America the Ignorant - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/26/2010 11:56:35 AM · #52

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

An interesting notion is that the Man of Science (like Scalvert or such) will argue that knowledge of Science is the most important thing to avoid being ignorant on.

An interesting notion is that some people make broad generalizations based upon their own personal, unsubstantiated assumptions. I'm pretty sure Scalvert would regard a basic comprehension of science, history, geography, math and any other form of factual knowledge to be equally essential to society. As amply demonstrated by the consequences of blind intolerance, religious dogma and global warming denial, ignorance may actually be toxic to civilization

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/26/2010 12:08:12 PM · #53

Five defining characteristics of stupidity, as outlined in Rick Schenkman's "Just How Stupid are We?":

Originally posted by Rick Schenkman:

Five defining characteristics of stupidity, it seems to me, are readily apparent. First, is sheer ignorance: Ignorance of critical facts about important events in the news, and ignorance of how our government functions and who's in charge. Second, is negligence: The disinclination to seek reliable sources of information about important news events. Third, is wooden-headedness, as the historian Barbara Tuchman defined it: The inclination to believe what we want to believe regardless of the facts. Fourth, is shortsightedness: The support of public policies that are mutually contradictory, or contrary to the country's long-term interests. Fifth, and finally, is a broad category I call bone-headedness, for want of a better name: The susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.

08/26/2010 12:09:24 PM · #54

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Five defining characteristics of stupidity, as outlined in Rick Schenkman's "Just How Stupid are We?"

Yes, that was my favorite part of the article.

Today's red flag on ignorance.

Message edited by author 2010-08-26 12:52:40.

08/26/2010 01:38:15 PM · #55

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Five defining characteristics of stupidity, as outlined in Rick Schenkman's "Just How Stupid are We?"

Yes, that was my favorite part of the article.

Today's red flag on ignorance.

Whatever Glenn Beck is doing (and I'm sure he's up to no good), I can't see this guy as being much different. His article mearly defines anything Beck says as de facto "pseudo-history" and replaces it with his own masked pseudo-history. Christianity did not play an important role in the founding of this country? (Something Bunch calls "much-debunked") That's nearly as revisionist as anything Beck could come up with unless Bunch means to quibble on the definition of "founding".

08/26/2010 01:52:43 PM · #56

Maybe my point is to bemoan that this country is so friggin polarized. If one doesn't like Glenn Beck, must we then run into this guy's arms (or someone like him)? Where are the true moderates among us?

I'm thoroughly enjoying the series John Adams (a HBO show) on DVD. Last night Franklin had a wonderful line stating that he was an "extreme moderate". Lovely! I, too, am an extreme moderate.

08/26/2010 02:15:22 PM · #57

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Christianity did not play an important role in the founding of this country? (Something Bunch calls "much-debunked") That's nearly as revisionist as anything Beck could come up with unless Bunch means to quibble on the definition of "founding".

That's not what he said. Bunch suggested that America's creation was not rooted in Christianity.. and it certainly wasn't. This is not revisionist or pseudo-history, it's a fact (and another pathetic example of public ignorance). The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams in 1796 with unanimous approval from the senate, flatly declares that, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Amusing side note: the broker of this particular treaty was born within walking distance of my house, and the local high school is named after him.

Many (though not all) of America's founders were deeply religious men, but they very clearly understood the need to distance government from religion to ensure freedom and intentionally omitted any reference to god in the Constitution that forms the basis of this country.

Message edited by author 2010-08-26 14:18:54.

08/26/2010 04:23:45 PM · #58

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Christianity did not play an important role in the founding of this country? (Something Bunch calls "much-debunked") That's nearly as revisionist as anything Beck could come up with unless Bunch means to quibble on the definition of "founding".

That's not what he said. Bunch suggested that America's creation was not rooted in Christianity.. and it certainly wasn't. This is not revisionist or pseudo-history, it's a fact (and another pathetic example of public ignorance). The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams in 1796 with unanimous approval from the senate, flatly declares that, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Amusing side note: the broker of this particular treaty was born within walking distance of my house, and the local high school is named after him.

Many (though not all) of America's founders were deeply religious men, but they very clearly understood the need to distance government from religion to ensure freedom and intentionally omitted any reference to god in the Constitution that forms the basis of this country.

Well, I don't really disagree with that. But is Bunch somehow painting Beck as saying such a thing? Is anybody arguing that we set up the United States so that we could have a Christian theocratic state? The Treaty of Tripoli would reinforce the counter idea, but really that article was there just to allay the fears of the Muslim nation we were treating with.

I'm happy enough with the realization that many (but not all) of the founders of our country were deeply religious and that their faith provided much of the impetus and argument for separating from England. To me, this would bolster the argument for our country being "rooted" in Christian principles (although it does not follow that these principles were the purpose of our country).

Message edited by author 2010-08-26 16:27:45.

08/26/2010 05:05:56 PM · #59

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Is anybody arguing that we set up the United States so that we could have a Christian theocratic state? The Treaty of Tripoli would reinforce the counter idea, but really that article was there just to allay the fears of the Muslim nation we were treating with.
[/quote]

Some are arguing exactly that. Search Google or Bing

//www.creationists.org/myth-of-the-seperation-of-church-and-state.html

08/26/2010 05:31:09 PM · #60

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Is anybody arguing that we set up the United States so that we could have a Christian theocratic state? The Treaty of Tripoli would reinforce the counter idea, but really that article was there just to allay the fears of the Muslim nation we were treating with.

Some are arguing exactly that. Search Google or Bing

//www.creationists.org/myth-of-the-seperation-of-church-and-state.html [/quote]

I'm not even sure what these people are getting at. Clearly they think the separation of Church and State has gone too far, but I don't sense they want to set up a Christian government to the exclusion of all other religion (I could be wrong). There certainly are fringe elements everywhere. Can someone point out what Beck says about such things so I can see that Bunch is justified in his allusions? Actually maybe we want to know what the Texas schoolbooks are trying to say.

EDIT: In a reread of the article I don't think Beck is the target but rather the Texas guy:

More recently, Beck has featured on Fox, at several well-attended "American Revivals" and on his web-based "university" a new right-hand man -- David Barton, a key figure in the recent right-wing rewrite of Texas school textbooks -- to teach his viewers the much-debunked idea that America's creation was rooted in Christianity.

Barton's machine-gun-paced spewing of 18th-century God references and black-robed revolutionary preachers gives less than short shrift to the real achievement of the Founders in separating church and state. In April, Barton told Beck's 3 million TV viewers that "we use the Ten Commandments as basis of civil law and the Western world [and it] has been for 2,000 years."

The results of this re-education campaign have been nothing short of phenomenal. A mere on-air endorsement by Beck of any obscure book -- such as "Sacred Fire," on the spirituality of George Washington -- will propel it to the best-seller list. Now, thousands of fans have signed up for a paid "insider" package that includes an online Glenn Beck University with lectures by Barton and others.

But pseudo-history is having a real impact on current events. In Texas, the new school curriculum downgrades democracy-minded Thomas Jefferson as well as 1960s civil rights. In the political arena, some activists are pushing to repeal the 17th Amendment that allows people to elect U.S. senators directly -- largely because the measure was enacted during Wilson's progressive era.

Message edited by author 2010-08-26 17:33:27.

08/26/2010 05:36:08 PM · #61

Originally posted by scalvert:

David's link led me to a John Adams quote that would present the other side of the argument:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

08/26/2010 05:41:17 PM · #62

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Can someone point out what Beck says about such things so I can see that Bunch is justified in his allusions? Actually maybe we want to know what the Texas schoolbooks are trying to say.

Beck and his sidekick routinely assert that America was founded on Christianityâ�� both keenly aware of the ignorance discussed in the OP. It's utterly incredible that anyone can view a statement as plain and clear as "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," but Beck is a master of using the public's stupidity to his advantage.

Deeply religious does not mean Christian. Most of our nation's founding fathers were freemasons and deists, men of the Enlightenment who believed in reason and rejected faith and the institutions of religion. These people had little use for the bible and specifically noted that power is derived from the people rather than the divine (a radical idea at the time). Their "religion" regarded a general "creator of the universe" unconcerned with the petty lives of humans. They absolutely did NOT work from Christian principles.

08/26/2010 05:46:16 PM · #63

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

David's link led me to a John Adams quote that would present the other side of the argument:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

Careful. With each post, your own ignorance is put on public display. Barton is known for using and/or creating fake quotes, and this one is no exception.

Message edited by author 2010-08-26 17:47:05.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/26/2010 05:50:27 PM · #64

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
David's link led me to a John Adams quote that would present the other side of the argument:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

Careful. With each post, your own ignorance is put on public display. Barton is known for using and/or creating fake quotes, and this one is no exception.

I'll admit I've been ignorant of David Barton before today. Is that a bad thing? I'll take a look at your link.

EDIT: I'll post the entire paragraph the quote was assembled from:
Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the others the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics, or those of the Quakers, or those of the Presbyterians, or those of the Methodists, or those of the Moravians, or those of the Universalists, or those of the Philosophers? No. The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. I could, therefore, safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles. In favor of these general principles, in philosophy, religion, and government, I could fill sheets of quotations from Frederic of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, as well as Newton and Locke; not to mention thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame.

To my reading this states that Adams feels there are universal principles, rooted in Christianity which all sects hold to be true although they may not attribute their origin correctly. While the paragraph does not provide nearly the "BAM" of Barton's reconstruction, I don't think it's been evicerated by any means. Upon what principles did the founders achieve independence? "I answer, the general principles of Christianity" (which all sects could agree upon as being obviously true) "and the general principles of English and American liberty".

Message edited by author 2010-08-26 18:00:29.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/26/2010 05:53:12 PM · #65

Originally posted by scalvert:

Deeply religious does not mean Christian. Most of our nation's founding fathers were freemasons and deists, men of the Enlightenment who believed in reason and rejected faith and the institutions of religion. These people had little use for the bible and specifically noted that power is derived from the people rather than the divine (a radical idea at the time). Their "religion" regarded a general "creator of the universe" unconcerned with the petty lives of humans. They absolutely did NOT work from Christian principles.

***********

"The Founding Fathers were a group of well-educated men who led America in the early stages of her history. These men risked their lives for the freedom of Americans. This began with achieving independence of the thirteen colonies from England, and continued on with the formation of a government for the new nation once the Revolutionary War had been won.

As for specific people, the Founding generation included: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, Roger Sherman, John Jay, James Wilson, and Gouvernor Morris. It would be impossible to construct a list which would be accepted by all historians.

If one considers any of the people who participated in the forming of this Republic or of evicting the King to be "Founding Fathers," then naturally the Framers of the Constitution are a subset of the Founders, since they gave us the format and structure for the Republic. Of course, the number who might be deemed Founding Fathers would be larger than the list of Framers, a case in point being Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were not present at the writing of the Constitution, but were surely Founding Fathers."

**********

There were 74 delegates nominated to the Constitutional Convention, all of whom would properly be enumerated amongst the "founding fathers" of the republic.

**********

"Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (Episcopalian, after the Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Thomas Jefferson[12][13] (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin[14]. However, other notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to those of deists.[15]"

************

I think it is revisionist to insist that "most" of the founding fathers were not Christian, that's patently absurd on the face of it. It is true that two of the most visible and remembered founding fathers (Franklin and Jefferson) were pretty much anti-clerical, at least, but that's not "most" by any stretch of the imagination.

All that matters, though, in the end, is that they, collectively, created a constitution that specifically separated church from state.

R.

Message edited by author 2010-08-26 17:57:04.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

08/26/2010 06:02:52 PM · #66

Another mistake I see commonly made is to anachronistically attribute the characteristics of a modern atheist upon an 18th century deist.

Message edited by author 2010-08-26 18:03:39.

George

Nikon D750

08/26/2010 06:13:10 PM · #67

DrAchoo quoted John Adams here:

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

We are throwing around this "general principles of Christianity" as if:
(1) the principles were derived from Christianity, and Christianity wasn't founded on those principles, which existed long before
(2) the founding fathers were all saying "let's build a nation based on Christian principles, because we're Christian" rather than "let's build a nation based on certain principles which Christians agree with"

I'm sure both of those are false... and we mustn't assume they're true unless we have more evidence than a single quotation about John Adams' faith and driving force.

Seriously, it's "general principles of Christianity" as in "principles on which Christianity was founded and with which it agrees," not in the sense of "Christianity brought us these principles."

Message edited by author 2010-08-26 18:14:27.

08/26/2010 06:15:13 PM · #68

Link to a good blog on the Texas text book controversy.

08/26/2010 06:28:01 PM · #69

Originally posted by George:

Good thinking George, but I think you are being anachronistic and need to place yourself into the shoes of someone in the 18th century. I would fully argue that these men would quite agree with the idea that "Christianity brought us these principles". Western Civilization, as we know it, has been shaped and formed by the precepts of Judeo-Christianity. There is absolutely no denying this fact. The 18th century American scholar would accept the grounding of most philosophical truth as being derived from God (the Christian God in most cases) as verily as they accepted the air they breathed.

Message edited by author 2010-08-26 18:28:19.

08/26/2010 06:47:31 PM · #70

We must also avoid a few other mistakes:

1) Deism, as we define it these days, believes in a non-personal, non-intervening Supreme Being. Adams, for example, was not a deist by this definition and Jefferson, famously held up to be a deist, would also fail this test.
2) Instead, Adams (certainly) and Jefferson (possibly) should be considered Unitarians.
3) But importantly, Unitarians in the later 1700s were quite different from Unitarians now and held these doctrines:

* Because the Unitarians reject all human creeds and articles of faith, and strictly adhere to the great Protestant principle, "the Bible -- the Bible only;" admitting no standard of Christian truth, nor any rule of Christian practice, but the words of the Lord Jesus and his Apostles. . . .
* Because at the Unitarian Church I hear Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified, preached as the Christ, the son of the living God. . . .
* Because Unitarians teach the doctrine of "the true grace of God." -- His unmerited, unpurchased favor to mankind, -- that salvation and eternal life are his free gifts through Jesus Christ; which is clearly the doctrine of Scripture . . . .
* Because there the crucified Jesus is exalted, as having attained his high dignity and glory, and His appointment to be the Saviour and Judge of the world. . . .
* Because there the necessity of personal righteousness is insisted on, and the spirit of Christ and conformity to His example, made essential to genuine Christianity.

08/26/2010 06:59:06 PM · #71

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Link to a good blog on the Texas text book controversy.

I dunno. He just seems like another guy who can't imagine someone doesn't see history the same way he does.

08/26/2010 07:57:08 PM · #72

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scarbrd:
Link to a good blog on the Texas text book controversy.

I dunno. He just seems like another guy who can't imagine someone doesn't see history the same way he does.

McCarthy was right? Jefferson Davis equal to Lincoln? Jefferson a footnote? Phyllis Schlafly a historical figure? America is not only unique, but superior?

Does any self-respecting historian, regardless of political affiliation, buy this drivel?

08/26/2010 08:04:45 PM · #73

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scarbrd:
Link to a good blog on the Texas text book controversy.

I dunno. He just seems like another guy who can't imagine someone doesn't see history the same way he does.

McCarthy was right? Jefferson Davis equal to Lincoln? Jefferson a footnote? Phyllis Schlafly a historical figure? America is not only unique, but superior?

Does any self-respecting historian, regardless of political affiliation, buy this drivel?

Well, not when it's put that way, but we have to see the texts. "Jefferson Davis equals Lincoln"? In what way is the text asserting this? I have no idea from the blog because he doesn't refer to the texts at all.

How is Jefferson a footnote? Is he literally only mentioned as a footnote? I'd have issue if that were the case, but I highly doubt it is.

Message edited by author 2010-08-26 20:06:31.