Fortunately for Barton, there is no legal definition of a historian because he may as well be calling himself an astronaut. It's safe to say no university that wanted to hold on to its accreditation would hire Barton to teach history. In fact, Barton's degree in Bible studies from Oral Roberts does not qualify him to teach history at the grade school level. Barton is just another Christian grifter, exploiting the gullible and the stupid.
It reminds me of that creationist (I forget which one; they're so interchaneably stupid) who claims he spent several years teaching biology. Yeah; no. Any actually accredited institution which would hire that guy with his fake doctorate from a diploma mill would have its accreditation yanked in a nanosecond. He's a biologist in the same way that Barton's a historian.
Well Dumb Idiot Ken Ham comes to mind. He claims to be a one time science teacher who eventually became a crusader for young earth, anti-evolution, creation fantasies when a student in his class allegedly said that evolution have rendered the bible worthless.
You're not talking about Michael Behe and Lehigh, are you? Lehigh is a legit University with a legit biology department. They have actively published statements against creationism and even against their own professor's specific views. As far as I can tell, Behe has kept his position there by teaching regular old biology on his day job, and saving his creationism for books and right-wing lecture circuits.
No. Behe does have a legit degree and is at a legit institution. BTW, those accomplishments by Behe include getting creamed at the Dover intelligent design trial, which I'm old enough to remember. Apparently the creationists thought that Behe's legit credentials would be the ticket to overawing the judge in that trial, but that didn't happen. That's the problem with creationists who do have legit credentials and relevant experience: they're fronting for the idiots who don't. The cognitive dissonance must be horrific for those people. Either they ignore everything in their field, all of their expertise and learning--or they lose a religious community that seems to mean a lot to them. Unfortunately, most creationists see this problem in binary terms. There are some who try to straddle that artificial line, but how successful they are is debatable.
Yeah I followed that one too. Good overall prep by the team, and great cross-examination of Behe. Looking back, the only thing that would've made the case better is if Barbara Forrest (or was it Nick Matzke?) had found "cdesign proponentsists" in time for the trial.
These days, one need only read a headline one likes to become a scholar on any topic. It's called "Doing your own research*." No education required, no need to put in the work.
* "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." - Inigio Montoya
"But they didn’t have to help him promote his lies."
That really says it all. The ACLU has limited resources, why choose this case? Why lie to help a liar? At this time? It's mindboggling and mindbogglingly stupid.
Chose to do what? Is their history full of not just supporting the right to utter objectionable speech but of supporting and repeating the objectionable speech and the utterers of it as if it were true?
It is in most circumstances...but it is also the freedom to say "my client is an a$$hole and a liar. But an a$$hole and a liar whose 1a rights the government must respect." Which I think is what Hemant wanted the ACLU to say.
And yet this was the Orange One's biggest day of fundraising. The Right has doubled down on The Persecuted Orange Deity to ensure he is returned to his rightful place as leader of the Free World.
Assuming the Rethuglikkkans aren't lying about that 34 milski (1 million for each "guilty" :)), those small donors are pretty much tapped out. And Trump faces more trials. He's bankrupting his useful morons.
Odd that this was not in my ST this morning. May have happened after they went to press and only turned up online, meaning I won't see it until tomorrow's paper.
If defending free speech ruins your day, fine. The ACLU has a long history of defending UNpopular views. The view that no god exists was so unpopular that people holding it were tortured and executed. If churches were not challenged they would still be burning people at the stake. Just because you do not like a view does not give you a right to suppress it. You may speak against something you dislike but you cannot stop the viewpoint being expressed.
If the viewpoint in question is a demonstrable lie, being used as propaganda to the detriment of the public at large, then no, I don't recognize anyone's right to express it on the side of a 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 bus. There are plenty of private companies which will rent out a rolling billboard for any bullshit Barton wants to spread, and there are valid arguments to be made for 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 being protected free speech, but he should absolutely 𝘯𝘰𝘵 be allowed to use 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺-𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘷𝘦𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘴 for the purpose.
Your idea upthread to simply not sell ad space on public transport is probably the sanest option, all around. That way, 𝘯𝘰𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 gets to be in the position of deciding what speech is acceptable and what isn't, and 𝘯𝘰𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 gets to use bus and train riders as a captive audience. Reducing the omnipresence of advertising, no matter what the ads are for, is IMO a good thing. Ideally, the only ads present in or on public transport vehicles or stations would be for the public transit system itself, and other public services.
Of course, then we run into the problem of public transportation being so inadequately funded that it has to fall back on selling ad space on the sides of buses and the inside of subway cars to make up the costs fares aren't enough to cover, which is a sad state of affairs in itself...
I have always supported the ACLU even when they were on the 'wrong' side. But lately the wrong side is no longer using their own brand of truths to influence people, they are outright lying. It's no longer about the Christian smug mantra "I know the truth". Now it's about outright lies and "alternative facts". When did we become a nation that rewards liers? Is this where we've been heading for awhile now? After all, to get a job in this country one usually has to lie...or at least stretch the truth. When we get the job we're often under-qualified and we're told "fake 'till you make it". The first time I heard that phrase was for a sales job I was duped into taking because it was toted as a tech support job with on the job training. Today it seems that "fake it..." mantra is common in workplaces all over. We have taught our youth that lying is not only ok but a requirement.
Many people have said that all politicians lie, that it just goes with the job. So when Trump came along with his lies so obvious that he sounds like a 5-year-old describing how it was actually a dragon that stole the cookies, many people just said; "well they all lie so..." Millions of people go to church every week and as an atheist I have to assume that they are taught to lie as well. Lying is in our culture, we shouldn't be surprised that it now used to manipulate the masses.
Q: "When did we become a nation that rewards liers?"
A: When it allowed some people to keep people prisoner just because of skin colour.
It hasn't changed enough since then.
I have met USAians visiting Norway and being surprised because Norwegians mostly look happy and content. Because Norway, with welfare programs, state supported health care etc, is communistic and everybody should be sad they told me.
I had a coworker consplain* to me that when Russians were visiting New York, they asked to see Harlem. When taken to Harlem, they denied that it was Harlem because it was so much better than they were told, and much better than living in the USSR. I was a bit dubious at the time (having caught on that he was full of BS), but knowing what I know now, it was simultaneously an attack on "socialism/communism" and racist (because, you know, black people have it so good in 'Merica).
And what about the parents who punish their children for lying and swearing only to lie and swear themselves? Don't you think this is the best example of parental hypocrisy right here? I think so.
Sure. Not so much the swearing, because I don't care. But lying--definitely. I'd hope that said children would eventually learn to spot lies coming a mile off and reject them. But I'm probably speaking from privilege here. I got out, rejected the lies I was fed, and hope others can as well.
"...which is to inform the public about the role that the Founders' religious faith played in the creation of the nation and the drafting of the Constitution."
There were precisely SEVEN founders who were key to the shaping of our secular government. They were:
George Washington (Deist)
Thomas Jefferson (Deist)
John Adams (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin (Deist)
Alexander Hamilton (Christian, when it was convenient. He otherwise ignored his religion)
John Jay (Orthodox Christian)
James Madison (Deist)
As for the Constitution, the architect was James Madison. A staunch supporter of church-state separation. As has been pointed out time after time, that document (the law of the land) makes NO mention of the Christian religion. None. "The Year of Our Lord," Christians say? An outmoded dating system.
And don't get me started on Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli (1796), which is also the law of the land to this day. That's the article that states, in no uncertain terms, that the government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.
Maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that David Barton LIES for a living, particularly as regards the founding fathers in general and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in particular. Shall we all remember that his book on Jefferson was PULLED because it so badly misrepresented the man that the publisher would not be associated with it?
Free speech is one thing. Free speech which promotes falsehoods as though they were facts need to be labeled as such, and if the author doesn't like it, TOUGH.
Orwell was smart enough to see that the government benefits from lying, but I don't think he foresaw people wanting to be lied to. (And I'm not talking about the "Does this make me look fat?" sort of lies people want.)
And the publisher (Thomas Nelson) is CHRISTIAN. How bad does a Christian book have to be when a Christian publisher yanks it from distribution, citing "lack of confidence in the details").
Unfortunately, the recent trend of 'say little, show a QR code' means ads like these are probably immune from legal challenges about false advertising, lying, etc. There's no crap in the ad, it's all after you follow the link. And no, 'but Washington never did what he's doing in the picture' isn't a complaint that's going anywhere. Pretty much every picture you see on an ad is staged.
After reading this, I sat for just a moment and wondered what the world would be like if Christians were abruptly incapable of lying. Then I realized it would probably start a war( or several wars) in short order, and gave up on the idea.
Any organization with a blanket mission like the ACLU's is going to be wrong at times, particularly when they address issues like free speech. What bothers me here is that Barton isn't just wrong, he's willfully and deliberately wrong and has the specific goal of pushing others toward ignorance and misinformation. The ACLU shouldn't be 'helping' Barton get more attention under those circumstances, and I'm concerned that what we're really seeing is specific political leanings from an organization that should, by rights, be relatively neutral. Only time will tell.
1. There is a podcast about a mormon woman who made a New Years resolution to tell the truth. It cost her her marriage, her family, and her job. She was happier as a result.
2. How the babel fish caused more and bloodier wars by breaking down the barriers to communication.
3. In the Wheel of Time, the Aes Sedai were incapable of lying. As a result, they were extremely adept at misdirection. "When I said 'I will cause you no harm,' that didn't mean I am required to save you."
It wouldn't surprise me that the ACLU isn't immune to tRumpism.
If they were aware that lying exists but they were incapable of lying, they would probably burst by the time they were 30, trying to do it so hard they just explode. Sorta like the pen scene in Liar Liar.
If they were unaware that lying exists, then it would certainly start wars. But really they would not be able to lie to themselves about what they really believe, and I would hope that they see christianity, and religion in general, as the steaming pile of donkey dung it really is. They would not be able to claim they really think the sun stopped in the sky, a woman instantly turned into salt, the entire world flooded to cover the mountains in 40 days rain and so many other completely impossible claims the bible makes as true. Even the slowest children at some point question some claims in the bible. If they were incapable of lying, we wouldn't have the excuse that some of the stories are metaphors and some are real, because it is a lie.
For the sake of argument, let's say that Washington was a devout Christian. So what?
Washington and TJ and several other "founding fathers" were slave holders. Does that mean we have to always be a slaveholding nation? Of course not. Likewise, even if we were founded as a Christian nation, it doesn't mean we have to or should remain a Christian nation.
According to some of these nutty Christians, there's not a lot wrong with slavery. Or – and hear me out here – the slavery of the Bible was not proper slavery. You seem to forget the sheer capacity for bullshit these people seem to have. 😇
The ACLU’s behavior is very disappointing in this case. Apparently, they believe, like the rest of the GOP and Christian nationalists, that freedom of speech is paramount regardless if that speech spreads lies and misinformation. Where do we draw the line anymore?
It amazes me how Christian nationalists are so good at insidiously inserting their lies into the general population. These ads are a good example. How many people will question the veracity of these ads? Probably, very few. Americans have forgotten their history and Christian nationalists have used their amnesia as a weapon to place false claims in their heads.
The GOP is working hard to remove our history from school textbooks and curriculums, so they can feed their false narrative that America’s founders wanted a Christian nation. They are calling for the Ten Commandments in classrooms to control children’s behavior. They are inserting the Bible into public school curriculums to shape children’s morality leading children to believe you need their religion to be a good, moral person.
The GOP are holding three day paid teacher seminars in Florida force feeding these teachers Christian nationalist propaganda about the founding of our nation on their religion and their god. I would hope many teachers see through these charades, but teachers can be Christian nationalists too. This gives these teachers a legitimate platform to force these false beliefs onto their students.
The GOP proclaims that schools are indoctrinating our children into homosexuality/transgenderism and, gasp, actual critical thinkers. Yet, they are the ones doing the indoctrinating using lies and more lies about our nation’s history teaching children there is only one true religion and god based on their false Christian teachings concerning the founding of our nation.
The Christ nationalist strategy to bring their propaganda into the public education system is devious and smart. They will get to our children when they are young, when they don’t question what they are taught, when they are trusting of their elders and leaders, when their minds are at their most malleable. They will raise a generation of Christian nationalists who will tear down the last remnants of our democracy.
The ACLU has not had a problem with suing to defend liars and their public lies for, well, decades now. Which is why, despite being endlessly solicited, I don't give them money. Other people may disagree, but I don't think that's ethical behavior.
"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened & liberal policy which has marked the present age would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see their religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of Society."
-- George Washington in Philadelphia, in a letter to Sir Edward Newenham in Ireland dated Saturday, October 20th, 1792
Washington was speaking of the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Newenham's Ireland. Conflicts between two sects of "the Religion of Love."
I think the ACLU should be a little more circumspect in who they help. I understand their mission is to defend peoples' First Amendment rights and people have such a right to espouse lies and balderdash, but I had enough of their poor choices a few years back and cut them off. I don't believe they should be defending his lies which he uses to manipulate low-information christians - and red states school curricula.
Both of the paintings in question are fabrications. As Andrew Seidel pointed out, Washington kept whatever beliefs he held very close, including in his correspondence with friends and family. Further, Martha Washington burned the correspondence between them after his death. In public and in private, Washington never expressed strong religious views. Period.
The painting of Washington praying in the snow is pure artistic license. It never happened. Likewise, the painting depicting all the delegates to the Constitutional Convention signing it together never happened. The actual document was signed over a period of months as all the delegates had left Philadelphia once the convention was over. And we all know the Constitution itself makes no mention of god, Jesus, the bible, or christianity - and it could have if that was the intent of the Framers. But their intent was to create a secular government, not a religious one, and the views of the Founders on religion were quite diverse with almost none falling into what would today be called fundamental evangelicalism.
Frankly, I see a world of difference between advertising a Broadway show that happens to be about a religion and promoting christianity on public transportation. The ACLU had a choice about whether to take this case. As the movie says, 'they chose poorly.'
I’m caught between a rock and a hard place on this. I remember seeing the movie about the ACLU defending the Nazis right to march in Skokie. I understood why the ACLU did (and a Jewish lawyer no less). However, the ACLU using the Book of Mormon as a reasoning smacks of bullshit. It’s a play! However, yes, Baron has a right to be a liar who lies (same with Buttlicker, though his views are so abhorrent). We all know there can be consequences for said speech. What consequences for Barton’s lies if the ACLU won’t come clean? I wonder who approved that ACLU statement that echoes First Liberty? Did no one notice until it was too late? That’s shit quality control.
Henry Brueckner’s painting ‘The Prayer at Valley Forge’ could also be used to “prove” the United (not so much these days) States was founded on principles other than Christian by plastering the word ‘DRUID?’ inferring that George was proposing marriage to a young fir tree.
Glad to do it. Wish I had access to a library computer so that I could make an emoji smiling with a full set of teeth. Emoticons just don't cut it.
(Lack of access to a library computer is why I haven't been able to upvote anyone for the most part for a week. I can upvote replies to my comments but that's it)
AFAIK there was definitely a market for teeth – that had fallen out of someone's head or recovered from corpses or whatever in order to make false teeth. I used to know a guy – in fact I went to college with him who worked his way through by making bootleg sets of false teeth. Apparently the market was essentially not free. And bootleg stuff was much cheaper. Long time ago mind.
Fortunately for Barton, there is no legal definition of a historian because he may as well be calling himself an astronaut. It's safe to say no university that wanted to hold on to its accreditation would hire Barton to teach history. In fact, Barton's degree in Bible studies from Oral Roberts does not qualify him to teach history at the grade school level. Barton is just another Christian grifter, exploiting the gullible and the stupid.
It reminds me of that creationist (I forget which one; they're so interchaneably stupid) who claims he spent several years teaching biology. Yeah; no. Any actually accredited institution which would hire that guy with his fake doctorate from a diploma mill would have its accreditation yanked in a nanosecond. He's a biologist in the same way that Barton's a historian.
Up vote. I think Creationists are convinced science operates the way they do, and just makes stuff up and goes with what makes them feel good.
There are a few who do have legit degrees (Georgia Purdom comes to mind). They must completely ignore everything they learned.
They paper over the contradiction with cognitive dissonance.
Well Dumb Idiot Ken Ham comes to mind. He claims to be a one time science teacher who eventually became a crusader for young earth, anti-evolution, creation fantasies when a student in his class allegedly said that evolution have rendered the bible worthless.
You're not talking about Michael Behe and Lehigh, are you? Lehigh is a legit University with a legit biology department. They have actively published statements against creationism and even against their own professor's specific views. As far as I can tell, Behe has kept his position there by teaching regular old biology on his day job, and saving his creationism for books and right-wing lecture circuits.
No. Behe does have a legit degree and is at a legit institution. BTW, those accomplishments by Behe include getting creamed at the Dover intelligent design trial, which I'm old enough to remember. Apparently the creationists thought that Behe's legit credentials would be the ticket to overawing the judge in that trial, but that didn't happen. That's the problem with creationists who do have legit credentials and relevant experience: they're fronting for the idiots who don't. The cognitive dissonance must be horrific for those people. Either they ignore everything in their field, all of their expertise and learning--or they lose a religious community that seems to mean a lot to them. Unfortunately, most creationists see this problem in binary terms. There are some who try to straddle that artificial line, but how successful they are is debatable.
Yeah I followed that one too. Good overall prep by the team, and great cross-examination of Behe. Looking back, the only thing that would've made the case better is if Barbara Forrest (or was it Nick Matzke?) had found "cdesign proponentsists" in time for the trial.
I think you overestimate the qualification for grade school teachers in much of the country.
Here in FL, my great-nephew teaches at the local charter school, as long as he is working on his teaching degree, he can teach with them.
I'm not sure every state requires that the degree be in education. And I seem to recall that several will take a substitute who's breathing.
That explains all the trolls who claim to be historians and spout complete lies and claim them the truth.
These days, one need only read a headline one likes to become a scholar on any topic. It's called "Doing your own research*." No education required, no need to put in the work.
* "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." - Inigio Montoya
🤣😂🤣😉
"But they didn’t have to help him promote his lies."
That really says it all. The ACLU has limited resources, why choose this case? Why lie to help a liar? At this time? It's mindboggling and mindbogglingly stupid.
You're right. They chose to. They have a pattern that goes back at least decades of chosing to.
Chose to do what? Is their history full of not just supporting the right to utter objectionable speech but of supporting and repeating the objectionable speech and the utterers of it as if it were true?
What other examples are you referring to?
I didn't refer to examples, I'm asking about them.
Free speech should be a freedom to lie.
It is in most circumstances...but it is also the freedom to say "my client is an a$$hole and a liar. But an a$$hole and a liar whose 1a rights the government must respect." Which I think is what Hemant wanted the ACLU to say.
Sorry, ACLU- despite your best efforts to ruin it, I'm still gonna have a good day.
Because I woke up this morning and immediately remembered that 𝘋𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯!
Front page of my newspaper is all Trump, with the word GUILTY in yuge letters above Sleepy Don Trump's orange visage.
Made my coffee all the better.
And yet this was the Orange One's biggest day of fundraising. The Right has doubled down on The Persecuted Orange Deity to ensure he is returned to his rightful place as leader of the Free World.
Dictatorforadayshow.com
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/31/trump-campaign-donations-record.html
Assuming the Rethuglikkkans aren't lying about that 34 milski (1 million for each "guilty" :)), those small donors are pretty much tapped out. And Trump faces more trials. He's bankrupting his useful morons.
As one of the other Commenters recently replied to my comment of a similar vein: https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2024/05/12
That commenter was Zorgin. I posted that Doonesbury strip before him. :)
I liked seeing this one.
𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐟’𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐟𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐭 𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/florida-sheriffs-office-fires-deputy-who-fatally-shot-black-airman-at-home/
Getting a paywall, for some reason.
https://apnews.com/article/airman-shot-florida-deputy-roger-fortson-c616444086b39d20a80f35ba86ec531b
Odd that this was not in my ST this morning. May have happened after they went to press and only turned up online, meaning I won't see it until tomorrow's paper.
If defending free speech ruins your day, fine. The ACLU has a long history of defending UNpopular views. The view that no god exists was so unpopular that people holding it were tortured and executed. If churches were not challenged they would still be burning people at the stake. Just because you do not like a view does not give you a right to suppress it. You may speak against something you dislike but you cannot stop the viewpoint being expressed.
If the viewpoint in question is a demonstrable lie, being used as propaganda to the detriment of the public at large, then no, I don't recognize anyone's right to express it on the side of a 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 bus. There are plenty of private companies which will rent out a rolling billboard for any bullshit Barton wants to spread, and there are valid arguments to be made for 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 being protected free speech, but he should absolutely 𝘯𝘰𝘵 be allowed to use 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺-𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘷𝘦𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘴 for the purpose.
Should anyone be allowed to use city owned vehicles to spread propaganda (political, religious, or commercial)?
Your idea upthread to simply not sell ad space on public transport is probably the sanest option, all around. That way, 𝘯𝘰𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 gets to be in the position of deciding what speech is acceptable and what isn't, and 𝘯𝘰𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 gets to use bus and train riders as a captive audience. Reducing the omnipresence of advertising, no matter what the ads are for, is IMO a good thing. Ideally, the only ads present in or on public transport vehicles or stations would be for the public transit system itself, and other public services.
Of course, then we run into the problem of public transportation being so inadequately funded that it has to fall back on selling ad space on the sides of buses and the inside of subway cars to make up the costs fares aren't enough to cover, which is a sad state of affairs in itself...
I'm with you.
I have always supported the ACLU even when they were on the 'wrong' side. But lately the wrong side is no longer using their own brand of truths to influence people, they are outright lying. It's no longer about the Christian smug mantra "I know the truth". Now it's about outright lies and "alternative facts". When did we become a nation that rewards liers? Is this where we've been heading for awhile now? After all, to get a job in this country one usually has to lie...or at least stretch the truth. When we get the job we're often under-qualified and we're told "fake 'till you make it". The first time I heard that phrase was for a sales job I was duped into taking because it was toted as a tech support job with on the job training. Today it seems that "fake it..." mantra is common in workplaces all over. We have taught our youth that lying is not only ok but a requirement.
Many people have said that all politicians lie, that it just goes with the job. So when Trump came along with his lies so obvious that he sounds like a 5-year-old describing how it was actually a dragon that stole the cookies, many people just said; "well they all lie so..." Millions of people go to church every week and as an atheist I have to assume that they are taught to lie as well. Lying is in our culture, we shouldn't be surprised that it now used to manipulate the masses.
Q: "When did we become a nation that rewards liers?"
A: When it allowed some people to keep people prisoner just because of skin colour.
It hasn't changed enough since then.
I have met USAians visiting Norway and being surprised because Norwegians mostly look happy and content. Because Norway, with welfare programs, state supported health care etc, is communistic and everybody should be sad they told me.
I had a coworker consplain* to me that when Russians were visiting New York, they asked to see Harlem. When taken to Harlem, they denied that it was Harlem because it was so much better than they were told, and much better than living in the USSR. I was a bit dubious at the time (having caught on that he was full of BS), but knowing what I know now, it was simultaneously an attack on "socialism/communism" and racist (because, you know, black people have it so good in 'Merica).
* Conservatives tell me things
And what about the parents who punish their children for lying and swearing only to lie and swear themselves? Don't you think this is the best example of parental hypocrisy right here? I think so.
Sure. Not so much the swearing, because I don't care. But lying--definitely. I'd hope that said children would eventually learn to spot lies coming a mile off and reject them. But I'm probably speaking from privilege here. I got out, rejected the lies I was fed, and hope others can as well.
I tried pinning it on giants, not that the Jolly Green Giant commercials of the late '60s and early '70s had anything to do with it.
"...which is to inform the public about the role that the Founders' religious faith played in the creation of the nation and the drafting of the Constitution."
There were precisely SEVEN founders who were key to the shaping of our secular government. They were:
George Washington (Deist)
Thomas Jefferson (Deist)
John Adams (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin (Deist)
Alexander Hamilton (Christian, when it was convenient. He otherwise ignored his religion)
John Jay (Orthodox Christian)
James Madison (Deist)
As for the Constitution, the architect was James Madison. A staunch supporter of church-state separation. As has been pointed out time after time, that document (the law of the land) makes NO mention of the Christian religion. None. "The Year of Our Lord," Christians say? An outmoded dating system.
And don't get me started on Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli (1796), which is also the law of the land to this day. That's the article that states, in no uncertain terms, that the government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.
A Deist states that there is not less than one god and a Theist states there is not more than one god.
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝐶𝐿𝑈’𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎 𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑛𝑜 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡...
Maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that David Barton LIES for a living, particularly as regards the founding fathers in general and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in particular. Shall we all remember that his book on Jefferson was PULLED because it so badly misrepresented the man that the publisher would not be associated with it?
Free speech is one thing. Free speech which promotes falsehoods as though they were facts need to be labeled as such, and if the author doesn't like it, TOUGH.
"David Barton LIES for a living"
Could he be in the running for convicted felon Trump's VP nomination?
Minister of Propaganda. Trump's new cabinet position.
Minister of Alternate Truth.
Orwell was smart enough to see that the government benefits from lying, but I don't think he foresaw people wanting to be lied to. (And I'm not talking about the "Does this make me look fat?" sort of lies people want.)
You just gave me a nightmarish feeling. Gaaaah.
And the publisher (Thomas Nelson) is CHRISTIAN. How bad does a Christian book have to be when a Christian publisher yanks it from distribution, citing "lack of confidence in the details").
Unfortunately, the recent trend of 'say little, show a QR code' means ads like these are probably immune from legal challenges about false advertising, lying, etc. There's no crap in the ad, it's all after you follow the link. And no, 'but Washington never did what he's doing in the picture' isn't a complaint that's going anywhere. Pretty much every picture you see on an ad is staged.
After reading this, I sat for just a moment and wondered what the world would be like if Christians were abruptly incapable of lying. Then I realized it would probably start a war( or several wars) in short order, and gave up on the idea.
Any organization with a blanket mission like the ACLU's is going to be wrong at times, particularly when they address issues like free speech. What bothers me here is that Barton isn't just wrong, he's willfully and deliberately wrong and has the specific goal of pushing others toward ignorance and misinformation. The ACLU shouldn't be 'helping' Barton get more attention under those circumstances, and I'm concerned that what we're really seeing is specific political leanings from an organization that should, by rights, be relatively neutral. Only time will tell.
This makes me think of a few things:
1. There is a podcast about a mormon woman who made a New Years resolution to tell the truth. It cost her her marriage, her family, and her job. She was happier as a result.
2. How the babel fish caused more and bloodier wars by breaking down the barriers to communication.
3. In the Wheel of Time, the Aes Sedai were incapable of lying. As a result, they were extremely adept at misdirection. "When I said 'I will cause you no harm,' that didn't mean I am required to save you."
It wouldn't surprise me that the ACLU isn't immune to tRumpism.
If they were aware that lying exists but they were incapable of lying, they would probably burst by the time they were 30, trying to do it so hard they just explode. Sorta like the pen scene in Liar Liar.
If they were unaware that lying exists, then it would certainly start wars. But really they would not be able to lie to themselves about what they really believe, and I would hope that they see christianity, and religion in general, as the steaming pile of donkey dung it really is. They would not be able to claim they really think the sun stopped in the sky, a woman instantly turned into salt, the entire world flooded to cover the mountains in 40 days rain and so many other completely impossible claims the bible makes as true. Even the slowest children at some point question some claims in the bible. If they were incapable of lying, we wouldn't have the excuse that some of the stories are metaphors and some are real, because it is a lie.
Some of them don't seem to be able to tell the difference between truth and lies – whatever is most convenient for them is fine it seems.
"A man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point where he does not discern any truth."
-- Dostoevsky, from "The Brothers Karamazov"
“You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman
For the sake of argument, let's say that Washington was a devout Christian. So what?
Washington and TJ and several other "founding fathers" were slave holders. Does that mean we have to always be a slaveholding nation? Of course not. Likewise, even if we were founded as a Christian nation, it doesn't mean we have to or should remain a Christian nation.
According to some of these nutty Christians, there's not a lot wrong with slavery. Or – and hear me out here – the slavery of the Bible was not proper slavery. You seem to forget the sheer capacity for bullshit these people seem to have. 😇
The ACLU’s behavior is very disappointing in this case. Apparently, they believe, like the rest of the GOP and Christian nationalists, that freedom of speech is paramount regardless if that speech spreads lies and misinformation. Where do we draw the line anymore?
It amazes me how Christian nationalists are so good at insidiously inserting their lies into the general population. These ads are a good example. How many people will question the veracity of these ads? Probably, very few. Americans have forgotten their history and Christian nationalists have used their amnesia as a weapon to place false claims in their heads.
The GOP is working hard to remove our history from school textbooks and curriculums, so they can feed their false narrative that America’s founders wanted a Christian nation. They are calling for the Ten Commandments in classrooms to control children’s behavior. They are inserting the Bible into public school curriculums to shape children’s morality leading children to believe you need their religion to be a good, moral person.
The GOP are holding three day paid teacher seminars in Florida force feeding these teachers Christian nationalist propaganda about the founding of our nation on their religion and their god. I would hope many teachers see through these charades, but teachers can be Christian nationalists too. This gives these teachers a legitimate platform to force these false beliefs onto their students.
The GOP proclaims that schools are indoctrinating our children into homosexuality/transgenderism and, gasp, actual critical thinkers. Yet, they are the ones doing the indoctrinating using lies and more lies about our nation’s history teaching children there is only one true religion and god based on their false Christian teachings concerning the founding of our nation.
The Christ nationalist strategy to bring their propaganda into the public education system is devious and smart. They will get to our children when they are young, when they don’t question what they are taught, when they are trusting of their elders and leaders, when their minds are at their most malleable. They will raise a generation of Christian nationalists who will tear down the last remnants of our democracy.
And anybody who objects to this is told, "Just do your own research. WE did!" Precisely.
The truth does not matter to a cult.
The ACLU has not had a problem with suing to defend liars and their public lies for, well, decades now. Which is why, despite being endlessly solicited, I don't give them money. Other people may disagree, but I don't think that's ethical behavior.
I agree.
Hey, Dave Fartin'...
"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened & liberal policy which has marked the present age would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see their religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of Society."
-- George Washington in Philadelphia, in a letter to Sir Edward Newenham in Ireland dated Saturday, October 20th, 1792
Washington was speaking of the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Newenham's Ireland. Conflicts between two sects of "the Religion of Love."
A Conflict that has lasted for another 2 centuries.
Great quote! [cut - paste!]
Can't go wrong when you get them in their own words.
I think the ACLU should be a little more circumspect in who they help. I understand their mission is to defend peoples' First Amendment rights and people have such a right to espouse lies and balderdash, but I had enough of their poor choices a few years back and cut them off. I don't believe they should be defending his lies which he uses to manipulate low-information christians - and red states school curricula.
I got a money beg from ACLU in the junk mail folder this morning...
Irony is never in short supply.
Both of the paintings in question are fabrications. As Andrew Seidel pointed out, Washington kept whatever beliefs he held very close, including in his correspondence with friends and family. Further, Martha Washington burned the correspondence between them after his death. In public and in private, Washington never expressed strong religious views. Period.
The painting of Washington praying in the snow is pure artistic license. It never happened. Likewise, the painting depicting all the delegates to the Constitutional Convention signing it together never happened. The actual document was signed over a period of months as all the delegates had left Philadelphia once the convention was over. And we all know the Constitution itself makes no mention of god, Jesus, the bible, or christianity - and it could have if that was the intent of the Framers. But their intent was to create a secular government, not a religious one, and the views of the Founders on religion were quite diverse with almost none falling into what would today be called fundamental evangelicalism.
Frankly, I see a world of difference between advertising a Broadway show that happens to be about a religion and promoting christianity on public transportation. The ACLU had a choice about whether to take this case. As the movie says, 'they chose poorly.'
The ACLU has limited resources and that it chooses to use them for this nut shows an appalling lack of judgement.
I’m caught between a rock and a hard place on this. I remember seeing the movie about the ACLU defending the Nazis right to march in Skokie. I understood why the ACLU did (and a Jewish lawyer no less). However, the ACLU using the Book of Mormon as a reasoning smacks of bullshit. It’s a play! However, yes, Baron has a right to be a liar who lies (same with Buttlicker, though his views are so abhorrent). We all know there can be consequences for said speech. What consequences for Barton’s lies if the ACLU won’t come clean? I wonder who approved that ACLU statement that echoes First Liberty? Did no one notice until it was too late? That’s shit quality control.
Henry Brueckner’s painting ‘The Prayer at Valley Forge’ could also be used to “prove” the United (not so much these days) States was founded on principles other than Christian by plastering the word ‘DRUID?’ inferring that George was proposing marriage to a young fir tree.
"...inferring that George was proposing marriage to a young fir tree."
After what he did to that cherry tree, I'd be nervous.
CHERRY TREE (to fir tree): "He's mad, I tell you! Mad!"
And has wooden teeth!
Thought people might like to see the real story on Washington's choppers
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/false-teeth/
Finally the truth about his false teeth. Thanks NOGODZ20. Food for thought. Chow down.
Glad to do it. Wish I had access to a library computer so that I could make an emoji smiling with a full set of teeth. Emoticons just don't cut it.
(Lack of access to a library computer is why I haven't been able to upvote anyone for the most part for a week. I can upvote replies to my comments but that's it)
AFAIK there was definitely a market for teeth – that had fallen out of someone's head or recovered from corpses or whatever in order to make false teeth. I used to know a guy – in fact I went to college with him who worked his way through by making bootleg sets of false teeth. Apparently the market was essentially not free. And bootleg stuff was much cheaper. Long time ago mind.