| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
06 Feb 2006 06:04:35 AM |
| Object: |
Presidential religious affiliations |
List of U.S. Presidential religious affiliations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations
also
Franklin Steiner's "The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_123.html
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
book cover
Freethought Library
From Washington to F.D.R.
Franklin Steiner
The religious beliefs and church preferences of America's presidents have
always been a topic of great interest and, indeed, have in recent history
played a critical role in their electability to the nation's highest
office. It is assumed that all our presidents have been practicing
religionists. But is this true?
In this exhaustively researched history of the religious beliefs of
America's first 32 presidents, from George Washington to Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, Franklin Steiner organizes his chapters not chronologically but
by religious affiliation. Thus we learn that Washington was not a regular
church attendant, that Jefferson and Lincoln were freethinkers, and that
another half dozen presidents were of "doubtful" religious belief.
Appendices include "Washington's Last Sickness and Death" and "Religious
Opinions and Habits of Washington."
"This book will help set the record straight about many historical errors
regarding our presidents . . ." The American Rationalist
"This book is filled with curious and interesting details. . . This is a
well-documented book, with citations of sources and careful consideration
of the authenticity of same; a valuable reference work indeed." Freethought
History
PAGES: 190 pp COMMENTS: (Bibliography)
ISBN: 0-87975-975-5 BINDING: Paper
PRICE: $21 SIZE: 6 x 9
CATEGORY: Freethought Library
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
07 Feb 2006 10:34:52 AM |
|
|
I have them in my own free book, A Nation Under God, as well.
http://www.lulu.com/content/186379
However, I'm guessing you weren't mentioning it for educational value.
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
List of U.S. Presidential religious affiliations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliat=
ions
also
Franklin Steiner's "The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.ht=
ml
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_123.html
The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
book cover
Freethought Library
From Washington to F.D.R.
Franklin Steiner
The religious beliefs and church preferences of America's presidents have
always been a topic of great interest and, indeed, have in recent history
played a critical role in their electability to the nation's highest
office. It is assumed that all our presidents have been practicing
religionists. But is this true?
In this exhaustively researched history of the religious beliefs of
America's first 32 presidents, from George Washington to Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, Franklin Steiner organizes his chapters not chronologically but
by religious affiliation. Thus we learn that Washington was not a regular
church attendant, that Jefferson and Lincoln were freethinkers, and that
another half dozen presidents were of "doubtful" religious belief.
Appendices include "Washington's Last Sickness and Death" and "Religious
Opinions and Habits of Washington."
"This book will help set the record straight about many historical errors
regarding our presidents . . ." The American Rationalist
"This book is filled with curious and interesting details. . . This is a
well-documented book, with citations of sources and careful consideration
of the authenticity of same; a valuable reference work indeed." Freethoug=
ht
History
PAGES: 190 pp COMMENTS: (Bibliography)
ISBN: 0-87975-975-5 BINDING: Paper
PRICE: $21 SIZE: 6 x 9
CATEGORY: Freethought Library
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
08 Feb 2006 08:32:05 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|I have them in my own free book, A Nation Under God, as well.
:|http://www.lulu.com/content/186379
:|
:|However, I'm guessing you weren't mentioning it for educational value.
Ahhhhhh, another new nick. You have more nicks than Carter has little liver
pills.
Did you receive guidance from above to post this?
Isn't that the reason you said you came back? To leave you out and do the
work of your higher master?
Were you instructed by that source to jump into other people's posts to
promote your book? It doesn't matter to me, but I am curious how you will
answer, curious to see if your really are "new" person or the same old you
of before.
Now, for educational purposes, all my posts are for informing and
educating those who might want to be informed. That is why, by and large,
I don't put "me," as such, in many if not most of my posts, but rather I
put primary source data, secondary source data, informed commentary and
quotes from respected scholars and experts in the field.
Now this particular information that I posted here comes from the
following sources
List of U.S. Presidential religious affiliations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
also
Franklin Steiner's "The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html
The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents
by Franklin Steiner
NOTE: This work is not the complete book, the parts done are complete in
themselves.
An account of the religious beliefs, and lack of such beliefs, of our chief
executives, and a chronicle of the more important religious events and
controversies of their administrations.
"When the crisis came, Jefferson, Paine, John Adams, Washington, Franklin,
Madison, and many lesser lights were to be reckoned among either the
Unitarians or the Deists. it was not Cotton Mather's God to whom the author
of the Declaration of Independence appealed, it was to 'Nature's God.' From
whatever source derived, the effect of both Unitarianism and Deism was to
hasten the retirement of historic theology from its empire over the
intellect of American leaders, and to clear the atmosphere for secular
interests" -- The Rise of American Civilization," by Charles A. and Mary R.
Beard. (Vol. I., p. 449.)
Contents
Preface
Introduction
Chapter I - George Washington - The Vestryman Who Was Not A Communicant
Chapter II - Presidents Who Were Presbyterians
Andrew Jackson
James Knox Polk
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
Woodrow Wilson
Chapter III - Presidents Who Were Unitarians
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Millard Fillmore
William Howard Taft
Chapter IV - Presidents Who Were Episcopalians
Franklin Pierce
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Chapter V - Presidents Who Were Not Members Of Any Church
William Henery Harrison
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Simpson Grant
Rutherford Birchard Hayes
Chapter VI - Presidents Whose Religious Views Are Doubtful
James Madison
James Monroe
Martin Van Buren
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Chester Alan Arthur
Chapter VII - Thomas Jefferson, Freethinker
Chapter VIII - Abraham Lincoln, Deist And Admirer Of Thomas Paine
Chapter IX - James Abram Garfield, The Preacher President
Chapter X - William McKinley, The Methodist President
Chapter XI - Theodore Roosevelt, Dutch Reformed But Not Very Religious
Chpater XII - The Beliefs Of Our "Prosperity" Presidents
Warren Gamaliel Harding - Baptist
Calvin Coolidge - Congregationalist
Herbert Clark Hoover - Quaker
Resume
Appendix I - Washington's Last Sickness And Death
Appendix II - Religious Opinions And Habits Of Washington
Appendix III - Dr. Holland And The "Bateman Interview"
Appendix IV - Testimony Of W. H. Herndon, Lincoln's Law Partner For 22
Years, Concerning His Religious Beliefs
Appendix V - Thanksgiving Proclimations
Bibliography
Publisher's Preface
Much has been written concerning the religious beliefs of our Presidents,
but, until now, no one has gone into the subject thoroughly. A number of
books have appeared, all of which, instead of giving facts, are merely
religious propagandistic documents.
Mr. Franklin Steiner, the author of the present work, was engaged for over
two years in writing it. He has been a student of the subject for over 40
years. This book is thoroughly documented, and is a straight-forward,
trustworthy account of "the religious beliefs of our Presidents.
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_123.html
and the publisher of the above book
Now the publisher does have an agenda, that being o sell books
But do note, you offer YOUR BOOK as if it were in the same league as
It isn't. Far too many times you have been exposed as being historically
ignorant and inaccurate in these forums for anyone to give you credibility
in the area of Church state history in this country
List of U.S. Presidential religious affiliations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Franklin Steiner's "The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html
I would be willing to bet that the comments and conclusions reached in YOUR
BOOK and those of the above two sources differ.
Now the olkd you used to jump into others posts ansd top post some little
blurb just like you did here.
Seems to me business as usual for "the fool," kands00, and/or any of the
several other handles you have used over the years.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
08 Feb 2006 09:10:28 AM |
|
|
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Let me catch my breath....haha..ha...
Ok. Just the thought of you saying I am promoting myself in posts just
takes the pot-kettle thing to a whole new level....haha..ha...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
07 Feb 2006 01:30:35 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have them in my own free book, A Nation Under God, as well.
http://www.lulu.com/content/186379
However, I'm guessing you weren't mentioning it for educational value.
Could a reviewer say this about your book?
"This book is filled with curious and interesting details. . . This is a
well-documented book, with citations of sources and careful consideration
of the authenticity of same; a valuable reference work indeed." Freethought
History
I rather doubt it, since you and researcher are opposite terms.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
07 Feb 2006 01:33:39 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have them in my own free book, A Nation Under God, as well.
http://www.lulu.com/content/186379
However, I'm guessing you weren't mentioning it for educational value.
Could a reviewer say this about your book?
"This book is filled with curious and interesting details. . . This is a
well-documented book, with citations of sources and careful consideration
of the authenticity of same; a valuable reference work indeed." Freethought
History
I rather doubt it, since you and researcher are opposite terms.
lojbab
It's a free download at my site. After you get it and review it to see
how non-commentary and bare-bones quotes and facts that it is, I'll
accept your apology.
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
07 Feb 2006 08:41:44 PM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have them in my own free book, A Nation Under God, as well.
http://www.lulu.com/content/186379
However, I'm guessing you weren't mentioning it for educational value.
Could a reviewer say this about your book?
"This book is filled with curious and interesting details. . . This is a
well-documented book, with citations of sources and careful consideration
of the authenticity of same; a valuable reference work indeed." Freethought
History
I rather doubt it, since you and researcher are opposite terms.
lojbab
It's a free download at my site. After you get it and review it to see
how non-commentary and bare-bones quotes and facts that it is, I'll
accept your apology.
I said "research", not "sound bites". You apparently don't understand
the word.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
08 Feb 2006 07:20:21 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have them in my own free book, A Nation Under God, as well.
http://www.lulu.com/content/186379
However, I'm guessing you weren't mentioning it for educational value.
Could a reviewer say this about your book?
"This book is filled with curious and interesting details. . . This is a
well-documented book, with citations of sources and careful consideration
of the authenticity of same; a valuable reference work indeed." Freethought
History
I rather doubt it, since you and researcher are opposite terms.
lojbab
It's a free download at my site. After you get it and review it to see
how non-commentary and bare-bones quotes and facts that it is, I'll
accept your apology.
I said "research", not "sound bites". You apparently don't understand
the word.
lojbab
When doing research, I prefer primary sources over secondary
(subjective) ones. Apparently you are more easily influenced.
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
08 Feb 2006 10:11:30 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|When doing research, I prefer primary sources over secondary
:|(subjective) ones. Apparently you are more easily influenced.
First of all more evidence that you are the same old person. . You know
better than your comment above with regards to Bob. Yet you couldn't stop
yourself from blindly lashing out.
If you truly do research how do you explain being incorrect so often?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
08 Feb 2006 10:54:08 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|When doing research, I prefer primary sources over secondary
:|(subjective) ones. Apparently you are more easily influenced.
First of all more evidence that you are the same old person. . You know
better than your comment above with regards to Bob. Yet you couldn't stop
yourself from blindly lashing out.
If you truly do research how do you explain being incorrect so often?
I don't know that you've ever shown me to be wrong. As for Bob, my
comment was not "lashing out" but was a founded conclusion based on his
words. If he is willing to say that he uses primary sources, I'll
withdraw the charge. As for the book, how can my book be wrong about
the religious nature of the Presidents if it is just direct quotes from
their own words without commentary or conclusion on my part? I await
your answer.
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
09 Feb 2006 01:17:58 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|I don't know that you've ever shown me to be wrong.
Check out Google.
Any and all exchanges between us are archived there. Time after time after
time you have posted irrelevant quotes, etc. That is, when you even
bother to provide anything. I and others have told you they were
irrelevant, why it was and provided material to back up our claims and
shoot yours down.
Now it doesn't matter if you agree with this or not. it is all in Google.
You have shown time and time again you are blind to actual facts and the
meaning of those facts
Based on your posts on can say with accuracy that you don't have the
background or put in the time studying the overall historical background to
any of this stuff. Everything is related, it is part of a context that
stretches backwards and forward
You toss out a quote with no understanding of the context and as a result
you come to make premature and false conclusions. You then make
inaccurate claims. You then either poof from the thread or on rare
occasions you will try to defend your inaccurate position. you ignore any
and all evidence others present showing you are incorrect
:| As for Bob, my
:|comment was not "lashing out"
Delusion and denial are great aren't they?
:| but was a founded conclusion based on his
:|words.
False,
Look, you have admitted to having been on here several years and you have
admitted that you have had exchanges with Bob in the past.
Therefore, unless you are a total moron you have to have come to the
conclusion sooner or later that Bob is well educated, intelligent and on
the ball with regards to things he posts and knows how to find things if he
has any doubts about things
There is at least one person who comes and goes from time to time that I
wouldn't give the time of day to if i could avoid it, however, I know that
guy is very well educated, smart and has vast amounts of knowledge in this
very area. Unfortunately he has a need to play silly stupid games and
misuse that very knowledge as he plays his games.
No one can honestly make such a claim about Bob. He doesn't play games with
you dude.
There have been and probably will be times in future he and I have
disagreed but by and large I respect his comments on here,. He is one of
the few people I actually read when I am prone to skip a lot of others
Point being, you are being dishonest again
:| If he is willing to say that he uses primary sources, I'll
:|withdraw the charge.
LOL, who cares what you charge and if you withdraw them or not? You take
yourself far too seriously and think of yourself as being far too
important. Like it matters what you charge and if you withdraw such
A man of his intelligence, education and knowledge is fully aware of
primary sources, what they are, what their importance is, what they mean
and does use them
This entire reply of yours only highlights how little you do know about
such things
:| As for the book, how can my book be wrong about
:|the religious nature of the Presidents if it is just direct quotes from
:|their own words without commentary or conclusion on my part? I await
:|your answer.
The comments above show how unqualified you are to write a serious book on
such a topic
The answer is context. What was the entire statement or letter or journal
entry, etc? If to another who and what were the circumstances? How did
this quote or quotes fit in with other quotes made by the same person along
the same or related lines. How did this quote or quotes fit with actions
this person took at various times in his life etc
How do actions and comments/quotes by this same person that are opposite
to this quote you picked enter into the picture? Do you just ignore them?
To be a historian, which i do not claim to be, requires specialized
education and experience and there is a reason for that.
Historians are taught not to jump to premature conclusions, to look at the
whole picture as best as it is known by evidence.
Time after time your posts show you do not do that when you try to get into
the area of church state history in this country.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
08 Feb 2006 01:11:01 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|When doing research, I prefer primary sources over secondary
:|(subjective) ones. Apparently you are more easily influenced.
First of all more evidence that you are the same old person. . You know
better than your comment above with regards to Bob. Yet you couldn't stop
yourself from blindly lashing out.
If you truly do research how do you explain being incorrect so often?
I don't know that you've ever shown me to be wrong. As for Bob, my
comment was not "lashing out" but was a founded conclusion based on his
words. If he is willing to say that he uses primary sources,
I do. But I don't limit myself to primary sources. And when I use
primary sources, I consider them in the context of other knowledge of
the time period, knowledge that you have evidenced total ignorance of.
I also recognize that a political speech is one of the poorest forms
of primary evidence. Speeches are seldom spontaneous and are crafted
to make a particular political impression for a specific audience, not
to reveal what the speaker actually thinks.
I'll
withdraw the charge. As for the book, how can my book be wrong about
the religious nature of the Presidents if it is just direct quotes from
their own words without commentary or conclusion on my part?
Because
a) you are selective in your choice of quotes, not seeking
counterevidence. Indeed, your choices of quotes are such that one is
led to believe that you did NOT in fact seek primary sources, but
instead used collections of quotes made by others seeking to make the
same kind of points that you make, which means that you used secondary
sources, and indeed may have engaged in plagiarism of those sources.
b) because you evidence no knowledge of their ACTIONS as compared to
their public words.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
08 Feb 2006 03:36:03 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|When doing research, I prefer primary sources over secondary
:|(subjective) ones. Apparently you are more easily influenced.
First of all more evidence that you are the same old person. . You know
better than your comment above with regards to Bob. Yet you couldn't stop
yourself from blindly lashing out.
If you truly do research how do you explain being incorrect so often?
I don't know that you've ever shown me to be wrong. As for Bob, my
comment was not "lashing out" but was a founded conclusion based on his
words. If he is willing to say that he uses primary sources,
I do. But I don't limit myself to primary sources. And when I use
primary sources, I consider them in the context of other knowledge of
the time period, knowledge that you have evidenced total ignorance of.
I also recognize that a political speech is one of the poorest forms
of primary evidence. Speeches are seldom spontaneous and are crafted
to make a particular political impression for a specific audience, not
to reveal what the speaker actually thinks.
I'll
withdraw the charge. As for the book, how can my book be wrong about
the religious nature of the Presidents if it is just direct quotes from
their own words without commentary or conclusion on my part?
Because
a) you are selective in your choice of quotes, not seeking
counterevidence. Indeed, your choices of quotes are such that one is
led to believe that you did NOT in fact seek primary sources, but
instead used collections of quotes made by others seeking to make the
same kind of points that you make, which means that you used secondary
sources, and indeed may have engaged in plagiarism of those sources.
b) because you evidence no knowledge of their ACTIONS as compared to
their public words.
lojbab
Then I withdraw my charge that you don't value primary quotes. That
being said, a primary quote always trumps a secondary. Wouldn't you
agree? If there are no primary quotes to justify a source that
disagrees with a primary, we must stay with the primary (the only
exception being two primary quotes in contradiction).
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
08 Feb 2006 05:23:01 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Then I withdraw my charge that you don't value primary quotes. That
being said, a primary quote always trumps a secondary.
No. For example, the Nixon quote "I am not a crook" does not trump
all the evidence of the Watergate scandal.
Wouldn't you
agree? If there are no primary quotes to justify a source that
disagrees with a primary,
There are lots of other kinds of primary evidence besides quotes from
the principle subject of inquiry.
Methinks you do not understand the concepts of primary and secondary
evidence in historical research.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/lesson12.htm
<PRIMARY — personal testimony of an eyewitness or a record created
< shortly after the event by a person with personal knowledge of the
< facts
<
<Where and when was the record made?
<Who made it?
<For what purpose was it made?
<Did the information come from someone with personal knowledge of the
< facts?
<Was there any reason for the informant to provide inaccurate
< information, either intentionally or unintentionally?
<SECONDARY — Evidence that is copied or compiled from other sources or
< that is written from memory long after an event occurred.
Therefore, if you get your quotes from someone's "collection of
Christian quotes from presidential speeches" you are using a secondary
source.
If you get contemporary church records showing that someone did not
attend a particular church, that is a primary source, and trumps a
quote from the person saying that they DID attend that church
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
09 Feb 2006 07:32:36 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Then I withdraw my charge that you don't value primary quotes. That
being said, a primary quote always trumps a secondary.
No. For example, the Nixon quote "I am not a crook" does not trump
all the evidence of the Watergate scandal.
Wouldn't you
agree? If there are no primary quotes to justify a source that
disagrees with a primary,
There are lots of other kinds of primary evidence besides quotes from
the principle subject of inquiry.
Methinks you do not understand the concepts of primary and secondary
evidence in historical research.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/lesson12.htm
<PRIMARY - personal testimony of an eyewitness or a record created
< shortly after the event by a person with personal knowledge of the
< facts
<
<Where and when was the record made?
<Who made it?
<For what purpose was it made?
<Did the information come from someone with personal knowledge of the
< facts?
<Was there any reason for the informant to provide inaccurate
< information, either intentionally or unintentionally?
<SECONDARY - Evidence that is copied or compiled from other sources or
< that is written from memory long after an event occurred.
Therefore, if you get your quotes from someone's "collection of
Christian quotes from presidential speeches" you are using a secondary
source.
If you get contemporary church records showing that someone did not
attend a particular church, that is a primary source, and trumps a
quote from the person saying that they DID attend that church
lojbab
So, if we were to (if possible) find a Bible text from the 1st century
(primary) that differed from the currently accepted Bible (secondary),
your conclusion is that we shouldn't necessarily void the secondary
source with the primary....instead use the copy more than the original?
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
09 Feb 2006 09:56:02 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Methinks you do not understand the concepts of primary and secondary
evidence in historical research.
So, if we were to (if possible) find a Bible text from the 1st century
(primary) that differed from the currently accepted Bible (secondary),
The first problem would be establishing that a "Bible text from the
1st century" that differed from the currently accepted text was
authentic. Because it differed, it probably would not be accepted
without corroboration in the form of other evidence, both primary and
secondary.
An older novel "The Word", by Irving Wallace, describes a plausible
effect of the discovery of such a "Bible text from the 1st century"
that differed (in that novel, good historical scholarship took second
place to MAKING MONEY FAST).
In point of fact, ALL of the Bible consists of secondary or even
tertiary material, and the only evidence supporting canonicity is
secondary evidence. There is NO primary source historical evidence
for the existence of Jesus Christ at all. There is primary source
evidence for "followers of Christus" as early as 48AD.
Most versions of the New Testament are based on the Catholic Vulgate,
dating from the 5th century. Most versions of the Old Testament are
based on the Vulgate, and on the Greek Septuagint that was compiled
during the 3rd-1st centuries BC, but of which we have no complete
copies older than the 4th and 5th centuries AD.
your conclusion- is that we shouldn't necessarily void the secondary
source with the primary....instead use the copy more than the original?
Do you use the King James Bible for anything other than a door stop?
Or have you eschewed it in favor of a more modern translation informed
by the material in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Do you use the Christian versions of the Old Testament, or do you use
the Masoretic (Jewish) version, which in many cases matches the Dead
Sea Scrolls letter for letter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
<Genesis 4:7, LXX (Brenton)
<Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly
< divided it? Be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt
< rule over him.
<
<Genesis 4:7, Masoretic (Artscroll)
<Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do
< not improve yourself, sin rests at the door. Its desire is toward
< you, yet you can conquer it.
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/levit.html
<Lev. 23:22-29
<(22)[...edges of your field, or] gather [the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave
<them for the poor and the stranger; I the LO]RD [am] your God.
<(23)The LORD spoke to Moses saying:
<(24)Speak to the Israelite people thus: In the seventh month
<on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with load blasts.
<(25)You shall not work at your occupations; and you shall bring an offering by fire to the LORD.
<(26)The LORD spoke to Moses saying:
<(27)Mark, the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day
<of Atonement. It shall be a sacred occasion for you: you shall practice self-denial, and you shall bring an offering
<by fire to the LORD;
<(28)you shall do no work throughout that day. For
<[it is a Day of Atonement on which] expiation is made on your behalf [before the LO]RD your God.
<(29)Indeed, any person who
KJV
<[22] And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make
< clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither
< shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them
< unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
<[23] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
<[24] Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month,
< in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of
< blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.
<[25] Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
<[26] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
<[27] Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day
< of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall
< afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
<[28] And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of
< atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.
<[29] For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that
< same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.
The Masoretic text of Jeremiah has 52 chapters instead of 51, and some
of the other chapters are shortened in the Septuagint. Which is
correct?
The answer is that neither are primary sources.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
09 Feb 2006 01:42:39 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Methinks you do not understand the concepts of primary and secondary
evidence in historical research.
So, if we were to (if possible) find a Bible text from the 1st century
(primary) that differed from the currently accepted Bible (secondary),
The first problem would be establishing that a "Bible text from the
1st century" that differed from the currently accepted text was
authentic. Because it differed, it probably would not be accepted
without corroboration in the form of other evidence, both primary and
secondary.
An older novel "The Word", by Irving Wallace, describes a plausible
effect of the discovery of such a "Bible text from the 1st century"
that differed (in that novel, good historical scholarship took second
place to MAKING MONEY FAST).
In point of fact, ALL of the Bible consists of secondary or even
tertiary material, and the only evidence supporting canonicity is
secondary evidence. There is NO primary source historical evidence
for the existence of Jesus Christ at all. There is primary source
evidence for "followers of Christus" as early as 48AD.
Most versions of the New Testament are based on the Catholic Vulgate,
dating from the 5th century. Most versions of the Old Testament are
based on the Vulgate, and on the Greek Septuagint that was compiled
during the 3rd-1st centuries BC, but of which we have no complete
copies older than the 4th and 5th centuries AD.
your conclusion- is that we shouldn't necessarily void the secondary
source with the primary....instead use the copy more than the original?
Do you use the King James Bible for anything other than a door stop?
Or have you eschewed it in favor of a more modern translation informed
by the material in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Do you use the Christian versions of the Old Testament, or do you use
the Masoretic (Jewish) version, which in many cases matches the Dead
Sea Scrolls letter for letter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
<Genesis 4:7, LXX (Brenton)
<Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly
< divided it? Be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt
< rule over him.
<
<Genesis 4:7, Masoretic (Artscroll)
<Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do
< not improve yourself, sin rests at the door. Its desire is toward
< you, yet you can conquer it.
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/levit.html
<Lev. 23:22-29
<(22)[...edges of your field, or] gather [the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave
<them for the poor and the stranger; I the LO]RD [am] your God.
<(23)The LORD spoke to Moses saying:
<(24)Speak to the Israelite people thus: In the seventh month
<on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with load blasts.
<(25)You shall not work at your occupations; and you shall bring an offering by fire to the LORD.
<(26)The LORD spoke to Moses saying:
<(27)Mark, the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day
<of Atonement. It shall be a sacred occasion for you: you shall practice self-denial, and you shall bring an offering
<by fire to the LORD;
<(28)you shall do no work throughout that day. For
<[it is a Day of Atonement on which] expiation is made on your behalf [before the LO]RD your God.
<(29)Indeed, any person who
KJV
<[22] And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make
< clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither
< shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them
< unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
<[23] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
<[24] Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month,
< in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of
< blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.
<[25] Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
<[26] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
<[27] Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day
< of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall
< afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
<[28] And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of
< atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.
<[29] For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that
< same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.
The Masoretic text of Jeremiah has 52 chapters instead of 51, and some
of the other chapters are shortened in the Septuagint. Which is
correct?
The answer is that neither are primary sources.
lojbab
Ok...I responded to this earlier. It was here (my response) and
disappeared. How does that happen? Here it is again....
You totally ignored the question, so let's try again. If we assumed
what you said above was true (I don't accept all of it..but let's just
assume it for sake of discussion), what IF a handwritten gospel of John
from the source was found. If that gospel differed from the one being
used today, you'd say we should use the copy rather than the original?
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
10 Feb 2006 06:31:34 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
your conclusion- is that we shouldn't necessarily void the secondary
source with the primary....instead use the copy more than the original?
Do you use the King James Bible for anything other than a door stop?
Or have you eschewed it in favor of a more modern translation informed
by the material in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Do you use the Christian versions of the Old Testament, or do you use
the Masoretic (Jewish) version, which in many cases matches the Dead
Sea Scrolls letter for letter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
<Genesis 4:7, LXX (Brenton)
<Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly
< divided it? Be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt
< rule over him.
<
<Genesis 4:7, Masoretic (Artscroll)
<Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do
< not improve yourself, sin rests at the door. Its desire is toward
< you, yet you can conquer it.
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/levit.html
<Lev. 23:22-29
<(22)[...edges of your field, or] gather [the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave
<them for the poor and the stranger; I the LO]RD [am] your God.
<(23)The LORD spoke to Moses saying:
<(24)Speak to the Israelite people thus: In the seventh month
<on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with load blasts.
<(25)You shall not work at your occupations; and you shall bring an offering by fire to the LORD.
<(26)The LORD spoke to Moses saying:
<(27)Mark, the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day
<of Atonement. It shall be a sacred occasion for you: you shall practice self-denial, and you shall bring an offering
<by fire to the LORD;
<(28)you shall do no work throughout that day. For
<[it is a Day of Atonement on which] expiation is made on your behalf [before the LO]RD your God.
<(29)Indeed, any person who
KJV
<[22] And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make
< clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither
< shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them
< unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
<[23] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
<[24] Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month,
< in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of
< blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.
<[25] Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
<[26] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
<[27] Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day
< of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall
< afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
<[28] And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of
< atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.
<[29] For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that
< same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.
The Masoretic text of Jeremiah has 52 chapters instead of 51, and some
of the other chapters are shortened in the Septuagint. Which is
correct?
The answer is that neither are primary sources.
Ok...I responded to this earlier. It was here (my response) and
disappeared. How does that happen? Here it is again....
You totally ignored the question, so let's try again. If we assumed
what you said above was true (I don't accept all of it..but let's just
assume it for sake of discussion), what IF a handwritten gospel of John
from the source was found. If that gospel differed from the one being
used today, you'd say we should use the copy rather than the original?
I say no such thing; I don't in fact make any claim as to what we
"should" use in such a hypothetical. My point was that the
determination is non-trivial; one first has the problem of proving
that the primary source is indeed primary. If you can do so, then if
you choose to use the new "primary source", you are doing so on the
basis on a multiplicity of evidence, and not just because it is a
"primary source". Without that other evidence, it probably would not
be used.
A primary source *quote* may perhaps be useful, but is not necessarily
decisive, especially when the quote was made in a political speech,
and when it is removed from context. It also is not a primary source
if the researcher got it from a list of quotes compiled by others,
which you undoubtedly did rather than researching the original works
of the various presidents, a rather Herculean task if you seek only
primary source information for each president. Furthermore, speeches
are especially problematical as the written versions that are
preserved often differ from the text that was spoken (there remains
considerable debate as to the actual contents of the Gettysburg
address, despite multiple primary source reports. The Congressional
record is filled with "speeches" that were never actually given.
Which reminds me of another problem in your understanding of the
primary/secondary source distinction. The Congressional record for
1945 is a primary source of what Congress discussed in 1945, but
selected quotes from the 1945 CR would NOT trump a reasoned analytical
secondary source analysis of the reasons for dropping the atomic bomb
on Hiroshima. Why? Because public speech did not reflect the real,
and secret, decision-making that was going on. A political speech is
a very low-quality primary source. Private letters and records not
intended for the public are higher quality. Hearsay about such
private letters (and contemporary hearsay may count as a primary
source for historical purposes) may trump direct quotes. Reasoned
analysis by another person who was a contemporary might be considered
more sound a primary source than the words of the person themselves.
Certainly, much of the world does not believe George W Bush's words as
to what went on in his National Guard service.
And that highlights why your example isn't germane in any case. The
issue is as to what religion certain people of the past practiced, and
perhaps what they *believed*. One cannot presume that a political
speech necessarily records actual belief or practice, and again a good
secondary analysis with supporting citations to primary source
evidence in the person's actions and well as what others reported
about him, would trump any number of random quotes from political
speeches.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
08 Feb 2006 03:54:06 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|When doing research, I prefer primary sources over secondary
:|(subjective) ones. Apparently you are more easily influenced.
First of all more evidence that you are the same old person. . You know
better than your comment above with regards to Bob. Yet you couldn't stop
yourself from blindly lashing out.
If you truly do research how do you explain being incorrect so often?
I don't know that you've ever shown me to be wrong. As for Bob, my
comment was not "lashing out" but was a founded conclusion based on his
words. If he is willing to say that he uses primary sources,
I do. But I don't limit myself to primary sources. And when I use
primary sources, I consider them in the context of other knowledge of
the time period, knowledge that you have evidenced total ignorance of.
I also recognize that a political speech is one of the poorest forms
of primary evidence. Speeches are seldom spontaneous and are crafted
to make a particular political impression for a specific audience, not
to reveal what the speaker actually thinks.
I'll
withdraw the charge. As for the book, how can my book be wrong about
the religious nature of the Presidents if it is just direct quotes from
their own words without commentary or conclusion on my part?
Because
a) you are selective in your choice of quotes, not seeking
counterevidence. Indeed, your choices of quotes are such that one is
led to believe that you did NOT in fact seek primary sources, but
instead used collections of quotes made by others seeking to make the
same kind of points that you make, which means that you used secondary
sources, and indeed may have engaged in plagiarism of those sources.
b) because you evidence no knowledge of their ACTIONS as compared to
their public words.
lojbab
Then I withdraw my charge that you don't value primary quotes. That
being said, a primary quote always trumps a secondary. Wouldn't you
agree? If there are no primary quotes to justify a source that
disagrees with a primary, we must stay with the primary (the only
exception being two primary quotes in contradiction).
Allow me to pre-empt your possible next step by saying that, if your
answer is that primary quotes do NOT trump secondary quotes, my
response will be thus....
So, if there were a primary text of the bible that differed from the
ones Christians use, you would suggest we stay with the secondary
sources and texts being used....right?
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
08 Feb 2006 11:02:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|When doing research, I prefer primary sources over secondary
:|(subjective) ones. Apparently you are more easily influenced.
First of all more evidence that you are the same old person. . You know
better than your comment above with regards to Bob. Yet you couldn't stop
yourself from blindly lashing out.
If you truly do research how do you explain being incorrect so often?
I don't know that you've ever shown me to be wrong. As for Bob, my
comment was not "lashing out" but was a founded conclusion based on his
words. If he is willing to say that he uses primary sources, I'll
withdraw the charge. As for the book, how can my book be wrong about
the religious nature of the Presidents if it is just direct quotes from
their own words without commentary or conclusion on my part? I await
your answer.
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Presidential religious affiliations |
07 Feb 2006 01:58:29 PM |
|
|
The Fool wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have them in my own free book, A Nation Under God, as well.
http://www.lulu.com/content/186379
However, I'm guessing you weren't mentioning it for educational value.
Could a reviewer say this about your book?
"This book is filled with curious and interesting details. . . This is a
well-documented book, with citations of sources and careful consideration
of the authenticity of same; a valuable reference work indeed." Freethought
History
I rather doubt it, since you and researcher are opposite terms.
lojbab
It's a free download at my site. After you get it and review it to see
how non-commentary and bare-bones quotes and facts that it is, I'll
accept your apology.
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
Oops...name hadn't changed on all groups. Should be fixed now.
Ken Clifton
http://lulu.com/writingken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
