Posted on 11/23/2004 12:49:44 PM PST by BushFaninATL
"the first mention of the use of the Bible and a Christian hymnal in the Washington public schools is in connection with a curriculum adopted in 1812, three years after Jefferson has left Washington and the school board for retirement in Virginia." - source
"There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Barton's source that connects Jefferson to the practice of Bible reading." - ibid
David Barton, author of The Myth of Separation, has admitted that many of the "quotes" he used to bolster his claims are either definitely false or questionable.
Thank you for posting.
I'm a product of the NYC 'publik skool' system (50-60's) and I've never seen that document.
One of our founding fathers and a principal author of the constitution evidentally would have disagreed with this opinion.
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?"
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, 1785
And just what the heck are the credentials of Mr. Allison that I should be convinced that Jefferson DID NOT mandate The Bible & Watts Hymnal in the DC school district? I went to your "source" and removed the extension from the address to go to the root website. This is what I found....
http://www.sullivan-county.com
Social Apartheid in Bristol and Tri-Cities
By Lewis Loflin
Welcome to the third-world nation of Appalachia.
Bristol, Virginia and Bristol, Tennessee are at the center of Southern Appalachia, a banana republic, whose many bickering local governments waste more tax dollars with the least results of anywhere in America. They maintain a system best described as Social Apartheid.
No, this has nothing to with race, this region's minority populations are too small for that. If it were race, the government would put a stop to it. Those targeted are white, working class and poor whites that are locked out of almost everything. This system is rigidly enforced in local schools, zoning ordinances, government benefits, and on the job. In many cases better paying jobs are discouraged just to maintain low local wage scales, while many are forced into jobs that don't pay a living wage, then treated like garbage because of it.
(snip – because it just gets stranger & stranger)
I don’t know what this has to do with your “expert,” Jim Allison, but I suspect tinfoil hats are involved. I think I’ll stick with Barton’s version until someone points me to a more credible contradictory source, TYVM.
Madison would spin in his grave if he knew what government did to the Christian religion in our generation. His argument regarding "separation" was that the powers of government and religion should not interfere in each other's affairs, as he feared the possibility that the federal government might one day become as England and establish or sanction a particular faith or denomination as the "official" one. On this he was right.
But Madison never dreamed that government would one day REPRESS the Christian faith by making it illegal to pray in a public building, place Christian icons on public lands, or carry a Bible to school. These things are quantum leaps away from governmental 'establishing' or 'officializing' of a particular religion. In Madison's day the public school books actually quoted from the Bible and taught moral lessons from them. The atheists and anti-Christians attempt to use arguments like Madison's to justify the un-Constitutional suppression of the Christian religion in our land. It doesn't wash, and all this liberal, communist suppression of Christianity will be reversed soon enough, IMO .
Madison was a lot of things but he was a very honest man who would certainly never had twisted the 'separation' of powers to mean that government would OUTLAW the expression or symbolizing of Christianity on all public domains. In any case, Madison was but one voice among many, and the ONLY clause in the Constitution regarding religion and government was clearly written to keep government's hands out of religion, and to let the practice of religion prosper as it pleased the people.
He quotes Barton's book in which Barton supports his claim about Jefferson's influence on the DC school curriculum with the following "Jefferson quote": "I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens."
Barton has since admitted that this quote is unconfirmed. He is unable to find a source for it and no one else has been able to either. Clearly there are many false quotes going around and there is no evidence that this is not one of them. That certainly has to undercut Barton's case.
Barton states: "Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, became the first president of the Washington D. C. public school board, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom. " Note that Barton himself does not claim that Jefferson was responsible for instituting the use of the Bible. Barton just wants his readers to draw that conclusion.
Allison went to the sources quoted by Barton and did not find support for Jefferson's direct influence on the DC curriculum. In one of Barton's references he did find an explanation for the beginning of the use of the Bible in DC schools that was initiated by after Jefferson left. If Barton was interested in honest historical analysis he should have mentioned these other influences. It is possible that no one other than Allison has taken the time to consult Barton's sources.
Did you know that Jefferson compiled something called "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth", in which he cut and pasted parts of the New Testament, removing all references to miracles and to the divinity of Jesus Christ? This book is in the Library of Congress. This doesn't sound like the work of someone who was perfectly satisfied with Christian tradition.
BTW I am an atheist but I don't hate Christians. In fact my own son, whom I love and respect, attends an evangelical church and has considered attending seminary. I'd be happy to accept that Jefferson might have encouraged the use of the Bible in a school curriculum if there was evidence to back it up, but the evidence seems incredibly weak and it doesn't fit in with other things that are known about Jefferson's religious attitudes.
“This webpage probably wouldn't be your cup of tea either, but what do you have to say about Mr. Allison's arguments?”
Hard for me to take Mr. Allison’s comments or his research as credible when he is so obviously biased in favor of the absolute separation of Church & State & makes no bones about his utter disdain for what he terms the “religious right.” I tend to believe those people on the “religious right” who argue that there is no Constitutional basis for such a thing because I find nothing in the plain reading of that document which specifically prohibits: prayers at the opening of Congress, worship being held in government buildings, plaques of the 10 Commandments, or references to God in our anthems, pledges, or printed on our currency. Neither do I see any credible evidence that our Founders (not even Jefferson) considered for one moment that the State needed protection from its religious citizenry or the Churches to which they belonged. No sir, it was & is the citizens of these united States who are protected by the Constitution from the overreaching power of an oppressive government, and not the other way ‘round.
It is difficult for me to take seriously anyone who would write in bold letters:
[Newsflash: Barton now admits this quotation is fabricated! Check here for details.]
And, when I go to that link, I find this statement:
“Barton lists the following quotations as unconfirmed (i.e., no one has been able to trace them to an original source):”
Just how does any serious, scholarly researcher make the outlandish statement that because a quotation is “unconfirmed,” it is “fabricated?” No serious, scholarly researcher would….only lawyers resort to this sort of thing. Not surprising, then, when I find that that is Mr. Allison’s profession. I wouldn’t believe ANYTHING he had to say on that basis, alone. It is my considered opinion that the vast majority of lawyers are whores who will do & say anything, if the price is right. I’ve no reason to believe the Mr. Allison is any better after viewing his work & his associations.
My jaw must've hit the floor. He's making stuff up out of whole cloth.
Separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution. What they meant was that the state can't establish a religion and force people to practice it, as in the Church of England the Pilgrims escaped from when they came here.
The Founding Fathers were NOT atheists. They acknowledge God all through their writings. It's obvious they didn't intend our nation to be atheist.
The ACLU has been WAY out of line in forcing crosses and ten commandments to be removed to accommodate non-believers. They should be counter-sued for discrimination and harassment. Let them prove the founders intended our nation to be atheist.
In the case where the teacher is NOT ALLOWED to present the original historical documents to his class about Thanks Giving, because they mention God- What gives the ACLU the right to force a teacher to present a false history of Thanks Giving to his class?
( I never learned about this in School- I was taught the Indian version)
What happens if the ACLU decides that children need to be taught that the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, and 2+2=7 because the real facts might "offend"someone?
The Anti Christian Lawyers Union needs to be stopped and stopped now. They have NO RIGHT to inflict all the damage they have on our countries heritage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.