[JViello]

Originally Posted by PriscillaHR

missing the point here.

how one emphasizes information, how one makes the decision what facts to include and what facts to omit, how one chooses to contextualize the information shapes our history, it defines it. If different choices were made as to emphasis, as to what facts were included and what facts were omitted and how those facts were contextualized, it would very well seem a very different history.

That's what makes history and the study of it so fascinating.

I know what you saying about context and start point, but I think you are the one missing the point, not me.

No facts are missing. What he wrote is verbatim. Have you ever read our founding documents?

[goldenband]

I know I've made this point before, but when someone talks about the Founding Fathers' opinions on Christianity et al., I find it suspicious when that person doesn't mention (for example) Thomas Jefferson -- a man who re-edited the Bible extensively, omitting the Resurrection, and who believed that the Apostle Paul corrupted Jesus's teachings. There was a heck of a lot of Deism and non-traditional Christianity among liberal, educated men at that time -- which, after all, is what the Founding Fathers were! Paine, Franklin, and Jefferson would have no truck whatsoever with modern-day Christian Fundamentalism, and its emphasis on Biblical literalism.

[PriscillaHR]

Originally Posted by JViello

I know what you saying about context and start point, but I think you are the one missing the point, not me.

No facts are missing. What he wrote is verbatim. Have you ever read our founding documents?

yes, actually, I have both read them and taught them. That section of the post was what I wrote about emphasis. In terms of that post and emphasis, I mean choosing some words to be typed in ALL CAPS. That would be choosing which words to ADD emphasis to.

I was referring to context for the rest of it. The rest of it is his opinion, and I commented on context where he chose what facts to include and what facts to omit (as well as continuing with EMPHASIS).

[PriscillaHR]

Originally Posted by goldenband

I know I've made this point before, but when someone talks about the Founding Fathers' opinions on Christianity et al., I find it suspicious when that person doesn't mention (for example) Thomas Jefferson -- a man who re-edited the Bible extensively, omitting the Resurrection, and who believed that the Apostle Paul corrupted Jesus's teachings. There was a heck of a lot of Deism and non-traditional Christianity among liberal, educated men at that time -- which, after all, is what the Founding Fathers were! Paine, Franklin, and Jefferson would have no truck whatsoever with modern-day Christian Fundamentalism, and its emphasis on Biblical literalism.

thank you for the example of facts chosen to be omitted

[JViello]

Originally Posted by goldenband

I know I've made this point before, but when someone talks about the Founding Fathers' opinions on Christianity et al., I find it suspicious when that person doesn't mention (for example) Thomas Jefferson -- a man who re-edited the Bible extensively, omitting the Resurrection, and who believed that the Apostle Paul corrupted Jesus's teachings. There was a heck of a lot of Deism and non-traditional Christianity among liberal, educated men at that time -- which, after all, is what the Founding Fathers were! Paine, Franklin, and Jefferson would have no truck whatsoever with modern-day Christian Fundamentalism, and its emphasis on Biblical literalism.

True. But I will say this - the *majority* of our founding fathers had some form of faith in Jesus and/or their belief in God was founded on that starting point.

They were not muslim, hindu or whatever.

Even still, they made damn sure the government would not start an official religion OR get in the way of one.

A lot of folks seem to forget the second half of that statement if you know what I mean.

Originally Posted by PriscillaHR

yes, actually, I have both read them and taught them. That section of the post was what I wrote about emphasis. In terms of that post and emphasis, I mean choosing some words to be typed in ALL CAPS. That would be choosing which words to ADD emphasis to.

I was referring to context for the rest of it. The rest of it is his opinion, and I commented on context where he chose what facts to include and what facts to omit (as well as continuing with EMPHASIS).

Okay I understand what you are saying now. I wasn't clear before. I was under the impression that you were saying he was adding things to the documents and/or leaving parts out.

Thanks for clarifying.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by PriscillaHR

thank you for the example of facts chosen to be omitted

The discussion was not about which of the founding fathers were "non believers" or whatever.

It's fact that 50 (And possibly 52) of the 55 framers were Christians. Not humanists, Diests, or agnostics. So in that light, he was accurate in his post.

A good read on the subject is a book called A Worthy Company by M.E. Bradford.

[PriscillaHR]

Originally Posted by JViello

The discussion was not about which of the founding fathers were "non believers" or whatever.

It's fact that 50 (And possibly 52) of the 55 framers were Christians. Not humanists, Diests, or agnostics. So in that light, he was accurate in his post.

A good read on the subject is a book called A Worthy Company by M.E. Bradford.

again with the point missing and here I thought you finally got it. Oh well, I will try to clarify further.

Since almost ALL the Founding Fathers WERE BIBLICAL CHRISTIANS, and 25% were ORDAINED MINISTERS,

note the added emphasis,
note that there is an omission of fact of which particular Bible they followed (is it the same version as the one on your bedstead? most likely not)
note that being an ordained minister does not mean that they were ordained Christian ministers and it does not mean that they were ordained at the time of this nation's founding or that they were practicing at the time of this nation's founding.

I do not expect a full and accurate portrayal of history on a message board. I was simply making an observation on how added emphasis and the inclusion and omission of fact can twist and distort historical fact and show one's personal bias. I made comment about how that particular post was an excellent example of that practice.

if you happen to disagree or take offense, that is your choice.

[teek777]

1. Spiritual Beliefs ARE the most important of one's Core-Beliefs and World-View. They are what we hold MOST DEAR, MOST PRECIOUS AND MOST IMPORTANT. For anyone to say otherwise is 100% disingenuous and a lie. EXAMPLE: IF someone believes in Darwinism, Marxism and Atheism they WILL ALSO believe in Liberalism, Abortion and HIGH Taxes and OPPRESSIVE Regulation(s).

2. Marriage HAS ALREADY BEEN DEFINED by humanity for THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF YEARS as 1Man+1Woman=Marriage. It is The Left- because of THEIR SPIRITUAL/CORE-VALUES that is feverishly working to RE-DEFINE marriage, family and Morality. The Conservatives are simply wanting ot maintain the established order that has WORKED and IS RIGHT for the last 6-12,000 YEARS.

3. An the Ten Commandments ARE THE Foundation of every Republican Constitution and Conservative government and society...

and after this, im not commenting on this subject anymore.. you are entitled to believe the way you want to and so am i.. i feel like youre attacking me for my beliefs which is pretty much annoying. this subject got way out of hand. no wonder why the guy doesnt want to move to ct..cya

[teek777]

Originally Posted by PriscillaHR

again with the point missing and here I thought you finally got it. Oh well, I will try to clarify further.



note the added emphasis,
note that there is an omission of fact of which particular Bible they followed (is it the same version as the one on your bedstead? most likely not)
note that being an ordained minister does not mean that they were ordained Christian ministers and it does not mean that they were ordained at the time of this nation's founding or that they were practicing at the time of this nation's founding.

I do not expect a full and accurate portrayal of history on a message board. I was simply making an observation on how added emphasis and the inclusion and omission of fact can twist and distort historical fact and show one's personal bias. I made comment about how that particular post was an excellent example of that practice.

if you happen to disagree or take offense, that is your choice.

Note: shakes head... i dont take offense that you disagree, i take offense that youre attacking but thats what liberals do

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by teek777

1. Spiritual Beliefs ARE the most important of one's Core-Beliefs and World-View. They are what we hold MOST DEAR, MOST PRECIOUS AND MOST IMPORTANT. For anyone to say otherwise is 100% disingenuous and a lie. EXAMPLE: IF someone believes in Darwinism, Marxism and Atheism they WILL ALSO believe in Liberalism, Abortion and HIGH Taxes and OPPRESSIVE Regulation(s).

2. Marriage HAS ALREADY BEEN DEFINED by humanity for THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF YEARS as 1Man+1Woman=Marriage. It is The Left- because of THEIR SPIRITUAL/CORE-VALUES that is feverishly working to RE-DEFINE marriage, family and Morality. The Conservatives are simply wanting ot maintain the established order that has WORKED and IS RIGHT for the last 6-12,000 YEARS.

3. An the Ten Commandments ARE THE Foundation of every Republican Constitution and Conservative government and society...

and after this, im not commenting on this subject anymore.. you are entitled to believe the way you want to and so am i.. i feel like youre attacking me for my beliefs which is pretty much annoying. this subject got way out of hand. no wonder why the guy doesnt want to move to ct..cya

1. Everyone has their own set of Spiritual beliefs. Neither the left nor the right has a Monopoly on Spiritual beliefs.

2. Marriage in many ways has been re-defined over time. years ago a marriage wasn't an equal partnership. The woman was generally deemed property of her husband. That is something which has changed over time. People of different races weren't allowed to marry, the definition of marriage has changed with that respect. It was less than 50 years ago when the bans on inter-racial marriage were struck down, and the only way it was going to be stricken down was by the courts, because inter-racial marriage was extremely unpopular (had much less support when the ban was struck down than gay marriage does now), and the argument against each was generally the same, its unnatrual, ot goes against the bible, etc etc...

3. And in most of those societies only a few of them are actually laws.