Jon Ralston interviewing Sharron Angle, June 29, 2010
It seems as though Jon Ralston did not like my article “Jon Ralston, a man ignorant on history”. He emailed late last night after I had gone to bed. Unfortunately I did not have time to answer his email this morning.
Mr. Ralston also responded to an email that Gregg Jackson had sent me and Mr. Ralston.
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Ralston had a running dialogue during the day and it definitely offers some insight into Mr. Ralston.
I’m going to post the emails and then I will respond below. This is a little longer than usual, but please take the time to read it in its entirety:
-
From: Jon Ralston
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:24 PM
To: David Jeffers
Subject: Re: Jon Ralston, a man ignorant of history – A Defense of Sharron Angle
Sir,
Thank God (!) for the First Amendment. It gives you the right to practice sophistry for hundreds of words. Just one small example because I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend much time with your disingenuous ramblings.
James Madison’s most famous quote about religion and government: An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against.â€
No one should begrudge Sharron Angle or anyone else her faith. I do not seek to marginalize her because of her faith. I only seek to raise questions about someone who seeks to do what Madison and other Founders most feared — intertwine the two. The Gipper didn’t think that was a good idea, either.
The problem with some of the devout is that it’s one pray or the highway. Intolerance, sir, is to be feared.
Your deflection cannot obscure the point I was making, no matter how you distort it.
Go with God.
JR
From: Gregg Jackson
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:42 PM
To: David Jeffers; Jon Ralston
Subject: Re: Jon Ralston, a man ignorant of history – A Defense of Sharron Angle
Bravo David. Very well written. Amazing how little “political journalists” such as Mr. Ralston know of our Founding….
From: Jon Ralston [mailto:ralston@vegas.com]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:50 PM
To: gregg.jackson@gmail.com; David Jeffers
Subject: Re: Jon Ralston, a man ignorant of history – A Defense of Sharron Angle
Bravo, Gregg. Amazing how little sycophants such as you know of….anything. I’ll copy you on what I sent to your hero:
(Editor note: Mr. Ralston included in this email his response to me)
From: Gregg Jackson
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 8:35 AM
To: Jon Ralston; David Jeffers
Subject: Re: Jon Ralston, a man ignorant of history – A Defense of Sharron Angle
Jon, instead of name calling try substantiating your actual argument which you have still yet to do.
When did Mrs. Angle ever “seek to intertwine government and religion?” Has she called for an establishment of a Christian Theocratic government in America? If so, I am not aware of it. Please provide the exact quote from Mrs. Angle that most troubles you.
From: Jon Ralston
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 8:40 AM
To: gregg.jackson@gmail.com; David Jeffers
Subject: Re: Jon Ralston, a man ignorant of history – A Defense of Sharron Angle
I don’t need to defend myself. There is plenty of evidence, much of it on my blog or in the public domain. As for name-calling, when someone calls me “ignorant of history†(I think that’s name-calling) and then proves his ignorance of past and present events, I need say no more. That is all, gentlemen.
JR
From: Gregg Jackson
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 8:58 AM
To: Jon Ralston; David Jeffers
Subject: Re: Jon Ralston, a man ignorant of history – A Defense of Sharron Angle
So, in other words Mr. Ralston, you can’t actually substantiate your claim that Mrs. Angle may “seek to intertwine government and religion.” (I.e an establishment of a national religion)
And since you can’t provide one single quote from Mrs. Angle as I have called on you to do, don’t you think you owe your readers and Mrs. Angle an apology for laying such a groundless claim?
From: Jon Ralston
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:02 AM
To: Gregg Jackson; David Jeffers
Subject: Re: Jon Ralston, a man ignorant of history – A Defense of Sharron Angle
I have made no groundless claims, sir. I never said she wanted to establish a national religion, which is different than mixing the two, which her statements clearly show she has as is her belief that separation of church and state does not exist. I don’t need to back up anything to you that I already have publicly. Now please stop emailing me. I am sure you think you are very clever, but am busy and don’t have time to deal with your nonsense.
JR
From: Gregg Jackson
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:21 AM
To: Jon Ralston; David Jeffers
Subject: Re: Jon Ralston, a man ignorant of history – A Defense of Sharron Angle
No. Sorry Mr. Ralston. I am busy too.
But I can’t let you off that easy.
You made the baseless claim that Mrs. Angle is “seeking to intertwine government and religion” and have offered not one single shred of proof. What has she specifically said that would cause you to make such a statement? Can you cite even one sentence she has ever uttered as proof?
And I know that the “separation of church and state” does appear in the Constitution….the former Soviet Union’s that is. But where exactly do the words “separation of church and state” appear in ours?
From: Jon Ralston
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:28 AM
To: Gregg Jackson; David Jeffers
Subject: Re: Jon Ralston, a man ignorant of history – A Defense of Sharron Angle
Not let me off that easy? You lose one argument and move onto the next. Never said it was in the Constitution. Fair warning: Will not respond again. Bye, bye.
From: Gregg Jackson
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:55 AM
To: Jon Ralston; David Jeffers
Subject: Re: Jon Ralston, a man ignorant of history – A Defense of Sharron Angle
OK, Jon. Let the record show that you accused Mrs. Angle of “seeking to intertwine government and religion” without being able to cite even one single solitary example.
A real man would acknowledge his mistake and apologize.
My two cents…
I started off my article about Mr. Ralston with a vocabulary lesson and it would seem as though one is in order again. Mr. Ralston accuses me of using sophistry and being disingenuous.
Random House Dictionary defines sophistry as “a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning; a false argument.” I will allow the readers to once again read my article and see if you can identify where I am being subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but using a generally fallacious method of reasoning. How is my argument false Mr. Ralston? And I think my article was pretty straight-forward; am I missing something here?
Random House Dictionary defines disingenuous as “lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere.” Really Mr. Ralston, did I really fail to be frank, candid, or sincere? Am I falsely ingenuous or insincere? Anybody? Hello?
Mr. Ralston precedes to use “James Madison’s most famous quote about religion and government: “An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against.â€
Well Mr. Ralston, that is not a direct quote; it is one taken out of context. It is from a letter written from James Madison to Edward Livingston and it was referencing the error of marrying government with church. Here’s the actually quote in context:
-
“Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of [religious] liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance.”
Madison is writing in favor of not separating religious beliefs from the state, he’s arguing for there to be a perfect separation of religion from the state; that the federal government should not establish a particular religion. At the beginning of his letter Madison writes:
-
‘I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me..”
What? Is that Madison writing about the government not having jurisdiction over religion? Yep, that’s what it looks like to me.
Mr. Ralston so graciously does not begrudge Sharron Angle or anyone else their faith. Kind of like the new mantra of we are free to worship, just don’t exercise it in the public arena.
As for the Gipper not thinking that it was a good idea to intertwine religion and government, Mr. Ralston, did you not read the first line of the quote in my article I used of Ronald Reagan?
-
“I believe that faith and religion play a critical role in the political life of our nation ‑‑ and always has ‑‑ and that the church ‑‑ and by that I mean all churches, all denominations ‑‑ has had a strong influence on the state. And this has worked to our benefit as a nation.”
Perhaps you should read Reagan’s whole speech in context from where this quote comes? (I encourage you to read all of Madison’s letter also.)
Come on Mr. Ralston, be honest, man up.
Let me ask you a straight-forward, sincere, ingenuous question:
Should someone like Sharron Angle, or me for that matter, who hold and publicly declare a biblical worldview be allowed to run for office, and if such a person were to be elected to office should they be carefully guarded against?
And what if Senator Angle and other Bible-believing Congressmen and women decide to organize a…oh let’s call it…a moral majority coalition, would that need to be carefully guarded against?
Is it a reason to disqualify someone from public office because they do intertwine their religion with their service to government? Would it be unacceptable for an elected official to publicly say that he or she was going to consult the Holy Bible and pray about a vote they were scheduled to make?
What say you Mr. Ralston?
-
Copyright © 2010 www.saltandlightblog.com
Folks who know they are caught up in something they have no idea (only so called facts they’ve heard over time such as “separation of church and state” etc.) have a fancy way of dancing around issues. When faced with facts, they have a way of deflecting the real issue with more questions.
After doing months of research for my latest blog articles on the Founders and our Documents, it’s clear that Mr. Ralston and millions of others have no idea about the intent of our founders and the basis which upon this nation was built – the Christian faith. It’s interesting too that Mr.Ralston accuses Mr. Jackson of name calling for calling out Mr. Ralston’s ignorance on the subject. Since when has the word ignorant become a name? When some one doesn’t know facts, that person is ignorant. I don’t know a lot of things, therefore I am ignorant of them- am I calling myself a name?
One last thought. What would Mr. Ralston and so many other of those who believe in “separation” think of back in the early days during and after the Revolution think about groups such as the Black Regiment? What about those in our earliest congress who were pastors? What about the CHRISTIAN prayers offered before Congress, or the Christian church services which were held in the hall of Congress every Sunday? That famous so called Deist, Thomas Jefferson attended those services regularily when he was president.
Ah, that’s enough for me Dave. I have a feeling Mr. Ralston won’t respond here. He’ll claim to be too busy, but I believe it will be because he wants to remain in ignorance and continue to bash a decent, hardworking and honest woman, Sharron Angle, and incite others through his columns to do the same.
God Bless you Dave. You too Mr. Jackson. Mr. Ralston, I’ll be praying for you.
Well at least he wasn’t swearing at you 😉 . I can appreciate his concern over how dishonest people will try to say they were called by God to get the Christian vote, but when has Sharron Angle said something dishonest?? He’s just afraid of Christian influence putting restraints on society. It’s kind of like the liberals’ complete overreaction to the Tim Tebow Superbowl ad, which had no statement about abortion, in fact!