Note his personal attacks at the bottom. I'm loving this.
Dear Mr. G
Thank you for reinforcing my earlier critique of your work and for noting my abilities in the area of detecting and refuting propaganda techniques used by Christian-bashers. It is correspondence like yours that help keep my propaganda and fallacy detection skills sharp, though your erroneous assertions are hardly challenging. I will definitely be using your letter in my class. Who knows, I may need to add an entire new section to deal with attacks like yours! By the way, your critique on my questioning of the translation is a tu quoque ("you too" in Latin) argument wherein you attempt to dismiss your opponent’s argument on the basis of alleged inconsistencies in it. It is only effective if there are inconsistencies in the argument. And your use of the phrase "...Is this only effective on days when everyone in the nation wears blue?" is a "red herring" argument, i.e., it has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. My questions about translation are, admittedly, a sidebar but relevant, nonetheless. Remember, I conceded the point about the treaty's official status and the translation. But if you insist upon beating a dead horse please read the following articles on the subject. I only ask that you actually read them instead of doing a cursory scan for material in support of your position as you obviously did in the Barton article (more on the subject later). Remember, that the picture in its entirety is often very different than an isolated section (this is known as context- see below). http://www.tektonics.org/tripoli.html; http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/tripoli.html. The latter is a skeptic’s site. You should feel right at home. Incidentally, I disagree with the former article's premise about official status of the treaty.
Again, I must thank you for confirming your minimal historical investigational skills. The Barton article is so crystal clear on Adams being the president who signed the Treaty of Tripoli that I could only conclude that you did not bother to read it before replying. I ask again- please read it. As a further note, the treaty was renegotiated in 1805 after the defeat of the Tripolitanian Pasha (rather soundly thrashed by the US Marine Corps, actually, as recounted in the Marine Corps Hymn). He signed a modified treaty, which had the language in question about America's status as a Christian nation in article XI of the old treaty conspicuously removed in article XIV of the new. By the "logic" you have employed we would have to presume that America had, in the interim and under a president that you state was "openly hostile" to religion (Jefferson), suddenly turned Christian since the negative phrase had been removed. This is obviously not the case. But in the historical context (yes, there it is again; your old nemesis context) it is clear that in the 1797 treaty, America was dealing from a position of military weakness with a Muslim theocracy paranoid about Christian crusaders and making treaties with "infidels". The language used was an attempt to reassure the Pasha that the protestant Christian ideal of freedom of conscience forbade interference in their religious practices. It is also clear that in the 1805 treaty America was in no way dealing from a position of military weakness any longer, yet reassuring language regarding non-interference in the religious matters of the Pasha or his subjects is reaffirmed. You have also ignored other treaties of the time in which the name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity (try and explain this phrase outside of Christian orthodoxy. Good luck), Divine Providence, God, etc are invoked in the language of the treaty. One instance is in the treaty of peace signed between the US and Great Britain in 1783 by John Adams (uh-oh), Benjamin Franklin (uh-oh) and John Jay on the US side. Another instance was a treaty signed between the US, Great Britain and Ireland with Russia in 1822 regarding the war of 1812. Did we then, as you seem to be arguing, pass back and forth like a pendulum between a secular state and open Christianity on the proof of our treaty language? In context (drat!), this is a fatally weak argument. An excellent review of the Treaty of Tripoli controversy is available in Gary DeMar’s “America’s Christian History- The Untold Story”. If you bother to read it please take note of the PRIMARY SOURCING (see below) used in all of the chapters
Your contention that "context means nothing" is so patently absurd and so obviously in the category of "don't confuse me with the facts" that I will waste no further effort "casting pearls before swine" on this subject. Since the latter phrase is from a famous biblical verse and you claim familiarity with that Book, I will waste no time in quoting the reference. However, I do feel obliged to point out the places where context does, indeed, matter and will do so.
Regarding your protest that I "put words in your mouth"; you yourself stated that the founders were "actively hostile" to religion. Please explain how one can be "actively hostile" towards something and neutral at the same time. This is an egregious examples of equivocation, another technique I teach people to recognize. What other choice do I have in interpreting your statements when you do not seem to know what you mean, either?
Just a word about primary documentation. The "references" you have provided so far are virtually useless. Primary references include the Title, author or editors, publisher, edition and date of publication. Page numbers are of no use without the other information. From the lack of such information I can only assume that you have cut and pasted these quotes from skeptics’
websites. These accomplished propagandists often use excerpted quotations because letters or other documents as a whole tend to negate their arguments. You clearly have not bothered to read any of these documents in their entirety, as I have taken the time to do. Remember, that this type of citation may have gotten you a C- on a "research" paper in 9th grade English class but it gets you an F here.
You have also obviously hand-chosen your examples (or allowed skeptical webmasters to choose them for you). There are reams of documents that demonstrate the Christian character and beliefs of the framers, including some of the men you have on your list. Franklin, Jefferson, Paine and Allen were all noted skeptics with Jefferson and Franklin possibly coming to Christianity late in life, Jefferson more likely so. Paine was an excellent pamphleteer and propagandist who followed the star of his deism to his destruction having embarrassed himself in helping instigate the anti-Christian “Enlightenment” conditions in France that ultimately lead to the reign of terror. The carnage wrought during the reign of terror is an obvious example of what happens when human beings lose the self-government that is inculcated into every true Christian and delve into the world of "pure reason" which is, in reality, neo-humanism (as opposed to classical humanism which is Christian in origin) or exaltation of the self instead of the Creator. When the self becomes the lawgiver, carnage ensues. Note that it didn't happen here because our Christian sensibilities and acknowledgement of God as our Great Lawgiver and Christ as King disallowed it. The acolytes of "reason" hijacked the French Revolution and turned it into a bloodbath. Paine had nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence and was nowhere near Philadelphia during the Constitutional convention. Neither was Ethan Allen, who is a very famous footnote in the history of the American Revolution and little more, having had no influence on founding documents. Jefferson was, of course, ambassador to France during the convention and so had little, if any, influence on it. Delegates largely ignored his suggestions and some of his ideas were simply goofy. His brilliant writing is evident in the Declaration of Independence (also worked on by Adams and Franklin) and its language belies any "open hostility" to religion by openly calling upon the Creator. You may read the document for yourself for proof. Jefferson was openly supportive of and enthusiastic on the French Revolution only to become disillusioned and cynical about it when his beloved "reason" led to anarchy followed by the tyranny of Napoleon, as anarchy always does.
I have been unable to track quotes from letters Adams to Charles Cushing (I'm aware that they were friends at Harvard) or correspondence between Adams and Jefferson so I haven't been able to read the letters in their entirety. If you have a copy of these letters or know where they are published (and I have my doubts, as stated above) please send all of them so I may judge these quotes based on the letters context or send proper documentation as I have already requested. I need BOTH SIDES of the correspondence to make a judgment. Note that I do not question that the quotes exist, just their true meaning in context, considering Adams other statements on religion. Along these lines, please read John Adams diary excerpts on the subject of his thoughts on religion (http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysourc ... diary.html), some of them from the same general time frame as the out of context (uh-oh, there it is again) quotations you have supplied. Adams may have been unorthodox in his belief but he was no anti-religionist.
Now, on to Jefferson’s letter to Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins and Stephen S. Nelson of the Danbury Baptist Association. It is clear from the quote that you provided that Jefferson is not being “openly hostile” to religion. A full reading of the correspondence makes this point even more crystal clear. He is restating, in an uncharacteristically ineloquent manner, the wording of the establishment clause of the first amendment to the leader of a religious convention. Had you bothered to research both sides of the correspondence you would have known that Jefferson’s letter is actually an answer to a question or, more accurately, a request. To understand the answer in context (DOH! There it is again!) you must know the question. Read this article http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/s ... ourceID=82. It contains both sides of the correspondence and completely clarifies the meaning of Jefferson’s answer. It is not what you and others of your ilk (including the supreme Court) have implied. You have no apparent understanding of the historical or legal context (Ouch, again!) of Jefferson’s reply. In truth, most of the states at this time had established churches supported by tax dollars. The Baptists in Connecticut were NOT the established church and were unhappy with their treatment by the state. Jefferson was expressing the opinion that while he agreed with the Danbury Baptists philosophically, the Federal government could do nothing, really. The first and tenth amendments to the US constitution made federal interference in the religious affairs of any individual or state unlawful.
As for the quote from “Jefferson’s biography”; which biography? Written by whom? When? What edition? What chapter? What pages? Do you mean his autobiography? Normally, I couldn’t respond to what may very well be wholly concocted or completely out of context quotes. By the way, ellipses are always a red flag for anyone with an interest in finding fallacies in debate. It is the easiest way to make a passage say what it, in its entirety (i.e., context), doesn’t really say. But upon some digging on my own, I discovered the disputed passage. As usual you have quoted out of context (Drat, again!) and I must assume from your assumptions about what the passage says that you didn’t bother to read it in its entirety. This section of Jefferson’s autobiography deals with the creation of the Virginia constitution. The constitution itself and Jefferson’s religious freedom bill are riddled with references to “Almighty God”, the Creator, etc and the section of Jefferson’s autobiography leaves little doubt regarding his lack of “open hostility” to religion. Read the autobiography in total at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffauto.htm and Jefferson’s religious freedom draft bill at http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/P/tj3/wri ... ft1779.htm. Again, your premise is sunk by the weight of the evidence in whole. You’ve earned yet another F.
As for the quote from “Jefferson’s Bible”: this book is actually known as “The Life and Morals of Jesus”, a tome in which Jefferson attempted to “purify” Christianity by stripping away the supernatural part of Christ’s character but leaving his moral teachings intact, as only a child of the enlightenment could. Jefferson, like many “enlightened free-thinkers”, liked to kid himself that the moral laws can be separated from the Divinity of the moral Lawgiver. This is addled sophistry. Jefferson never published this book, in part because it left no doubt regarding the unorthodoxy of his beliefs. It was not published until the beginning of the 20th century by order of congress. If your point is that Jefferson’s beliefs were unorthodox then you are right. If you think Jefferson’s beliefs were “openly hostile” to religion in general then you have ignored virtually all of your own “citations”.
Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance on the Religious Rights of Man” is hardly “openly hostile” to religion. Any reading of its text can only be interpreted as a brilliant and eloquent argument against establishment and state support of an official religious denomination. Freedom of conscience has been at the core of protestant religious philosophy since Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg and Jean Calvin held court in Geneva and Madison’s thoughts are no different. It becomes obvious in the text that Madison is worried about religion and its institutions becoming perverted by the interference of government and its natural purpose abused by the same than the converse. There is a strong biblical principle at work here and Madison knew it well. There is a functional separation between the civil authority (Ex 18) and church authority (Ex 29). Their jurisdictions are not to be intermingled; the state is forbidden from interference in church affairs explicitly but the church is to act in an advisory and prophetic capacity to the state (1Sam 13:8-14, 15:9-34, 2 Chr 26:16-21 among many others) and both serve under the delegated authority of the true King (Almighty God in the old covenant and Jesus Christ in the new [Mt 28:18]). Furthermore, biblical evidence also is clear that usurpation of civil authority by the church is forbidden e.g., the theocratic conspiracy to murder Jesus Christ. In history, one can see the result of church usurpation of civil authority. The inquisition, the massacre of the Huguenots, the reign of “Bloody Mary”, the English Civil war and even Calvin’s Geneva give example regarding what can happen when the church, as an institution, becomes the civil authority. I would suggest that you read the document in question in its entirety before making absurd pronouncements regarding “hostility” towards religion. It can be seen at http://www.ukans.edu/carrie/docs/texts/memorial.html. Do you detect a pattern in the problems with your argument yet?
Your attempts to place Madison in the ranks of the doubters display a gross ignorance of the facts regarding Madison’s strong Christian beliefs. He was inculcated with the principles of the Westminster confession from early childhood and had it memorized at a very early age, quite a feat actually. He attended a religious college at the College of New Jersey (later Yale) in order to train for ordained ministry. His chief mentor was the President of the college, the Rev. John Witherspoon a Calvinist minister and later, a signer of Madison’s magnum opus, the constitution. Witherspoon was the spiritual and philosophical mentor of an incredible nine members of the Constitutional Convention. Madison only abandoned his plans for the clergy after intense prayer and after he believed he had been led by God to put his talents to work in service to his country
Regarding your (mis) quotes from Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography. Because of your poor (actually, nonexistent) citation habits I had a little trouble finding this one in its whole. Again you have insisted on using excerpted, non-contextual quotes to support your point. I have to doubt that you read either of these passages in their entirety for several reasons. First, you have misquoted Franklin. His autobiography makes no mention of Calvinism in either edition I looked at but talked of “the Dissenting way”, instead. Secondly, you completely ignored the fact that Franklin found his adherence to the principles of Deism problematic and talked about his abandonment of Deism as a moral philosophy in subsequent paragraphs. Please read the attached articles (http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/B/bfranklin/frank4.htm) and http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/B/bfranklin/frank8.htm for clarity. The second article speaks of Franklin’s interaction with the Reverend George Whitefield one of the giants of the religious revival of the mid-18th century known as the Great Awakening. It completely torpedoes your premise of Franklin’s “open hostility” to religion. Franklin had a great distaste for the religious views of Thomas Paine. He warned him in a letter against publishing his “Age of Reason” due to its anti-religious sentiment and in so doing revealed his own positive sentiments toward the same. Read the letter here- http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysourc ... paine.html.
Please take the time to read the sources I have provided before attempting to muster the strength and courage for another attack. I will from here on refuse to respond to quotations that are so poorly cited and improperly applied as these. I will also no longer respond to obvious propaganda ploys. I have no time to waste on people who refuse to do their homework or are incapable of doing critical analysis and rely on the work of others unquestioningly. You are clearly not a student of American history and from some of the language usage in your emails, I suspect you are not an American citizen. My apology to you if this is incorrect. If my analysis is correct and you are a citizen of a foreign country please refrain from trying to undermine the principles my nation are built on. You may, of course, feel free to screw up your own country if, in fact, it is not already on the verge of complete collapse. If you are an example of the citizenry of that nation, then may God have mercy on her.
I’m praying for you
