if the black screen with white lettering were put in during the RWW edits. <BR/><BR/>This is important, because if the black screens with white lettering were put in by Barton's people, then I would have to agree with you that the video is unnecessarily provocative and very unfair to today's Democratic Party.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12740618646048954802009-04-01T15:01:00.000-06:002009-04-01T15:01:00.000-06:00Jon, I appreciate your clarifying things. This thr...Jon, I appreciate your clarifying things. This thread has gone long and taken several tangents, so I won't type out a long post here. <BR/><BR/>Just want you to know I appreciate your contributions to this blog, including your painstaking research and your commitment to continual inquiry.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57681202251986638562009-04-01T13:25:00.000-06:002009-04-01T13:25:00.000-06:00"Anywayz, I understand your thing with H. Res. 888..."Anywayz, I understand your thing with H. Res. 888 and the like. They can get pretty bad."<BR/><BR/>The one I'm trying to battle right now is H. Con. Res. 34, (also introduced by Randy Forbes), a resolution to place the Lincoln Bible in the new Capitol Visitors Center.<BR/><BR/>As I wrote in an article about this one, I have no objection whatsoever to the Lincoln Bible being displayed for the legitimate reason that Obama's choice to use this Bible at his inauguration is a symbol of the 150 struggle for civil rights from Lincoln to Obama. The parts of the resolution about this are just fine. All Americans, including those who don't believe in the Bible, can appreciate this Bible as an historical artifact for this reason.<BR/><BR/>But, Forbes couldn't leave it at that. He had to ruin what could have been a resolution acceptable to both sides by making one of its Whereas clauses "Whereas, the Holy Bible is God's word." <BR/><BR/>He also, of course, added a bit of historical revisionism for good measure, but his sneaky attempt to get Congress to declare the Bible to be God's word is the most offensive clause.<BR/><BR/>Here's the link to the article I wrote about the resolution:<BR/><BR/>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/randy-forbes-wants-congre_b_172772.htmlChris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9636182981718420592009-04-01T12:12:00.000-06:002009-04-01T12:12:00.000-06:00Yes, moderation in the face of extremism is diffic...Yes, moderation in the face of extremism is difficult; it seems the only way to fight fire is with fire.<BR/><BR/>Which, come to think of it, doesn't sound all that wise. Everybody gets burned.<BR/><BR/>Anywayz, I understand your thing with H. Res. 888 and the like. They can get pretty bad.<BR/><BR/><I>WHEREAS Jesus Christ crossed the Delaware and defeated the Russians at Gettysburg;</I><BR/><BR/>Etc. Rock on.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3481892892503848452009-04-01T08:20:00.000-06:002009-04-01T08:20:00.000-06:00Tom wrote: "I don't think you'd find it unfair to ...Tom wrote: <I>"I don't think you'd find it unfair to say that your guns sit on one side of the culture divide, pointed at the other. I realize you don't have the luxury of saying that although David Barton is wrong on x and y, he's correct on z."</I><BR/><BR/>What's really funny is that I do occasionally find myself agreeing, or at least partially agreeing, with the "other" side on particular issues.<BR/><BR/>A recent example is a fight recently in the news over whether a Christian school that participates in athletic events with public schools can have their usual prayers or religious messages coming over their PA system before sports events held at their school when the visiting team is from a public school. On this one, I agree with the "other" side. The reasoning behind not allowing prayers at public school sports events is that this would be perceived as an endorsement or promotion of religion by the public school, which is a government entity and should be secular. If public school students are visiting a Christian school, and the Christian school promotes religion at sports events, the message is that the Christian school endorses religion. There would be no reasonable perception that this is a government endorsement of religion because the message is not coming from a public school. The visiting students know they're at a Christian school and that it is that Christian school that's endorsing religion. So, I agree with the other side that whoever complained about this is going too far, and that they're forgetting the reason that prayers are not permitted at public school events, a reason that just wouldn't apply to private schools.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3656289676956807252009-04-01T00:18:00.000-06:002009-04-01T00:18:00.000-06:00Hopefully, this will shed some light on why I find...<I><BR/>Hopefully, this will shed some light on why I find it necessary to go after the revisionists as aggressively as I do.</I><BR/><BR/>I understand, Chris. I hope I've made that clear from the start. And I do think it's good to take on their errors when they're put forward, and your work seems to be very good. I hope I've made that clear. And it certainly seems that David Barton is the point man for those errors.<BR/><BR/>But as Jonathan Rowe advised our resident commenter from the "other side," the net effect is that your confrontational prosecution of Barton gathers him more support at least from his "side." Your [legitimate] prosecution is perceived as <I>persecution</I> of a truthteller.<BR/><BR/>Fortunately, your political "side" has control of the US government at the moment, so I think theocracy is not at hand. Neither do I think those dickhead "proclamations" like H. Res. 888 have any real effect on anything real in our republic. Even if they took "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, I think we'd be pretty much the same tomorrow or in a year or six.<BR/><BR/>I don't think you'd find it unfair to say that your guns sit on one side of the culture divide, pointed at the other. I realize you don't have the luxury of saying that although David Barton is wrong on x and y, he's correct on z. <BR/><BR/>As to the actual facts of religion and the Founding, there are revisionists on both sides. The hagiographers controlled the 1800s, the secularist skeptics rewrote them in the 1900s. We're trying to sort it all out here in 21st century and this stupid little blog comes up more often than you'd think on Google. we write for the ages, I suppose.<BR/><BR/>So, I think that H. Res. 888 isn't any greater threat to the republic [and I've read many such things, many of them filled with the very errors that you creditably hunt down and nobly attempt to destroy] than Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck. Sentiments sway this way and that, but the search for truth sustains.<BR/><BR/>The truth about religion and the Founding has some surprising twists, and we discover them together here most every day.<BR/><BR/>So, when you have a few spare moments--- whenever---I do hope you'll stop by here now and then and [no sarcasm here] share the results of your work and studies. And please do examine my own work and let me have it when I have it coming. <BR/><BR/>But gently, please, Chris. Just one barrel, not both, at least first. I shall continue to return that courtesy.<BR/><BR/>Change is a whisper spoken when all the thunder dies away. Which way we should change, back from this revisionism or its opposite---for they have both had their turns---perhaps the truth should decide.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17133122941101938262009-03-31T18:34:00.000-06:002009-03-31T18:34:00.000-06:00..WOWEEEE.A real honest to goodness American dyed .....<BR/><B>WOWEEEE</B><BR/>.<BR/>A real honest to goodness American dyed in the wool.<BR/>.<BR/>Thank you for your involvement in the real world, Ms. Rodda. I have great respect for people liike you. I'm sure it isn't easy.<BR/>.<BR/>Your point about revision ism is my point about religiosiy. It is the mistake our American Founding sought to rectify. Who are we not to honor the Founders for their hard work?<BR/>.<BR/>By the way, the difference between puritanism and what it left behind is this: Puritanism taught that man should ultimately come into confrontation with God on a one on one basis while the othrodoxy.of the time taught that God was watching our every move and, so, we must be obedient to his chosen vicar on earth--the English Monarchy.<BR/>.<BR/>That's where the rubber hit the road in Colonial America.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63328253939633316692009-03-31T17:25:00.000-06:002009-03-31T17:25:00.000-06:00Tom wrote: "So I respect Chris shooting down whate...Tom wrote: <I>"So I respect Chris shooting down whatever Barton or anybody else contends about the Kaskaskia. It has value.<BR/><BR/>"But it brings us no closer to the truth about religion and the Founding by itself; only affirmative argument can do that."</I><BR/><BR/>I think what's going on here is that we have different objectives, which make us consider different things more important.<BR/><BR/>My goal is to stop bad history from being used by the courts, Congress, etc., something that has immediate and important consequences. For example, the revisionist claim about the Kaskaskia treaty has appeared in Supreme Court opinions, used as an example in support of government funding of religion, and also as an example of Thomas Jefferson approving of the government promoting religion. But the truth is that Jefferson didn't do what he is claimed by the revisionists to have done in that treaty. Am I the only one here who finds it just a bit frightening that bad history has been making its way into the opinions of Supreme Court justices?<BR/><BR/>The we have things like H. Res. 888, the resolution for an American religious heritage week introduced in the last Congress by Rep. Randy Forbes. This resolution, with its 75 Whereas clauses, was a litany of inaccuracies, myths, and lies from the revisionist history books, and was admitted on David Barton's radio show to have been a backdoor way to sneaking religion and Christian nationalist history into our public schools. The reasoning was that, if the House passed Forbes's resolution, nobody would be able to stop a teacher from teaching <I>about</I> the resolution. Who could tell a teacher in any state that they couldn't teach their class about a resolution that had just been passed by the House of Representatives? Fortunately, we were able to stop this resolution, but, by the time we did, it had an astounding 93 co-sponsors. <BR/><BR/>Hopefully, this will shed some light on why I find it necessary to go after the revisionists as aggressively as I do. I'd love to spend my time just studying and writing about history because I love history, but now is not the time to do that. Now is the time to do whatever I am capable of doing to fight the revisionism and prevent its perpetrators from doing as much further harm as possible. The revisionists have gotten as far as they have over the past few decades in part because their critics have been to damned polite, so, if my tactics seem to aggressive and cause me to occasionally offend some people, tough noogies.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68389606261856138412009-03-31T16:07:00.000-06:002009-03-31T16:07:00.000-06:00Nobody said don't test the facts. But that should...Nobody said don't test the facts. But that shouldn't be the limit.<BR/><BR/>For instance, under the rules of criminal evidence, all the OJ team had to do was refute enough of the inept prosecution's arguments to introduce reasonable doubt.<BR/><BR/>Acquittal, but that served only the law, not the truth.<BR/><BR/>There was a second OJ trial, the civil case brought by the family of Ron Goldman. In a <I>civil</I> trial, which is much more analogous to inquiry, the search for truth, both sides share the burden of proof and it's the <I>preponderance</I> of the evidence that decised. So even if you shoot down 9 of my 10 arguments but make no affirmative arguments of your own, the preponderance of evidence is still on my side, as my last surviving argument is the <I>only</I> evidence.<BR/><BR/>And of course, OJ lost the second, civil, trial. Truth was served.<BR/><BR/>So I respect Chris shooting down whatever Barton or anybody else contends about the Kaskaskia. It has value.<BR/><BR/>But it brings us no closer to the truth about religion and the Founding by itself; only affirmative argument can do that.<BR/><BR/>Now, when many "authorities" who should know better proclaim that the Founders were "deists," well, work like Kristo's [not to say he's proven his case yet] not only refutes them, but provides a usable counterfactual. This is inquiry, the search for truth.<BR/><BR/>I'd add that where the search for error is by its nature adversarial, inquiries like the the Platonic dialogues are co-operative, and are impossible without the presence of good will. And in the case of the "Symposium," a little good liquid cheer as well.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19151696423205758822009-03-31T15:37:00.000-06:002009-03-31T15:37:00.000-06:00JVD - JRB, do you honestly not understand what I'm...JVD - <I>JRB, do you honestly not understand what I'm saying here? There is a fundamental difference between the epistemology of the Socratic dialogues and that of the OJ Simpson trial.</I><BR/><BR/>It's not for want of trying but I am baffled. How is my simple question a violation of epistemological or Socratic inquiry? Presumably in seeking a truth there is a objective known and a subjective belief. If the objective known is distorted or fabricated then the outcome is invalid - at least if the goal is accuracy and precision. I know that my thinking is clouded by a modern reliance on establishing an objective metric but I thought that the use of empirical data had been established here by the reliance on documentation - and a hope for primary documentation at that. <BR/><BR/>To seek clarification of the facts used in deriving knowledge is not trivial if the application is to derive an accurate understanding and measure of the founding and our religious heritage. If that's not the goal around here then what is?<BR/><BR/>Or perhaps better stated, if the facts don't fit then you must not acquit. Otherwise the truth is on a golf course in Florida thumbing its nose at us.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22055779420038444162009-03-31T12:40:00.000-06:002009-03-31T12:40:00.000-06:00jimmiraybob said... If you saw my previous rema...<I>jimmiraybob said...<BR/><BR/> If you saw my previous remarks about not spending time hunting down errors in favor of making affirmative arguments...<BR/><BR/> But how do you make valid affirmative arguments if they rest on errors?</I><BR/><BR/>JRB, do you honestly not understand what I'm saying here? There is a fundamental difference between the epistemology of the Socratic dialogues and that of the OJ Simpson trial.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87137194757577948722009-03-31T09:27:00.000-06:002009-03-31T09:27:00.000-06:00jimmiraybob wrote: "But how do you make valid affi...jimmiraybob wrote: "But how do you make valid affirmative arguments if they rest on errors?"<BR/><BR/>That's a very important question. I have found several times in my research that certain well accepted "facts," (and I'm not talking only about things in revisionist books, but in mainstream history books also) turned out not to be true, and finding the error changed an entire story. <BR/><BR/>One instance of this, for example, was the date of a letter written by Jefferson. It had been accepted by everyone, revisionists and mainstream historians alike, that Jefferson wrote this letter on a particular date. To me, however, the date didn't make sense. Well, guess what? Everybody had the date wrong. The date had been written on original copy that Jefferson had mailed not by Jefferson, but much later by someone else who was in possession of this copy. When I looked up Jefferson's own "file" copy in the Library of Congress archive, it turned out that Jefferson had not dated this letter when he worte it, but later made a note on the bottom saying when he had written it. With Jefferson's date, the rest of the story fell into place and finally made sense. With the wrong date, the reason I thought Jefferson had written this letter would have been impossible, because the wrong date was prior to this event taking place. With the correct date, my theory about why Jefferson wrote this letter was not only viable, but almost certainly correct.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3347062062837999242009-03-31T08:56:00.000-06:002009-03-31T08:56:00.000-06:00If you saw my previous remarks about not spending ...<I>If you saw my previous remarks about not spending time hunting down errors in favor of making affirmative arguments...</I><BR/><BR/>But how do you make valid affirmative arguments if they rest on errors?jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19369316943479797922009-03-30T23:12:00.000-06:002009-03-30T23:12:00.000-06:00As far as Kristo's thesis about Jefferson's theolo...<I><BR/>As far as Kristo's thesis about Jefferson's theology goes, I'm just not that interested in the details of his theology to give it that much scrutiny.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly. And I respect that, Chris. But this blog is precisely about stuff like Kristo's work. I'm only marginally interested in the Kaskaskia and David Barton's errors. Once in awhile, OK, if we must.<BR/><BR/>If you saw my previous remarks about not spending time hunting down errors in favor of making affirmative arguments, you know where I'm coming from. You're coming from the opposite dynamic. So be it.<BR/><BR/>We understand each other fine. If David Barton maintains he's doing the Lord's work [and he does], then so are you in your own way, because The Lord---if He exists---loves truth. Live long and prosper, Chris, although I imagine we'll cross paths again.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85741509664231877812009-03-30T22:08:00.000-06:002009-03-30T22:08:00.000-06:00Tom...I realize that Kristo's thesis about Jeffers...Tom...<BR/><BR/>I realize that Kristo's thesis about Jefferson's theology and his background about the Jefferson Bible, which includes his speculation about the Kaskaskia treaty, are two separate things. I just thought that his having taken for granted that the often heard claim about that treaty was true, and speculated about something else based on the assumption that that claim was true, was a good opportunity to illustrate how ingrained some of these revisionist claims are, and what that can lead to.<BR/><BR/>As far as Kristo's thesis about Jefferson's theology goes, I'm just not that interested in the details of his theology to give it that much scrutiny. My own work is a little unusual in that respect. I look almost exclusively at the actions of the founders, and speculate very little about their personal beliefs. For example, when a revisionist misrepresents a bill to make it appear that it was a bill promoting Christianity, and then claims that President So-and so signed that bill so that proves they were a Christian, I'll only debunk the misrepresentation and explain what the bill really was, and that's where I stop. I don't continue by saying that by debunking the misrepresentation of the bill I've proved or disproved anything either way about that president's personal beliefs. <BR/><BR/>It's not that I'm completely uninterested in the beliefs of the founders, and if I find some time to be able to read Kristos's thesis with more attention, I will, but in my quick glance at his post, what struck me was his taking for granted that the Kaskaskia myth was true. It's just because this is the kind of unintentional perpetuation of inaccurate history that I'm concerned is being caused by the unquestioned acceptance of the revisionist claims that have become as widespread as this one.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76661181646097899422009-03-30T21:28:00.000-06:002009-03-30T21:28:00.000-06:00Great to hear from you yet again, Chris. I'd rath...Great to hear from you yet again, Chris. I'd rather you take this up with Kristo directly. Sounds like you brought some game. Excellent. That's what we do around here when we're at our best, discuss.<BR/><BR/>I will have absolutely no idea what you're talking about until I spend hours and great care sorting it out, which I may or may not do.<BR/><BR/>But the fundamentals of Kristo's thesis about Jefferson's theology have absolutely nothing---zero zip nada zilch or doodah---to do whatsover with the Kaskasia, this I know. So I absolutely absolutely have no idea of what you're talking about, because Kristo's thesis is about Jefferson's theology, not Native Americans.<BR/><BR/>This much I do know, which doesn't give much credit to your response about American Indians. Shall I be content with this polite and gentle response, or would you like more explication? Your call, Chris.<BR/><BR/>Me, I'm learning every day it's a sucker's game to say word one about anybody's work but my own. [Do have at mine!] But I'll still defend the right of free speech in that Founders way. Diamonds in the dunghill. <BR/><BR/>You understand.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78185271731324769832009-03-30T19:55:00.000-06:002009-03-30T19:55:00.000-06:00Tom wrote: "Kristo Miettinen on the 'Jefferson Bib...Tom wrote: "Kristo Miettinen on the 'Jefferson Bible's' tacit acceptance of Jesus' miracles was truly fascinating, and disputes all our 'common knowledge.'"<BR/><BR/>I just took a look at Kristo's piece, and have a few problems with it, in part because I actually have all of Cyrus Adler's papers -- hundreds of pages of notes, etc. -- from when he was writing his introduction, so I've read some things that reveal a much more intriguing story. <BR/><BR/>Also, the theory that Jefferson prepared his first compilation for the Indians, which is based solely on his title page, and was actually contradicted by Jefferson himself, has one enormous problem. The title page isn't in Jefferson's handwriting. It was found in a collection of papers that were, in many instances, supposedly copied by Jefferson's grandson. A title page in Jefferson's handwriting, if there ever was one, does not exist.<BR/><BR/>The Indian thing also leads Kristo to speculate that the timing of Jefferson's compilation might have had something to do with the 1803 Kaskaskia treaty, in which it is claimed that Jefferson provided funds to "evangelize" these Indians. This, coincidentally is one of the claims I addressed in my little "Barton bashing" video. The Kaskaskia did not need to be evangelized because they were already Catholic, and had been for many generations, having been converted by French missionaries in the late 1600s. So, obviously, even if Jefferson did do his first compilation for the Indians, which is seriously in doubt, it certainly wouldn't have been for the Kaskaskia.<BR/><BR/>But, this just goes to show how inaccurate history, whether resulting from a mistake or a deliberate lie, can lead the next historian to pose a theory based on something that wasn't rue to begin with. Kristo obviously didn't question the often heard claim that Jefferson was trying to evangelize the Kaskaskia through the 1803 treaty, or check for himself to see if this claim was even true, so he, in turn, assuming that it was true, proposed it as a possible reason for something else. This is exactly how history gets progressively more and more distorted.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24935653729936626132009-03-30T19:11:00.000-06:002009-03-30T19:11:00.000-06:00Tom...I got caught up in work and haven't been abl...Tom...<BR/><BR/>I got caught up in work and haven't been able to get back here to comment until now. I kind of appear and disappear in discussions because I have a crazy job.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, if you want, I'll send you a PDF of my entire chapter on Jefferson and education. That should answer every possible question you might have. Just email me at liarsforjesus@aol.com and give me your email address so I can send it to you.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86931372586987434472009-03-30T18:54:00.000-06:002009-03-30T18:54:00.000-06:00Nice to see you still hanging around, Chris. Plea...Nice to see you still hanging around, Chris. Please do send your sources [links] along that refute Barton on this point. If I were a betting man---and I am---I'd put my money on you.<BR/><BR/>If you missed my one comment, as in <I>The Caine Mutiny,</I> the mutineers' lawyer takes their case but says he'd rather prosecute.<BR/><BR/>Please do take on the 10-90-100 question, though. I've been waiting for a principled response, not per Barton so much, but per this age of epistemological nihilism, adversarial inquiry, and playing Law & Order in our every word to each other.<BR/><BR/>And if you ever hang around here long enough to search for truth rather than errors, that would be welcome. Kristo Miettinen on the "Jefferson Bible's" tacit acceptance of Jesus' miracles was truly fascinating, and disputes all our "common knowledge." It certainly made me think.<BR/><BR/>Here it is, cheers.<BR/><BR/>http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/03/thomas-jefferson-radical-american.htmlTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com