My Debate Against Camp America

[HemlockGrey]

Last night I dispatched a brief message to the organizes of Camp America(campamerica .org. Remove the space)

I wish information about your camp...namely, how can you perpetrate such an ignorant lie? America is NOT founded on Christianity. Here's proof:
Artcile XI of the Treaty of Tripoli states 'As the government of the
United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian
Religion...'

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplo ... r1796t.htm

Further, many of the Founding Fathers were actively hostile to religion.
If you wish, I can provide quotes.

I am a fellow Christian, but it makes me sad to see ignorance of our
nation's secular history spread and disseminated to impressionable young
adults. This is not a Christian nation, never was a Christian nation, and
in order to function it must never become a Christian nation, or all is lost.

Their reply:

I must admit, I am at a loss at where to begin in refuting your ridiculous polemic regarding the founding our nation since your points are so weak and hackneyed as to render them laughable. If you spent any time on the Camp American website you will note that I teach a class called "Tuning Up Your Baloney Detector" which teaches the young ladies and gentlemen to recognize propaganda techniques. You have engaged in some nearly textbook examples of these techniques. I will probably use your note as an example to my next class.

Regarding the Treaty of Tripoli- Partial and out of context quotations are
no way to win a serious debate. It is disingenuous, to say the least, to cut
and paste portions of text that support your argument when the whole of the passage leans away from your position. The entire quote is as follows: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

There are many other problems with the Treaty of Tripoli, some of them
having to do with whether or not article XI is even in the official copy and
whether the translation from the Arabic is particularly good or not. We will
concede these points for the purpose of brevity of this reply. For a more
lengthy discussion of the issues please read the following article:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/s ... sourceID=5. David Barton does an excellent job of putting the Treaty of Tripoli in its proper cultural and historical context. That context decimates your contention of the relevance and purpose of the quoted portion, by the way. If you had taken my propaganda class, you would have learned that in these types of debates, context is everything.

If your point is that the United States was not founded as an EXCLUSIVELY
Christian nation then you are correct. If your point is that the United
States is a completely secular nation founded in a theological vacuum by
atheists then you are either totally immersed in the intellectual
never-never land created by academic and cultural fifth-columnists or
delusional. You have stated that you can provide numerous quotes regarding our founder's "hostility" to religion. Please supply them. Frankly, I am unimpressed with unsubstantiated "appeals to unqualified authority" and "red herrings" (more of the propaganda techniques that I teach the young ladies and gentlemen to look out for) as an effective debate technique. But if you choose to reply I must insist that you provide PRIMARY sources for the quotations- must have the context, you see!

This is the entirety of his essential reply. I snipped some insults, some proselytizing, and some snobbish doubts about my personal faith, but that is all.

I think should be fairly easy. He's a Context-Nazi; I shall inform him that 'America is not based on Christianity' is rather difficult to take out of context- the quote does not read 'America is not based on Christianity, but ony on Tuesdays'. I am unaware as to the red herrings he's claimed to find. Alert me if you see them.

I read that link- essentially, the author desperately tries to prove that this quote only applies to the federal government, not the nation(WTF?) using semantics.

After that, I shall hit him with every damn Founding Father quote in our database.

Tips are welcome. Additional quotes and sources are also welcome.

[Darth Servo]

Minor nitpick: the link he gives doesn't even get definitions right.

an "agnostic" is one who professes that nothing can be known beyond what is visible and tangible

An agnostic is one who isn't sure on the issue of God.

Hypocracy: he claims to be against propaganda yet his first paragraph is nothing but.

You have stated that you can provide numerous quotes regarding our founder's "hostility" to religion. Please supply them.

He asked for it. Let him have it.

[Rye]

Minor nitpick: the link he gives doesn't even get definitions right.

an "agnostic" is one who professes that nothing can be known beyond what is visible and tangible

An agnostic is one who isn't sure on the issue of God.

Hypocracy: he claims to be against propaganda yet his first paragraph is nothing but.

You have stated that you can provide numerous quotes regarding our founder's "hostility" to religion. Please supply them.

He asked for it. Let him have it.

[minor nitpick]An agnostic admits he doesn't know things that are improvable one way or the other.

[Darth Wong]

I must admit, I am at a loss at where to begin in refuting your ridiculous polemic regarding the founding our nation since your points are so weak and hackneyed as to render them laughable. If you spent any time on the Camp American website you will note that I teach a class called "Tuning Up Your Baloney Detector" which teaches the young ladies and gentlemen to recognize propaganda techniques. You have engaged in some nearly textbook examples of these techniques. I will probably use your note as an example to my next class.

Notice how this entire paragraph makes no actual on-topic point whatsoever.

Regarding the Treaty of Tripoli- Partial and out of context quotations are no way to win a serious debate. It is disingenuous, to say the least, to cut and paste portions of text that support your argument when the whole of the passage leans away from your position. The entire quote is as follows: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Notice how he attempts to claim that you have been dishonest by not quoting the entire passage, even though the message of the full quote (his version, anyway) is the same: America is NOT founded on the Christian religion.

There are many other problems with the Treaty of Tripoli, some of them having to do with whether or not article XI is even in the official copy and whether the translation from the Arabic is particularly good or not. We will concede these points for the purpose of brevity of this reply. For a more lengthy discussion of the issues please read the following article:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/s ... sourceID=5. David Barton does an excellent job of putting the Treaty of Tripoli in its proper cultural and historical context. That context decimates your contention of the relevance and purpose of the quoted portion, by the way. If you had taken my propaganda class, you would have learned that in these types of debates, context is everything.

Appeal to authority: he does not refute the point, but instead, simply points you to a supposedly devastating rebuttal which is supposedly superior to anything you might say. Note that the article in question neatly sidesteps the issue of Article XI by simply pointing out that it may not have been correctly translated from the Arabic version, which is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT BECAUSE JOHN ADAMS SIGNED THE ENGLISH VERSION. Whether the Arabic version says the same thing is completely immaterial to the question of whether the English version is correct.

If your point is that the United States was not founded as an EXCLUSIVELY Christian nation then you are correct. If your point is that the United States is a completely secular nation founded in a theological vacuum by atheists then you are either totally immersed in the intellectual
never-never land created by academic and cultural fifth-columnists or
delusional.

Notice the painfully obvious black and white fallacy here: either America is founded on Christianity or it is COMPLETELY secular, hence he defends the former by simply attacking the latter. He may spout a lot of rhetoric about "propaganda" techniques (a subject in which he obviously has considerable first-hand experience), but his argument truly falls down on logic, or the lack thereof.

You have stated that you can provide numerous quotes regarding our founder's "hostility" to religion. Please supply them. Frankly, I am unimpressed with unsubstantiated "appeals to unqualified authority" and "red herrings" (more of the propaganda techniques that I teach the young ladies and gentlemen to look out for) as an effective debate technique. But if you choose to reply I must insist that you provide PRIMARY sources for the quotations- must have the context, you see!

Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, and John Adams made numerous quotes, all of them documented and first-hand. I suppose he will attempt to "refute" those quotes by finding "contradictory" quotes which stroke the egos of Christians, not realizing that such quotes would only prove the existence of a double-life (how novel for a politician) rather than causing the anti-Christian quotes to mysteriously vanish into non-existence as he would undoubtedly hope.

[Darth Wong]

[minor nitpick]An agnostic admits he doesn't know things that are improvable one way or the other.

Prejudicial description; you are implying that it is impossible to know anything without absolute proof, as if the scientific method is useless in such matters. Do you know that the Earth revolves around the Sun? By the agnostic's standard of absolute proof (as opposed to "only theory that makes sense"), you do not.

[Darth Servo]

You have engaged in some nearly textbook examples of these techniques. I will probably use your note as an example to my next class.

Notice how he didn't even provide an example of propaganda from your email. He just declares that you did. If that isn't propaganda, I'd like to know what is.

[HemlockGrey]

You teach a propaganda class? How apt. You obviously have hands-on experience.

I fail to see how the Tripoli quote could possibly be taken out of context.

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded
on the Christian religion..." What, only on Tuesdays?

Context is NOT everything. It impossible to refute this statement, so you must rely on 'context'. What sort of context? Is this only effective on days when everyone in the nation wears blue? Hardly.

Your attempt to discredit the translation is quite the red herring- I begin to see why the camp hired you to teach propaganda classes. The Arabic translation is immaterial for the purposes of this discussion. John Adams(nice to see your link does not even get basic facts right) signed the ENGLISH version, not the Arabic version, and Article XI was included in the English translation.

Further, your attempt to put words in my mouth is noted. I never said the States was an atheistic nation- I said it was secular, i.e. completely neutral. I believe you asked for some quotes. Very well. You shall have them:

John Adams, in a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

From Jefferson’s biography:
“...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”

Jefferson’s “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom”:
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

From Thomas Jefferson’s Bible:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia:
“Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?”

James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Thomas Paine, all quotes from 'The Age of Reason':
From The Age of Reason, pp. 8–9:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

From The Age of Reason:
“All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

From The Age of Reason:
“What is it the Bible teaches us? — rapine, cruelty, and murder.”

Ethan Allen, From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

I believe this are all primary sources; you are free to look them up and verify them as fact.

Have a very nice day.

[Durandal]

[minor nitpick]An agnostic admits he doesn't know things that are improvable one way or the other.

An agnostic is an atheist who is too worried about his Christian friends calling him "close-minded" to tell them that he doesn't believe in God. Either that or he just hasn't thought his position through. He says, "Well, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God ..." and fails to realize that the lack of a capacity for disproof makes the idea pure fallacy. You can't disprove Santa Claus or Carl Sagan's fire-breathing dragon, either, but you don't see any Santa Claus or fire-breathing dragon agnostics running around.

[Loki]

If your point is that the United States was not founded as an EXCLUSIVELY
Christian nation then you are correct. If your point is that the United
States is a completely secular nation founded in a theological vacuum by
atheists then you are either totally immersed in the intellectual
never-never land created by academic and cultural fifth-columnists or
delusional. You have stated that you can provide numerous quotes regarding our founder's "hostility" to religion. Please supply them. Frankly, I am unimpressed with unsubstantiated "appeals to unqualified authority" and "red herrings" (more of the propaganda techniques that I teach the young ladies and gentlemen to look out for) as an effective debate technique. But if you choose to reply I must insist that you provide PRIMARY sources for the quotations- must have the context, you see!

1. "you are either totally immersed in the intellectual
never-never land created by academic and cultural fifth-columnists or
delusional": Ad hominem.

2. "Appeals to unqualified authority": Bites own argument; He showed no hesitation to appeal to David Barton.

3. "I must insist that you provide PRIMARY sources for the quotations": A) Again, he bites his own argument as he has not provided a single primary source in negation. B) Grossly unreasonable; the only primary source would be the treaty itself.

[Rye]

[minor nitpick]An agnostic admits he doesn't know things that are improvable one way or the other.

An agnostic is an atheist who is too worried about his Christian friends calling him "close-minded" to tell them that he doesn't believe in God. Either that or he just hasn't thought his position through. He says, "Well, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God ..." and fails to realize that the lack of a capacity for disproof makes the idea pure fallacy. You can't disprove Santa Claus or Carl Sagan's fire-breathing dragon, either, but you don't see any Santa Claus or fire-breathing dragon agnostics running around.

Firstly, i do see fire breathing agnostics running around.

Any proof that implies that the earth orbits the sun would be enough i'm sure to prove to an agnostic that it does in fact occur that way. The agnostics i've met just say "who knows" to metaphysical questions, and just avoid it entirely, as opposed to saying, "Lack of proof for it's existence = none existence" this applies to all metaphysical situations, letting other people believe whatever stupid thing they like as long as it doesn't encroach on them.

[NapoleonGH]

any update on their responses?

[HemlockGrey]

No reply so far. He must have run out of steam.

[Durandal]

Firstly, i do see fire breathing agnostics running around.

Any proof that implies that the earth orbits the sun would be enough i'm sure to prove to an agnostic that it does in fact occur that way. The agnostics i've met just say "who knows" to metaphysical questions, and just avoid it entirely, as opposed to saying, "Lack of proof for it's existence = none existence" this applies to all metaphysical situations, letting other people believe whatever stupid thing they like as long as it doesn't encroach on them.

Lack of evidence is evidence of lack. It is up to the party making the claim to provide evidence for it. If none is provided, the claim is said to be false.

[HemlockGrey]

After I noticed he had CC'd his opening argument to the staff of Camp America, I did the same with a challenge for further debate, stating that if he did not want to continue he merely had to come forth and concede. His reply?

'A false assumption and a despicable tactic'

I believe I shall make an entire website devoted to this.

[apocolypse]

Good job Hemlock, I for one would like to thank you for calling these bastards out on their crap.

[HemlockGrey]

A reply!

Since you have failed to provide PRIMARY resources as I have CLEARLY requested I must check each reference on my own, something that you have either refused to do or are incapable of doing. Since I have other business and am not on the public dole, my time is valuable and scarce. Apparently you just can't wait to be humiliated. You'll have to.

My response:

What are you going on about? Jefferson's, Adam's, and Madison's primary letters are most certainly primary resources. His AUTOBIOGRAPHY is certainly a primary resource. Thomas Paine's OWN WORK is clearly a primary resource. Do you want me to mail you the bloody originals?

You have lost, sir. Admit it.

[HemlockGrey]

Oh, and one of the other adminstrators was blasting my credibilty and ability to debate properly.

Know why?

I called the camp 'Camp America' when the real name is 'Camp American'

[Darth Servo]

Oh, and one of the other adminstrators was blasting my credibilty and ability to debate properly.

Know why?

I called the camp 'Camp America' when the real name is 'Camp American'

Well, I can't say I'm surprised. Afterall, the nit-pick is the only "real" weapon they have.

[Eleas]

[minor nitpick]An agnostic admits he doesn't know things that are improvable one way or the other.

An agnostic is an atheist who is too worried about his Christian friends calling him "close-minded" to tell them that he doesn't believe in God. Either that or he just hasn't thought his position through. He says, "Well, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God ..." and fails to realize that the lack of a capacity for disproof makes the idea pure fallacy. You can't disprove Santa Claus or Carl Sagan's fire-breathing dragon, either, but you don't see any Santa Claus or fire-breathing dragon agnostics running around.

I have to disagree with you here, Damien. I'm an agnostic because I just don't care whether there is one God, several, or not.

There isn't a required stance on religion, you know. Nobody forces you to choose either for or against. Especially for those of us who live in a country with a low level of preaching.

[Drooling Iguana]

Lack of evidence is evidence of lack. It is up to the party making the claim to provide evidence for it. If none is provided, the claim is said to be false.

Or it's just been covertly moved to Syria.

[Darth Wong]

I have to disagree with you here, Damien. I'm an agnostic because I just don't care whether there is one God, several, or not.

You are confusing "agnostic" with "apathetic".

There isn't a required stance on religion, you know. Nobody forces you to choose either for or against. Especially for those of us who live in a country with a low level of preaching.

It's not a matter of angrily fighting for a side. It is a simple question: do you think there is one? Not how strongly you feel about it, but do you think such a creature exists? Don't tell me you have no opinion at all. And if you refuse to render an opinion because you think there is no evidence either way, then you are guilty of the fallacy which Damien described.

[Eleas]

I have to disagree with you here, Damien. I'm an agnostic because I just don't care whether there is one God, several, or not.

You are confusing "agnostic" with "apathetic".

All right, color me apathetic.

There isn't a required stance on religion, you know. Nobody forces you to choose either for or against. Especially for those of us who live in a country with a low level of preaching.

It's not a matter of angrily fighting for a side. It is a simple question: do you think there is one? Not how strongly you feel about it, but do you think such a creature exists? Don't tell me you have no opinion at all. And if you refuse to render an opinion because you think there is no evidence either way, then you are guilty of the fallacy which Damien described.[/quote]

By that rationale I find myself an occasionally lapsing atheist.

Btw, just being curious. You're arguing that there is no such thing as an agnostic?

[Lagmonster]

I have to disagree with you here, Damien. I'm an agnostic because I just don't care whether there is one God, several, or not.

You are confusing "agnostic" with "apathetic".

All right, color me apathetic.

There's an old joke:

"When someone asks me my religion, I just say I'm an apatheist: The question is no longer interesting, and the answer no longer matters."