Jon Rowe has a post at Positive Liberty where he deftly shreds the nonsense being spewed by Mike Adams about legislating morality. Here's what jumps out at me about Adams' screed. In the first part of his two part article on the subject, he declares himself to be the noble myth destroyer:
Part of my job as your professor is to dispel certain myths you learn in your other classes, especially sociology. If you decide to question these myths in Sociology 101, your professor is likely to assign you to sensitivity training sessions...
Needless to say, I can't take on all of the myths you will encounter every semester at UNC-Wilmington. In fact, each semester I design a project that focuses on just one of those myths. This semester I will focus on the myth that society "can't legislate morality."
Ah, the brave and noble truth-teller, tilting at the windmills of academic mythmaking. It's a common pose, and a useful one as well. But when one is caught, in the second part of that same article, not only peddling myths oneself, but peddling myths that have been exposed as such over and over again, one comes out looking rather foolish. To wit:
James Madison once said that "We have staked the future of all of our political institutions ... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God." Was this the same James Madison who wrote the First Amendment?
Well no, it's not. Because James Madison never said that, as has been pointed out literally hundreds of times and admitted even by Adams' pal David Barton, the modern purveyor of this myth. This is one of the many fake quotes that circulates among the religious right despite being debunked again and again. It simply will not die. And the fact that it's repeated credulously by a guy who fancies himself a scholar and poses as a quasher of myths is really quite absurd.
- Log in to post comments
Don't forget, in the same drivel he rehashes the myth that gays only has a life expectancy of about 40. Nimrod. Did he post simliar disinformative posts while applying for tenure? If so, he should have been denied (I think he was, but won on appeal or is currently fighting the denial).
One myth that Rowe does not sufficiently address that is cribbed from Barton is this one:
In fact there was no such thing as a seminary in North America in the modern sense until the 19th century. Many Founding Fathers attended colleges like Harvard, Yale, William and Mary, Oxford and Cambridge. They no doubt got a significant dose of theology there (as did those who attended 18th century grade schools) but by the 1820's or 1830's almost all of them (with Princeton being a notable exception) were moving to a more secular curriculum. These were not seminaries in any sense of the word.
Um, would that be the case in which the judge ruled that it is in violation of the first amendment? The case in which the judge wrote:
Thanks. Yes, the seminary degree thing is probably another one of Barton's BS talking points. I could see Barton saying simply graduating with a degree from Harvard, Yale, or Princeton qualifies as getting a "seminary degree." But as I said, I'm still looking into this one.
You can only call statements of fact "myths". Opinions on political philosophy aren't "myths" no matter how much you disagree with them.
In fact there was no such thing as a seminary in North America in the modern sense until the 19th century.
Laval University in Quebec began as something that called itself a seminary in the 17th century.
But perhaps this fails to be in the modern sense.
Anyhow, it's tangential to the main argument.
"The origins of the university are the Séminaire de Québec founded in 1663..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universit%C3%A9_Laval#History
My apologies if, in fact, I dissed the Canadians. My research only covered the American colonies and I assumed (evidently incorrectly) that the Canadians would be even more behind.
My research only covered the American colonies and I assumed (evidently incorrectly) that the Canadians would be even more behind.
No offense taken. I'm not sure that I would put having seminaries on an ahead-behind axis anyway. It is possible that the relevant factor is not so much being "ahead" as that, (at least to my understanding) the province of Quebec was essentially a Roman Catholic theocracy up until the 1960's.
Ed, have you seen that Mike Adams is now suing his school for denying him tenure? Any thoughts?
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/11536829/page1/