I also expressed regret on my site. Now you know what it is like to have your words twisted beyond anything you intended. Deal with it. Like I said, for some reason this has become personal to you. I never singled you out in my comments and yet you did. I refuse to be put in a position of responsibility for all of this. You decided to remove my blog from your list w/o any legitimate reason. You decided to refer to one of my posts w/o providing a link and you mangled my own commentary. Again, I am sorry it has come to this. Let's move on.

It will be interesting to see responses to the painting, as it should provoke differences between the Christian Right and Glenn Beck Mormons (for lack of a better descriptor). I think even Christians who argue the Constitution was a divine blessing would recoil at its being depicted as a sacrament given directly by Christ.

From some browsing online about the painting…
There's probably something better informed/more formal than these sites, but here's a Southern Baptist layperson's perspective:
http://hereiblog.com/one-nation-under-a-mormon-…
Conservative Lutheran reactions:
http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/10/08/one-nation-…

And, of course, a spoof…
http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20…

It's funny to me that you would be so concerned about me loosely interpreting your own words after you've spend the better part of two weeks butchering my own commentary. It would have been very easy to engage me in a serious discussion about the concept of AE and its application in the classroom. We've disagreed in the past, but our last Online discussion was very mature and I thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact, I learned quite a bit from our exchange. For some reason this time around it seemed much more personal and bitter. You started by failing to provide a link to the post that you were citing. You were not the object of my comments, but you responded as if you were. As for the evidence of referring to me as a “radical” the word itself was not used, but you had this to say:

“However, I will offer a guess. (Note, this is my own personal opinion!) Levin has issues with the Republican Party going back to Reconstruction and what they failed to accomplish. He is also disappointed in what the American Revolution failed to accomplish. He is very much like Howard Zinn. But that is the problem, America was exceptional for what it was attempting. It initially failed to live up to our modern and presentists views. I wish our Founders were able to give equality to all, though nowhere else on such a scale was there anything close to early America in terms of political participation.”

Comparing me to Howard Zinn is close enough to me as I believe he takes a radical stance on a number of levels when it comes to the practice of history. That passage of yours sealed it for me that you are not serious about engaging me. Rather, you were content to set up a strawman and knock it down.

I'm sorry it has come to this. We are both AP US History teachers and should be relying on one another for support. I know how challenging it is for a first year AP teacher and I wish you all the best in getting through the year. Even with all that has been said please let me know if I can be of any assistance.