Truth or propaganda???

[IrishEyes]

Good morning to all!

 

This is a carry-over from another topic in another thread, so I'm going to try to backfill a little.

 

My esteemed coll-erator (almost sounds like cholera, huh? ;) ) made a statement about Lincoln being an atheist in a Time Travel thread. As I had heard that statement by another atheist in another venue, I decided to investigate. So, being the slightly naive person that I am, I Googled "Abraham Lincoln atheist". I got about 12,000 results, which seems rather low to me, but hey, it was a start. I started reading through them and tried really hard to find that Lincoln was, in fact, an atheist. However, I didn't find irrefutable 'proof' of that. There was the suggestion that he might have been, supported by observations from friends and associates of his. their was the suggestion that he, at one time, did not believe in any God, supported by statements made in letters or private conversations. However, for every statement or observation that was there saying he did NOT believe in God, there was at least one more saying that he DID believe in God.

 

Now, I'm not nearly as old as some of you guys :P but I'm no spring chicken either. But even with my upcoming birthday, i still wasn't around at the time of Lincoln, and I never personally knew the man. Of course, i remember some of what was 'taught' in school, but most of you know how I feel about public education, so we won't even go there. But Lincoln never told me that he believed in God, he never wrote to me and said he didn't,a nd he left no explicit instructions to me as to how he should be remembered in the history books. So I'm left at a loss.

 

Truly, it doesn't really matter to me whether the man was an Atheist, a Muslim, an Anglican or a Naturalist. He was a President and for that he deserves at least a minimum amount of respect. What truly disturbs me is how easy it is to twist history to fit our own personal version of the truth as we want it to have been.

 

Who verifies letters from famous people making claims that may be considered 'newsworthy'? Who verifies quotes or conversations that were supposedly private? I mean, just because my great-grandmother once fixed breakfast for Pretty Boy Floyd, does that mean that I can quote what was accreditted to Al Capone by Floyd that morning? Even if Grams wrote it in her diary? Am I now a "source"? Floyd said Al was really a gentleman, and that the newsies just made him out to be bad to please the Feds. He also said that Al gave most of his money away, and hid the rest under a building in Chicago at the corner of...oh geez, never mind. You get the picture thoufgh.

 

Where does truth stop and propaganda begin, or is it all perception?

 

And who REALLY get s to *claim* Lincoln, based on YOUR opinion?

[Freethinker]

Thanks for moving this discussion Irish. I had thought about doing it but just did not have the time to do more than paste info I had compiled over the years for other discussion on this subject. From the tome of your post, it would seem you posted it before you had a chance to review my other post. I will copy my reply from the other thread in order to carry it on here.

 

Naturally there is a strong effort to hide the actual personal philosphy of Lincoln. The Christians can't have the general population know that one of their most highly regarded Presidents of all times was very anti-Christian and referred to with the popular term of the time ("Agnostic" was not an out at that time) "Infidel". (The same was the case for Thomas Jefferson. In fact none of the first 4 US Presidents were officially Christian.)

 

So lots of stuff is litterally made up. The rest twisted or hidden. But these are all verifyable facts and quotes.

 

"The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." -Abraham Lincoln quoted by Joseph Lewis

 

Interviewer Opie Read once asked LIncoln his conception of God, to which he replied: "The same as my conception of nature." Asked what he meant, Lincoln said: "That it is impossible for either to be personal."

 

"It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity." Abraham Lincoln in Manford's Magazine.

 

"I am not a Christian." Abraham Lincoln quoted in Noyes

 

Lincoln wrote to his life long friend, Judge J.A. Wakefield, this "testament" of his beliefs:

 

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the Scriptures, have become clearer, and stronger, with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

 

Lincoln's law partner, Mr. Herndon, in the years following the assassination, said:

 

"Mr. Lincoln was an infidel, sometimes bordering on atheism." "He never mentioned the name of Jesus, except to scorn and detest the idea of a miraculous conception." "He did write a little work on infidelity in 1835-6, and never recanted. He was an out-and-out infidel, and about that there is no mistake."

 

"Oh, that [religious inclusions in speaches] is some of (Secretary of State) Seward's nonsense, and it pleases the fools. -- Abraham Lincoln, to Judge James M. Nelson, in response to a question from Nelson: "I once asked him about his fervent Thanksgiving Message and twitted him with being an unbeliever in what was published."

 

When the Know-Nothings get control, it [the Declaration of Independence] will read: "All men are created equal except negroes, foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy. -- Abraham Lincoln, letter to Joshua F. Speed, August 24, 1855

 

When Dr. Holland asked Mr. Herndon (Lincoln's Law partner) about Lincoln's religoius convictions, Mr. Herndon replied that he had none, and the less he said on that subject the better. 'Oh well,' replied Dr. Holland, 'I'll fix that.'" -- Dr. Josiah G. Holland, later editor of Scribner's Monthly, having spent only two weeks interviewing Lincoln's friends before preparing his Biography "Life of Abraham Lincoln,", in which Holland fabricated accounts of Lincoln's piety.

 

Yes he was definately a skilled politician. He used the god card to his advantage. He knew "it pleases the fools."

[Freethinker]

IN a quick review of Google for "infidel lincoln herndon" I found two basic groups of sites. Those of non-religious affiliation, both non-believers and plain secular, gave details from quotes about Lincoln's being an infidel that used religion for political purpose. Most also mention something about specific attempts by various Christians and Christian groups immediately after his assasination to claim him as a "secret" member of their church. Some even claimed "secret" baptisms.

 

Then those on the Christian side, with few excpetions of those wishing to cast Lincoln in a negative light, grasped at the very revisionist sources disproved in other sites (such as heavy emphasis on Dr Holland's lies) to claim that Lincoln WAS a Christian.

 

Yes the game is and has been afoot to reframe Lincoln as being a Christian, or minimally a personal god beleiver (one even tried Budhist). We KNOW Christians have no compunction against outright lies to revise history (as proven by the same lying attempts regarding G Washington, or the bible itself). So what source can provide the most accurate info?

 

One source which would seem to carry some significant weight would be his closest associate, friend and Law partner of over TWENTY YEARS, Mr. Herndon. He went so far as to start touring some time after Lincoln's death after being tired of hearing the lies of the various Christian groups in order to set the record straight. As shown above, he flatly stated Licoln as a blatant Infidel.

 

But what other close valdi sources confirm this? How about his widow or Assistant?

 

Mrs. Lincoln after his death said "(Lincoln) had no hope and no faith, in the usual acceptance of those words" Mr. Nicolay, Lincoln's private secretary said: "Lincoln did not, to my knowledge, in any way change his religious views, opinions or beliefs from the time he left Springfield to the day of his death"

 

Yes there are plenty of Ministers that wished to change the historical refernce of Lincoln's reality. SOme will accept this revisionist attempt claiming there are quotes on both sides.

 

The difference is in WHOM the quotes are from. Those from those closest to Lincoln himself (his 20+ year partner, wife and personal Sec) AND Lincoln HIMSELF are on the INFIDEL side. Those that were not directly connected to Lincoln are on the Christian side.

[IrishEyes]

FreeT, while I greatly appreciate the zeal with which you choose to defend your assertions that Lincoln was, in fact, an atheist, I really was going for something else. Lincoln was just what sparked my questions. What I'm really trying to figure out is how people can make claims about a person that lived a hundred years ago, and spout them as facts, when there is a ton of evidence that goes against what they are asserting. Yes, Lincoln may have been an atheist. But then again, I found literally hundreds of quotes made by him, and others close to him, that indicated that he believed in God. While I agree that you should consider what those close to him said about him, even those quotations are varied. My point, I guess, is that it is impossible to tell. You can argue that he was an infidel, but there are verifiable quotes that indicate the opposite. While he may have been playing the politic game, who's to say for certain.

 

For someone that claims to have no absolutes, you seem ready to fight to claim Lincoln as an atheist, even though the 'proof' seems lacking.

[Uncle Martin]

IrishEyes,

I agree. We are no more able to prove what a dead man held in his mind than we are of proving the existence of,..... well you know. Any subjective concept. We can however come to an approximation of the man by a preponderance of evidence. Is it definitive? Absolutely not. It is the best we can do, until,.... should your subjective concepts prove correct, we,....(you anyway) can ask him.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

FreeT, while I greatly appreciate the zeal with which you choose to defend your assertions that Lincoln was, in fact, an atheist, I really was going for something else. Lincoln was just what sparked my questions. What I'm really trying to figure out is how people can make claims about a person that lived a hundred years ago, and spout them as facts, when there is a ton of evidence that goes against what they are asserting.

Yes, I agree, Lincoln is just one example for evaluation.

 

And as you say. One has to be careful to evaluate the QUALITY rather than QUANTITY of the sources.

 

For instance, there are claims of Lincoln being secretly baptised.

 

But when you check closer you find that multiple people have claimed to be THE ONE that did it. From this we have to figure that they can't all be true. Actually we can not even assume that. It is possible that Licoln held Christianity is such low regard, which is indicated by many private writings of his, that he would have no qualms in intentionally misleading all of the preachers and was running around pretending to want to be secretly baptised as somethng special. Or we can figure that it is just the well established Christian process of lying about things like this after the fact. We have an extensive historical record of exactly this series of lies. Darwin, G. Washington, Einstien... Often the offending Christian authority is even caught or admits to doing it. But they know they know that they have succeeded in changing the record of history. This fgoes back to Eusebius, 4th Century Bishop of Caesarea.

Yes, Lincoln may have been an atheist. But then again, I found literally hundreds of quotes made by him,

Which is why, he explained IN WRITTING that he considered it "Sewards Nonsense" and "pleases the fools". You can CHOOSE to ignore verifyable written records if you wish. But that does make for a valid evaluation.

and others close to him, that indicated that he believed in God.

The same again happened to Washington. The whole "Cherry tree" and kneeling to pray at Valley Forge were intentional lies started by a Christian minister after Washigton's death. And with Einstien, while he was still alive! He finally got so fed up he did a couple of official letters to try to get Christians to stop lying about him.

 

Darwin was so sensitive to it he would not allow himslef to be left alone with Christians while on his death bed, so they would nt claim a bed side conversion. They still lie about it.

 

So yes, you will find all kinds of quotes taken out of context (Einstien used the word god quite a bit, but stated he was an Atheist) and lots of people that were not that close, but claimed to be.

 

But in Lincolns case for example, you can stack all of the others up and they will noit compare to the quality of his wife and 20+ year partner for knowing his inner feelings.

While I agree that you should consider what those close to him said about him, even those quotations are varied.

Actually no they aren't. It is consistant from those closest to him. And consistant with his various PERSONAL (not POLITICAL) writings.

My point, I guess, is that it is impossible to tell. You can argue that he was an infidel, but there are verifiable quotes that indicate the opposite. While he may have been playing the politic game, who's to say for certain.

 

HE said for certain. Where is the confusion?

 

Add to this the well established historical process of lying that Christians are known for, and it is easy to see which side has more credibility.

[IrishEyes]

Hey FreeT, I'm gonna go with Unc on this one. I'll just ask him. Or not. That will be my answer. ;~P

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

IrishEyes,

 

I agree. We are no more able to prove what a dead man held in his mind than we are of proving the existence of,..... well you know. Any subjective concept. We can however come to an approximation of the man by a preponderance of evidence. Is it definitive? Absolutely not. It is the best we can do, until,.... should your subjective concepts prove correct, we,....(you anyway) can ask him.

 

Assuming the other person also shared the one particular combination of beliefs and actions as Irish. What's the chance of that? :-)

 

But I don't buy that we can not know with some level of certainty "what a dead man held in his mind". While there is always the possibility that a person might intentionally mislead everyone by lying about everything they actually believed in their life, there is usually enough info from recent historical figures to derive some reasonable overview of their belief structure. Especially if they directly addressed certain areas of it.

 

Add to this, if their closest associates confirm this and agree with each other, then it gains additional support.

 

Then there is the other side. The identifyable bias of the person or group which accumulated any specific set of "evidence" to support their claims.

 

We can apply this to many historical figures, real or invented.

 

e.g. the biblical Jesus the Christ. We have one set of texts, promoted by a particular group wishing to claim a particular set of "realities" for him. Yet they can not, as a whole group, agree on what is what and there are many sect, some at complete odds, as to what the agreed texts actually mean. Then there are other texts, which were obviously intentionally rejected from the more popular compilation, which promotes a very different view of this supposed person. Some specifically structuring this Jesus as a concept rather than an actual person. Additionally there are groups, such as those on the "O" project or "Jesus Seminary" that wish to invent a concept of the person by interpolation of available texts rather than direct acceptance of the texts. Even further, when viewed from a compilation of ALL sources from around the time period, or shortly thereafter, we find a complete lack of validation of the very existence of this biblical Jesus.

 

Some will take this last approach. Using an overview based on ALL texts and sources from the time and weighted by the identifyable bias of each's source, one takes the lack of ANY valid contemporary eyewitness confirmation of the biblical texts, in fact showing the bibl to be an inaccurate representation of the times, draws the conclusion that this biblical figure was made up for the bible's followers.

 

Some ignore the complete lack of independant secular support from eyewitnesses and compile a description of the biblical Jesus based on what he WOULD have been or SHOULD have been based on a intentionally limited variety of sources that DO suggest his existence in one form or other.

 

Finally there are those that have a strong emotional need to accept his existence no matter what FACTUAL evidence may or may not exist and blindly accept a narrow limited set of source material. This group often creates additional materials along the way which they then refer to within their own group to provide additional moral support for the claim.

 

Each can CLAIM to have constructed the most accurate representation of historical reality. But only the one that gave appropriate levels of acceptance to ALL sources available stand to be most accurate.

 

Was Lincoln an Atheist? Or perhaps more accurate to the termonology of the time, an Infidel? We can ignore that HE said so, that his closest and longest time friend and biz partner said so, that his wife said so, all AFTER his death ... and instead accept the greater body of writings from those far less connected to the man, and even those that had admitted they wi

[Uncle Martin]

As I said, the preponderence of evidence does lead to a certain level of knowledge. It IS good enough in a court of law in misdemeanor cases. By my definition of "certainty", it is not certain. Are there "levels of certainty"? Probability is a much better word in this instance. Yes, the evidence indicates to me, a 99% probability that ol' honest Abe was an Athiest. Others will interpret the evidence differently.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Hey FreeT, I'm gonna go with Unc on this one. I'll just ask him. Or not. That will be my answer. ;~P

 

"Or not"? OOOOOOOHHHHhh!!!!! You may have just expressed some doubt regarding your beliefs. Good for you, you seem far too intelligent to be closed minded to all possibilities. There is only one down side to accepting all possibilities, you cannot accept any certainties.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

There is only one down side to accepting all possibilities, you cannot accept any certainties.

You have used "Certainty" a number of times. Can we be "certain" of anything? No it id doubtful that anything will ever be 100% certain.

 

But that does not mean

accepting all possibilities

I assume you did not mean it that way specifically. But we too often hear the postmoderistic approach that "therefore anything is EQUALLY possible". The "you can;t reject anything" approach.

 

Yet they have no problem acknowledging the lack of existence of Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

 

Perhaps you are not familiar with the "Atheist's Certainty".

 

"On what do atheists base their claim of nonexistence? Can atheists prove God does not exist? No. They cannot. In fact, it is impossible to prove any nonexistence claim. The reason why is well illustrated by James Randi's `flying reindeer' experiment..."

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_wilson/certainty.html

 

It then goes on to set up a thought experiment to show how a person can develop a "certainty" about something, even though it will never be 100% proven.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

I assume you did not mean it that way specifically. But we too often hear the postmoderistic approach that "therefore anything is EQUALLY possible". The "you can;t reject anything" approach.

Your assumption is correct. All reasonable possibilities would have been much better wording. I meant to stress the point that science is not etched in stone and theories are open to refinement and even replacement given adequate evidence.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the "Atheist's Certainty".

I was not. Good link, thanks for posting it. There are obviously levels of certainty. I was being to strict with the definition.