94 percent of America's founding era documents mention the Bible

[Foster Zygote]

He'll never get to any deeper point, because he knows deep down that the initial premise is wrong. He knows that this isn't a christian nation.

It's why he ignores my posts when I quote the treaty of tripoli


It's hard for him to argue with a document that is considered the law of the land.

Yes. And I've noticed that he still ignores the fact that state-sponsored piracy is called privateering and that all contemporary maritime powers practiced it, including the United States.

 

[JoeEllison]

Yes. And I've noticed that he still ignores the fact that state-sponsored piracy is called privateering and that all contemporary maritime powers practiced it, including the United States.

And he keeps ignoring that the Bill of Rights contradicts the Ten Commandments.

Lying for Jesus... what can someone get out of it?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Oh dear. It appears that the current Librarian of Congress, Dr. James H. Billington, has a stron connection to Russia. From his Wiki entry

You're going to trust the words of James "USSR" Billington?

Actually the person responsible for that exhibit was James Hutson.

 

[kmortis]

Yes. And I've noticed that he still ignores the fact that state-sponsored piracy is called privateering and that all contemporary maritime powers practiced it, including the United States.

Butbutbut, Dr. James Kennedy says that we're a Christian Nation^tm. That means that anything we do is ok. See? Therefore, it's not piracy or privateering, it's...it's...it's..it's being a good steward. Just like what's commanded in Genesis.

 

[kmortis]

Actually the person responsible for that exhibit was James Hutson.

But the ACLU created the term "Sepation of Church and Munch". Pope Stevie was PISSED!

 

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC
Yes I knew about the "free exercise thereof part" but it wasn't the main point I trying to make. And the free exercise thereof is why Jefferson "freely exercised" his right to attend Christian church services in the Federal Capitol building for seven years.




The following is a Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Are you saying all the points listed in the article at the Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

have been clearly refuted. You can't be serious.

yes, I am very serious. All of your points (which was what I was referring you) has been clearly refuted. That exhbit is clearly only part of the story. The missing part is all of the ACTUAL LEGAL DOCUMENTS which claim otherwise. Can I ask, if our country was founded on christianity, why would the founding fathers deny it?

Becuase they were the ones who signed the treaty of tripoli and accepted it unanimously.

You should consider yourself lucky that we live in a free country that protects your rights to believe crazy ideas. If it wasn't for the ACLU, there would be a very good chance that your rights would be violated.

 

[joobz]

And he keeps ignoring that the Bill of Rights contradicts the Ten Commandments.

Lying for Jesus... what can someone get out of it?

I assume you are referring to the fact that commandment 1 clearly states no false gods, where our bill of rights lets you worship any god you want.

Yup, The Secular nation, the United states, is in clear violation of that primary commandment.

 

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by DOC
Yes I knew about the "free exercise thereof part" but it wasn't the main point I trying to make. And the free exercise thereof is why Jefferson "freely exercised" his right to attend Christian church services in the Federal Capitol building for seven years.

Are you saying all the points listed in the article at the Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

have been clearly refuted. You can't be serious.

You again ignore a post in which I link to a response to your LOC exhibit.

Here in post 94 I provided you with the response I had to the LOC exhibit in the JEfferson thread.


Again, since you seem to be rehashing everything you posted in the JEfferson thread, why don't you return to that thread and answer to the criticisms you have received there for inaccurate, misleading, or downright false assertions on your part?

 

[JoeEllison]

I assume you are referring to the fact that commandment 1 clearly states no false gods, where our bill of rights lets you worship any god you want.

Yup, The Secular nation, the United states, is in clear violation of that primary commandment.

Also, you can't be forced to worship, which violates the one about the Sabbath.

Not to mention that freedom of speech contradicts the ones about "taking the 'lord's' name in vain", and the one about creating idols.

Oh, and nothing about "honoring" your parents, or coveting your neighbor's stuff, either.

Odd how pretty much nothing specifically religious exists in the Constitution except two negatives: no established state religion or restriction on free worship or lack of it, and no religious test for office. Nothing at all positive towards Christianity at all. Funny how they "accidentally" forgot, considering the claims of the Liars for Jesus that they were so very religious.

Wow, it just makes them look stupid!

 

[joobz]

Also, you can't be forced to worship, which violates the one about the Sabbath.

Not to mention that freedom of speech contradicts the ones about "taking the 'lord's' name in vain", and the one about creating idols.

Oh, and nothing about "honoring" your parents, or coveting your neighbor's stuff, either.

Odd how pretty much nothing specifically religious exists in the Constitution except two negatives: no established state religion or restriction on free worship or lack of it, and no religious test for office. Nothing at all positive towards Christianity at all. Funny how they "accidentally" forgot, considering the claims of the Liars for Jesus that they were so very religious.

Wow, it just makes them look stupid!

Don't forget the fact that the bible allows for slavery and the secular government of the united states found slavery to be morally wrong.

 

[JoeEllison]

Don't forget the fact that the bible allows for slavery and the secular government of the united states found slavery to be morally wrong.

What, do you mean to say that our government and laws can evolve over time, and are not solely based on the viewpoints and beliefs of people who have been dead for centuries?

 

[joobz]

What, do you mean to say that our government and laws can evolve over time, and are not solely based on the viewpoints and beliefs of people who have been dead for centuries?

crazy. ain't it?

 

[JoeEllison]

crazy. ain't it?

Do you think it was possible that maybe they actually meant it to be that way?

 

[joobz]

Do you think it was possible that maybe they actually meant it to be that way?

Its very possible. They seemed to have been quite smart people, who knew how dangerous dogmatic thinking can be. Maybe that's why they created a secular government that "is in no way based upon the christian religion".

 

[JoeEllison]

Its very possible. They seemed to have been quite smart people, who knew how dangerous dogmatic thinking can be. Maybe that's why they created a secular government that "is in no way based upon the christian religion".

Yeah, it really seems like they did something incredible when they created a secular government, capable of changing to become better and more free over time, in ways that they couldn't have imagined.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, his post is clearly a rejection of the claims made in the OP (and subsequently by DOC). At no point did Ducky say, hint, or imply that "the founding papers of the United States don't mention God." That is entirely your invention.


Why can't you simply own up to your mistake? Is it that difficult to say "oh, hey, I jumped the gun a little, my mistake?"

Bull.

What, no comment of Ducky's selective quoting?

simply the fact that franklin, Jefferson, washington, Locke among others were deists.

How is that "consistent for the time"? People in the US were deists?

It clarified the intent of the founding fathers. Afterall, they were still alive and in office. John Adams was president at the time.

How far ahead in time do you wish to go? Well beyond the formation of the US, but then, what's your point?

It makes all the difference in the world. the US has no inherent belief in any one god. Sure the founders believed in one, but this religion was not written into the constituion. Indeed, they wrote into is a pure seperation of the two entities.

So, it's your contention that the US is founded on religion, just not one single religion?

I have claus on ignore, so I'll assume he posted a lesson in pedantry as some attempt to paint me saying something I didn't?

That's the problem with the ignore function: It allows people to assume wildly, without accepting any blame if their assumptions are wrong - which yours is.

I'll rephrase so as to be perfectly clear for him:

If you want to participate in a debate, you should have the guts to talk with people, instead of to people.

Snakes don't have eyelids, and the constitution never mentions the bible.

Oops. Only "bible" now? Moving a few goalposts, along with selective quoting?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yeah, it really seems like they did something incredible when they created a secular government, capable of changing to become better and more free over time, in ways that they couldn't have imagined.

What was Bush's first initiative as President?

Yup.

So much for secular government.

 

[Cleon]

Bull.

*sigh*

Sorry to hear that, Claus. I just lost a lot of respect for you.

 

[kmortis]

*sigh*

Sorry to hear that, Claus. I just lost a lot of respect for you.

You had any left?

Claus,
No, most of the colonists were not Deists. That much is true. But most of the colonists didn't write the founding documents. For the most part, those WERE written by Deists.

And no, Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives" is not tantamount to a theocracy. Granted, it is legitimate to consider it the proverbial camel's nose, but it is easily reversed, a reversal which is underway. It doesn't establish one religion over another, it doens't make it manditory for me to go to church on sunday, rather than sit in front of my computer in my underwear, responding to people here. No, I will not pay your therapist bill for that mental image.

 

[CFLarsen]

*sigh*

Sorry to hear that, Claus. I just lost a lot of respect for you.

Would you apologize if you didn't think you were wrong?

Still no comment of Ducky's selective quoting? Why not?

Claus,
No, most of the colonists were not Deists. That much is true. But most of the colonists didn't write the founding documents. For the most part, those WERE written by Deists.

And?

And no, Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives" is not tantamount to a theocracy.

I didn't say it was.

Granted, it is legitimate to consider it the proverbial camel's nose, but it is easily reversed, a reversal which is underway. It doesn't establish one religion over another, it doens't make it manditory for me to go to church on sunday, rather than sit in front of my computer in my underwear, responding to people here. No, I will not pay your therapist bill for that mental image.

What it did, was draw a direct line between government funds and religious groups. Those who were not religious and/or opposed abortion, got zilch.

When a government links religion with abortion, it is time to take notice. Serious notice.