Book Review: "The 5,000 Year Leap" by Cleon Skousen

[_EAllusion]

24 of the 54 who signed the Declaration were heads of seminaries.

For what it is worth, that's a distortion of one of David Barton lies. First of all, the claim is that 24 had degrees from seminaries, not that they were heads of seminaries.

See Barton's claim here:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesAr ... asp?id=100

The added distortion is either a mistake by Droopy or whomever telephoned him that claim.

The original claim itself is grossly misleading. What David Barton does is count a "seminary degree" as any degree from any university that began as a seminary. Havard, for example, started out as a seminary in the 1600's. Almost everyone being counted here got their degrees in things like law, but Barton calls those "seminary or Bible school degrees" even if they were in a completely different subject. That's like saying everyone with a degree from Harvard today has a seminary degree. It's just lying.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I'm not really sure if people like you are even worth my time debating any longer, in all frankness

You’ve never really responded to me before, outside of insults.

To claim that the constitution is based heavily off biblical ethics is a plain and obvious example of eisegesis, your reading your modern poltical views into ancient texts that is so far removed from our time, that it’s almost comical that you think you can find any of your political fetishes in the text.

But humor me, at what time in ancient Israel’s timeline that you see a forerunner to the United States of America, circa late 18th century? The Exodus? The conquest of Canaan? The time of Judges? The united monarchy? The kingdom of Judah under Josiah? Hezekiah? Oh wait, how about the Hasmodeans?

Cite me some biblical text, and exegete it.

[_Darth J]

My favorite thing ever on this board might be that both of the following statements ARE IN THE SAME DAMN POST:

Which careful hides the fact that the concept of "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution, but in a piece of correspondence between Jefferson and another of the Founders. In any case, anyone with a decent grasp of the Federalist Papers, and other writings of the Founders, would understand the clear meaning of the first amendment in this regard, which was that Congress shall make no law regarding it. That's not a separation of church and state in the modern, leftist/secularist sense, but between the state and private life. The only point of tit was to prevent the imposition of a state church, or state support of a particular denomination.

Nothing more.

It is only when religion and state unite that problems arise in any degree.

[_EAllusion]

James Madison, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, and the person who wrote the language of the first amendment, was a strict separatist when it came to interpreting the establishment clause.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

He was slightly to the left of the modern ACLU on the subject.

But apparently if you have a grasp on the founders and the federalist papers, then it's obvious that this a separationist view is not the correct reading of the text. Shame it wasn't obvious to the the guy who wrote it.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Count down till David Barton's material makes a debut.

[_EAllusion]

Count down till David Barton's material makes a debut.

What? I just got done pointing out he was relying on Barton's material in at least one claim.

I'll cut you.

[_MrStakhanovite]

crap I totally missed that.

[_gramps]

Droopy,

Go back and study the history of Virginia, specifically the role of Madison and Jefferson in getting Bill 82 passed through the Virginia Legislature. Madison was very strict separationist, as has already been pointed out to you. It really isn't debatable. I am not really sure where you got your talking points on that issue, but you are definitely wrong.

After you read that history carefully, perhaps we can have a discussion about it. What do you say?

Maybe you could start with The First Liberty, William Lee Miller. He lays it out quite clearly. I am sure you can understand it.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Miller is not on his pre-approved reading list Gramps. You’ll have to wait till one of his idols “refutes” Miller in print, so he can use that. Until then, you are asking way way too much.

[_moksha]

So what if the book is full of faulty premises and overlooked information? You still have to admire the sense of balance in creating these house of cards theories. I am sure that Professor Skousen could come up with a theory to help demonize all of you critics.

This review is an interesting idea. Hopefully you can also cover Professor Skousen's even more esoteric work, The Naked Capitalist.