tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5026085713679252782..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Rodda On Beck UBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21269714493167470422011-01-02T21:12:02.392-07:002011-01-02T21:12:02.392-07:00Lindsey:
It's nice that you want to get more ...Lindsey:<br /><br />It's nice that you want to get more involved as a semi-regular commentator but please check the nonsense at the door. We're working really hard to keep it civil here, and the "you're wrong, I'm right" B.S. isn't constructive. I don't know (and don't care) what this debate is about (I didn't read the earlier comments on this thread and probably won't). All we ask is for some civility.<br /><br />Cool?Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62497890506963569002011-01-02T13:41:34.380-07:002011-01-02T13:41:34.380-07:00I don't know, Chris. I'm not ever going t...I don't know, Chris. I'm not ever going to defend David Barton chapter and verse. In the 3rd paragraph of my original comment, I gave you credit where you "have him cold." I also showed where you overstepped your evidence and put words in his mouth he didn't say. You got a fair shake.<br /><br />I also said that he argues by factoid and is not coherent in his overall thesis. Now you throw out your representation of something Barton "always" says, and were right back to Square One. This is a bad way to do history, through the parsing of paraphrases, and certainly via David Barton.<br /><br />Where he is on solid---or at least valid ground---is what he's echoing from some other scholars, that chaplains in the army and in congress, and the "loan" of gov't buildings to churches during the construction of the city of Washington belies the 2010 understanding of "strict" separation of church and state. there was an accommodation on the "pluralist" level that fell well short of establishment.<br /><br />Further, that there's a difference between "church and state" [establishment] and "faith and state," which Avery Dulles called "the Deist minimum," and by corollary, I have called "the Franklin limit," that no more dogma could be accepted into the American "civil religion" than Ben Franklin could assent to.<br /><br />On the other hand, per the "James Wilson" argument, there was a "biblical minimum" below which the orthodox could not agree to, and it is this: that no law was valid that explicitly denied the content of the Bible.<br /><br />Fortunately for the Founding era, via the James Wilson argument---as well as by extension, Alexander Hamilton and William Blackstone---the Bible and the natural law come from the "same adorable source" and therefore <i>cannot</i> be in conflict. The Bible never had to explicitly figure into political debate because natural law arguments could be used in parallel, thus dispensing with dogma and Biblical interpretation battles.<br /><br />And if you use the search function, you find my monograph on Franklin and the Bible, which he read every day and tried to live, deism having had a desultory effect on his character. He was fine with the Bible outside the dogma wars [except for the story of Jael, which he found perverse.]<br /><br />So here I am back at the Charlie Brown and the football thing, according good faith and courtesy rather than follow my natural temptation to return measure for measure. Barton argues by factoid, and when he finds a reference to God in the Founding literature, gleefully runs with it without due consideration of context. This incompetence is proven by things like his use of the John Adams quote about the Holy Ghost, which was meant sarcastically, not piously. Whatever Barton gets right is by happy accident, or is an echo of something a more solid and thoughtful scholar has said. And again, admittedly, the echoes are not always true, but that is also the case in what I pointed out in my very first comment, that that door can swing both ways.<br /><br />This blog is really worth reading, as much of the above has been covered here. Although the idea of a "biblical minimum" struck me as I was writing this. So thanks for the conversation. Principled discussion is almost always fruitful, and the door is always open here to a person of your erudition. Should you want to review the Sehat book, I'll be honored to post it with you as a guest blogger, without comment or addition.<br /><br />Except in the comments section, of course. ;-)<br /><br />Peace.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78307252108219102842011-01-02T00:16:01.150-07:002011-01-02T00:16:01.150-07:00Tom, I don't care whether or not YOU have ques...Tom, I don't care whether or not YOU have questioned Tocqueville (and he actually said "the complete separation of church and state," not just your Barton-esque toned-down version of "no established church"). I asked for your explanation of why David Barton always delete's the part of Tocqueville's quote where he attributes the thriving of religion in America to the "complete separation of church and state." I want to know if you think Barton's consistent omission of this very clear statement by Tocqueville is just another one of his "honest" mistakes?Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44036903294839528672011-01-01T23:14:11.144-07:002011-01-01T23:14:11.144-07:00My point was that nobody questioned you on the Seh...My point was that nobody questioned you on the Sehat thing. You didn't say how Naum misquoted. I didn't say you were wrong, Chris.<br /><br /><i>The morality enforced in law often came from Protestant Christian ideals and was presented as such.</i>.<br /><br />OK. There's the source of the morality.<br /><br />Societies coerce. Nothing unusual there.<br /><br />Neither have I ever questioned Tocqueville's observation that religion succeeded in America better than in Europe partly [or mainly] because there was no established state church. You're throwing spaghetti against the wall, hoping something sticks so you can claim a draw here. But again, it's just parsing my wording, not concerning yourself with any truth.<br /><br />You can't turn this around on me by banging the table louder. My first comment in this thread still holds, even after all this nonsense and counterattack. You screwed up.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25551498716149921422011-01-01T22:42:32.678-07:002011-01-01T22:42:32.678-07:00Wow, Tom. This is bad, even for you. I assumed it ...Wow, Tom. This is bad, even for you. I assumed it would go with out saying that my source was Sehat's book. Yep, my "tactic" was to actually look up the quote in the book that was supposedly being quoted.<br /><br />And, for the record, I agree with Sehat's statement. His point that Tocqueville observed an America in which much of the religiosity was caused by coercion rather than genuine religious devotion is an important one.<br /><br />And, speaking of quoting Tocqueville, I'd like to hear Tom's explanation of why David Barton always delete's the part of Tocqueville's quote about religion thriving in America in which Tocqueville attributes this to the "complete separation of church and state," and says that everyone he talked to in America agreed with that. Is that just another one of Barton's "honest" mistakes?Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37572378960571608892011-01-01T21:43:37.475-07:002011-01-01T21:43:37.475-07:00You are a sad, pathetic shell of a man, Tom. It i...You are a sad, pathetic shell of a man, Tom. It isn't Kris but rather you who has dug a deep hole. Kris doesn't even have a hole. You need to crawl in, have a nice long cry and then pretend this all goes away. And you can try to ignore my comments all you want, I know you read them.Lindsey Shumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13536959819608584779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36031182668283021442011-01-01T17:26:40.518-07:002011-01-01T17:26:40.518-07:00Clearly, the fair-minded person would have put Ms....Clearly, the fair-minded person would have put Ms. Rodda on the spot for her assertion that Mr. Naum misquoted David Sehat, since no proof was offered.<br /><br />But that's not how this game is played. However, every response just digs Ms. Rodda's hole deeper and reveals the bankruptcy of the tactics being used.<br /><br />For the only relevant historical question is Tocqueville. All the rest is sophistry.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84925153394232063762011-01-01T16:36:06.846-07:002011-01-01T16:36:06.846-07:00You are unbelievable, Tom, unable to admit when yo...You are unbelievable, Tom, unable to admit when you've been completely destroyed! You've been exposed here. Man up and take it. Are you just pissed that a woman defeated you? That she exposed you for the complete derailing you just had? You're worse than even RutherFRAUD in the above posts. <br /><br />Do us all a favor and just crawl away, defeated and humiliated. <br /><br />You LOSE!Lindsey Shumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13536959819608584779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89882098381450314912011-01-01T16:14:38.441-07:002011-01-01T16:14:38.441-07:00You can say whatever you want. Your object was to...You can say whatever you want. Your object was to keep me writing until you could find some phrasing to parse. You are disinterented in truth, the way of the sophist.<br /><br />But you screwed up, Chris, and put words in Barton's mouth he didn't say. You cannot bury that fact no matter how many words and tactics you try.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15913155959636292492011-01-01T15:55:24.900-07:002011-01-01T15:55:24.900-07:00Tom said: "Further, even if Sehat didn't ...Tom said: "Further, even if Sehat didn't exactly say that, Tocqueville did."<br /><br />So, Tom, let me get this right -- you're saying that even if someone didn't exactly say something, it's OK to say they did if it's close enough, and it's clearly what they meant. (I think I can safely say "checkmate" here.)Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9549626574542258652011-01-01T15:46:23.233-07:002011-01-01T15:46:23.233-07:00Once again you try to deflect the attention off of...Once again you try to deflect the attention off of the fact that you've been exposed, Tom. This is example 999,999,999 of you making a horse's ass of yourself in the comments section of this blog. If you only knew how many people left this blog because of you, Tom. If you only knew how many good, talented people wouldn't join because of you, Tom. My biggest regret is not cutting you from here before I left. <br /><br />The score is Kris Rodda: 1,000 v. Tom: -10Lindsey Shumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13536959819608584779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84132758858174138652011-01-01T15:41:06.924-07:002011-01-01T15:41:06.924-07:00Perhaps, Ms. Rodda. But the topic isn't David...Perhaps, Ms. Rodda. But the topic isn't David Barton here, although you keep trying to turn it back on him. The topic isn't me, whom you're attempting to counterattack, again to divert the focus. The topic is you and your screw-up[s].<br /><br />For the record, I source the stuff I print on mainpages [like your attack on Barton] less rigorously in comments section, so that ideas can be tried out. <br /><br />I accepted the Sehat quote because it came from Mr. Naum, who is on the same "team" ideologically as you, and would have no motive to lie.<br /><br />Further, even if Sehat didn't exactly say that, Tocqueville did. this is the core historical question, and why your game of "gotcha" is not a sincere attempt and history and understanding, only sophism and culture war.<br /><br />You are clearly bnot interested in the underlying historical truths, only playing gotcha.<br /><br />And in this case, you were the one who was got.<br /><br />Although as we see above, you will always have your uncritical supporters, who have their knives out for Barton-types, but will always give you a free pass. This is the irony, of course, which is lost on such types.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78069129078052518972011-01-01T15:29:39.611-07:002011-01-01T15:29:39.611-07:00Hehehe. Very nicely done, Kris. Tom the next thi...Hehehe. Very nicely done, Kris. Tom the next thing for you to do is open mouth, lift leg and insert foot. You got your ass kicked pretty hard here. Go find a hole and bury yhourself in it. <br /><br />Kris, I just found the link to your book. I am going to get it on Amazon.Lindsey Shumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13536959819608584779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13857764725487069042011-01-01T14:47:42.847-07:002011-01-01T14:47:42.847-07:00Hey Tom …
You may want to double check that quote...Hey Tom …<br /><br />You may want to double check that quote from David Sehat's book. I'd suggest getting the actual quote from Sehat's book, rather than relying on someone else's blog post, from which you have copied a misquote. Very sloppy work, and quite ironic, for someone who's polemically criticizing someone else for using a headline that isn't an exact quote.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90364095076521198842010-12-30T20:09:22.730-07:002010-12-30T20:09:22.730-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32224087164499242762010-12-30T20:07:47.582-07:002010-12-30T20:07:47.582-07:00No point. You looked directly at "the law of...No point. You looked directly at "the law of revelation" and either didn't see it or purposely ignored it.<br /><br /><i>"[H]ow shall we, in particular instances, learn the dictates of our duty, and make, with accuracy, the proper distinction between right and wrong; in other words, how shall we, in particular cases, discover the will of God? We discover it by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures. The law of nature and <b>the law of revelation</b> are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other."</i>---James Wilson<br /><br />I can't do any better than black and white. Nor can I proceed in the face of such disingenuousness; you have not returned my courtesy and good faith.<br /><br /><i>The morality enforced in law often came from Protestant Christian ideals and was presented as such. Foreign observers, including John Stuart Mill and Tocqueville, saw this dynamic with particular clarity and were keen to point out that religiously derived, moral coercion seemed endemic to American society and government.</i><br /><br />This is where the rubber meets the road. If David Barton had written that, you'd be having a cow about now. Your interest is clearly not in the <i>whole</i> truth, for if you were, you'd be out of business, Chris. I understand your dilemma---you have invested heavily in David Barton and now you're stuck with him.<br /><br />But you can't refute Barton's larger thesis because you haven't done the necessary homework to understand it. So you're left with catching him in rhetorical excesses.<br /><br />But now you've been caught doing what you trash him for. <i>Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?</i> Me, the closest thing to peer review that you have.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18108970218402291962010-12-30T20:07:15.634-07:002010-12-30T20:07:15.634-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27447399113877303922010-12-30T20:06:58.984-07:002010-12-30T20:06:58.984-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1007948549194048632010-12-30T18:47:55.953-07:002010-12-30T18:47:55.953-07:00Oh, well, I guess we're not going to see that ...Oh, well, I guess we're not going to see that "chapter and verse fisking" of my work that Tom offered to provide. I was so looking forward to that.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57073979822686155302010-12-29T15:16:15.755-07:002010-12-29T15:16:15.755-07:00I simply say that both are being sophistic, stretc...I simply say that both are being sophistic, stretching the facts through rhetoric. Clearly it doesn't bother you when Ms. Rodda does it, only those who are on your wrong side. There's nothing I can do about that, and I'm not going to restate my objection for the nth time.<br /><br />If you examine the transcript, Barton attempts to introduce the James Wilson argument, but it gets lost in the shuffle. Let me further add that Barton is not coherent in his thesis, and argues by amassing factoids.<br /><br />I get the impression the best parts of the argument are those he has copped from other scholars, and which he doesn't quite fully understand himself. To defend his short-hand, and the shorthand he's further obliged to use on a talk show gets us nowhere except squabbling at the surface level.<br /><br />And you have returned this whole thing again to Square One, JRB, although clearly through no fault of your own. But I'm obsessed by neither Rodda nor Barton, and frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. The newer posts are far more interesting, insightful and nourishing. This "James Wilson" discussion can be picked up in Mr. Naum's new post about [secularist] David Sehat's new book where he claims<br /><br /><i>The morality enforced in law often came from Protestant Christian ideals and was presented as such. Foreign observers, including John Stuart Mill and Tocqueville, saw this dynamic with particular clarity and were keen to point out that religiously derived, moral coercion seemed endemic to American society and government.</i><br /><br />This proposition would make David Barton smile from ear to ear, and Chris Rodda now has a new figure to train her guns on, and a more interesting one---a secular scholar with presumably real credentials and greater scholarly rigor.<br /><br />We can take our leave of the culture wars and ad homs and sophistry and Glenn Beck and return to our regularly scheduled program, principled discussion of religion and the Founding.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84157354642838541552010-12-29T14:59:45.870-07:002010-12-29T14:59:45.870-07:00Why should I add more, JRB? So you can ignore that...<i>Why should I add more, JRB? So you can ignore that too?</i><br /><br />Not so much ignoring as traveling and visiting with family for the holidays. I made a brief attempt earlier but it doesn't show up. Unpacking now will try to comment further later. <br /><br />In the meantime, as to what appears to be your main argument, it's that you are looking for a literal transcript of Chris's frame in Barton's argument. However, Barton is using inference to draw an equivalency while maintaining the very deniability that you raise - "I(he) have(did) not actually used those words." It's an old school-yard tactic that's often used in politics and rhetoric.<br /><br />Chris is right in calling Barton on this. Barton is a political/religious advocate using distorted history as a weapon. Chris is trying to preserve the integrity of the historical record. Not the same. Not that she can't make mistakes but I just don't see it so far.<br /><br />Now that I'm home and no longer a human jungle gym for the nieces, I'll take a closer look.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48743475966332974442010-12-29T12:45:01.581-07:002010-12-29T12:45:01.581-07:00Actually, my problem was with your [and they are d...Actually, my problem was with your [and they are direct quotes] that Bartons said they were ministers, and that the Constitution was based on Deuteronomy. He didn't say either of those things.<br /><br />As for the James Wilson, according to him the law of nature and the law of <i>revelation</i> flow from the same adorable source and "It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other."<br /><br />By glossing over the "revelation" part here, we have missed the entire point.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91257630604501931152010-12-29T06:36:16.405-07:002010-12-29T06:36:16.405-07:00Tom …
Why do you keep bringing up James Wilson? I...Tom …<br /><br />Why do you keep bringing up James Wilson? I'm just not getting what a quote from him about Nature's Law and where people get their morals from has to do with Barton's claim that half the Declaration signers trained for the ministry or a connection between Deuteronomy and our founding documents. Please explain why you think this Wilson quote is relevant to either of these Barton claims.Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66759078809078596372010-12-28T13:21:57.491-07:002010-12-28T13:21:57.491-07:00Yes, I understood your arguments the first time. ...Yes, I understood your arguments the first time. Your headlines were inaccurate and exaggerated. Barton simply didn't say what you attributed to him. That was my point. he didn't say they were ministers, nor that the Constitution was based on deuteronomy. Simply didn't say it.<br /><br />Now shall I rub your nose in it and give you a lecture? Add on some ad hom about how you're a "liar" and your representations of things should not be trusted? Play your own game of delegitimization?<br /><br />In the 3rd paragraph I gave you credit for what you got right, and in other spots, too. Do you accord the same evenhandedness to your ideological enemies? Do you tell the <i>whole</i> story of the issue at hand, and or just the parts that suit your own POV?<br /><br />Are you aware of the "James Wilson" argument, the "adorable source" argument, which Barton mentions in the same set of paragraphs of the transcript? If you are not, you're not competently addressing his entire argument, and if you are aware of it, you're withholding necessary and vital context and evidence.<br /><br />Basically, Barton exaggerates, you exaggerate what he says until it's a "lie." This is no way to do history, and that is my objection, Ms. Rodda. You can do what you want out in there in the Bearded Spock universe, but when it hits this blog, I'm going to note it.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45080105436427048692010-12-28T07:47:32.081-07:002010-12-28T07:47:32.081-07:00Whoops ... typo in above comment ...the quote from...Whoops ... typo in above comment ...the quote from Barton should be "29 signers held seminary or Bible school degrees," ("or" not "of")Chris Roddahttp://www.liarsforjesus.comnoreply@blogger.com