OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

[Lumpy 1]

I think I'll read this thread after a few more coffees ...

Other than the name calling it looks like a good debate...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you deny that "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." is a part of the Constitution?

Can you explain the phrase 'our Lord' sans religion?
No?



So....why are you claiming that I am not telling the truth?

Obviously you are the one in that situation.

Are you really so deserate to force your religion on others that you will hope to insert your gods in the wording of the constitution where they don't exist?

Don't the bibles allude to lies and falsehoods as... you know... not good?

1. Since you've attempted to change the subject....that means you've thrown in the towel?

Great.


2. Now for your next fib, designed, I suppose, to save face?


Let's examine this: "... to force your religion on others that you will hope to insert your gods in the wording of the constitution..."

If you refer to the United States Constitution, it is capitalized.

3. Now...to prove how you leap to prevarication in your frustration, please show where I've demanded anyone subscribe to my religion.

Note....I've never mentioned my religion.


4. Clarity is so very important: I've simply proven a reference exists in the Constitution....and, it seems that it has caused you to begin to practically foam at the mouth.

So very sad.

Please respond, and correct your assertions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It seems not.

Clearly, you're not able to deny that "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." is a part of the Constitution of the United States of America.


Since the above 'embarrasses' your precis, and supports mine....


....your statement "Kind of embarrassing for you" actually moves you into the disreputable category.....
....doesn't it.




Sticking to the truth is a moral directive of the Bible.
Think about it.

Oh please.
This isn't embarrassing; it's pathetic. "A.D" and/or its English equivalent has been the standard appellation since the Gregorian Calendar spread through Europe in search of a standard. Its origin was Christian-based because at the time that's who held the keys to both political power and the means to education and science (such as it was). "Year of our lord" is eighteenth century legalese for a legal document, put there to avoid ambiguity; a measure that would be clear to anyone in the world -- which for their purposes meant the Eurocentric world. And the Christian domination of that world was in large part what the Founders were distancing themselves from; that's why the first ten words of the Bill of Rights get right to the point, stating categorically: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." . They weren't exactly being cryptic there.

Language is by nature conservative, and legalese even more so. "A.D." no more directly invokes Jesus today, or in 1776, than our appointment next Wednesday has anything to do with the deity Woden. That's illogical as hell (and in like manner that expression invokes no belief in a netherworld).

Pathetic flailing attempt at righting an errant ship. Let's face it, Hollie owned this thread.

While possibly pathetic, your song and dance is a great source of amusement.

Does the US Constitution include this reference" "..."the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

That would be a yes or no question.


Dance around all you like, Rumpelstiltskin.....

....it remains a yes or no question.


Answer when you're ready.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think I'll read this thread after a few more coffees ...

Other than the name calling it looks like a good debate...

It sure is.....

For some reason, the less enthused about religion go nuts when one points out that this nation was designed for a moral biblically based people.

No one ever demands that one need be to live here....but any mention sets 'em off.

I'm having a lot of fun.

 

[Hollie]

I think I'll read this thread after a few more coffees ...

Other than the name calling it looks like a good debate...

It sure is.....

For some reason, the less enthused about religion go nuts when one points out that this nation was designed for a moral biblically based people.

No one ever demands that one need be to live here....but any mention sets 'em off.

I'm having a lot of fun.

Why do you claim the nation was "designed for a moral biblically based people" when such a comment is unsupportable

There is no such wording in the constitution or intent made.

Why the need to force your religion on others by attempting to re-write the constitution?

 

[Hollie]

Are you really so deserate to force your religion on others that you will hope to insert your gods in the wording of the constitution where they don't exist?

Don't the bibles allude to lies and falsehoods as... you know... not good?

1. Since you've attempted to change the subject....that means you've thrown in the towel?

Great.


2. Now for your next fib, designed, I suppose, to save face?


Let's examine this: "... to force your religion on others that you will hope to insert your gods in the wording of the constitution..."

If you refer to the United States Constitution, it is capitalized.

3. Now...to prove how you leap to prevarication in your frustration, please show where I've demanded anyone subscribe to my religion.

Note....I've never mentioned my religion.


4. Clarity is so very important: I've simply proven a reference exists in the Constitution....and, it seems that it has caused you to begin to practically foam at the mouth.

So very sad.

Please respond, and correct your assertions.

You’re missing the fundamental fallacy of your own argument. Let's go over it point by point.

Let's look at what the Constitution says:
"Amendment I”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Basic definition of religion:

re•li•gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn) n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Is the object of including such terms as "under jesus" or "the christian gods" intended to be in any way complimentary to these gods? Is it paying reverence? Is it calling to a supernatural power or powers regarded as the creator and governor of the universe?

The inclusion of God into any philosophy by definition establishes it as a religious tenet. There is no way around it. If you in anyway acknowledge a god in your model, you are embracing a religious perspective. You may choose to define what religion is out of your particular brand of faith, but that doesn't mean you are not being religious. You are being religious by defintiion.

I’ll note the assumptive (and real nastiness) that accompanies your allegation wherein you hope to thump me with your bibles. The Christian gods, according to you, were installed in the Constitution by the FF’s. Really? Among all your claims, can please back up that with some evidence? I would like to see a signature or some record wherein gods are noted in the Continental Congress as ratifying the Constitution. You are assuming your argument is true by re-writing the constitution and then using that re-writing to prove your premise true.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think I'll read this thread after a few more coffees ...

Other than the name calling it looks like a good debate...

It sure is.....

For some reason, the less enthused about religion go nuts when one points out that this nation was designed for a moral biblically based people.

No one ever demands that one need be to live here....but any mention sets 'em off.

I'm having a lot of fun.

Why do you claim the nation was "designed for a moral biblically based people" when such a comment is unsupportable

There is no such wording in the constitution or intent made.

Why the need to force your religion on others by attempting to re-write the constitution?

1. Why does any mention of religion upset you so?

2. And why do you go to the extent of pretending that I or any other religious folk care what your convictions are?

Example:
"Why the need to force your religion on others by attempting to re-write the constitution."

3. To which of the many constitutions do you refer.

Certainly not the US Constitution.
Heaven forfend ( I added that to annoy you) any re-writing of the US Constitution, since crazy people (raise your paw) might change things in it.


4. Are you going to admit that "the year of our Lord" is displayed in the Constitution?
Are you?

Confession is good for the soul.


5. "Why do you claim the nation was "designed for a moral biblically based people" when such a comment is unsupportable"

Support:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams



6. You're not having a very good day, are you.


I am.

 

[Pogo]

Oh please.
This isn't embarrassing; it's pathetic. "A.D" and/or its English equivalent has been the standard appellation since the Gregorian Calendar spread through Europe in search of a standard. Its origin was Christian-based because at the time that's who held the keys to both political power and the means to education and science (such as it was). "Year of our lord" is eighteenth century legalese for a legal document, put there to avoid ambiguity; a measure that would be clear to anyone in the world -- which for their purposes meant the Eurocentric world. And the Christian domination of that world was in large part what the Founders were distancing themselves from; that's why the first ten words of the Bill of Rights get right to the point, stating categorically: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." . They weren't exactly being cryptic there.

Language is by nature conservative, and legalese even more so. "A.D." no more directly invokes Jesus today, or in 1776, than our appointment next Wednesday has anything to do with the deity Woden. That's illogical as hell (and in like manner that expression invokes no belief in a netherworld).

Pathetic flailing attempt at righting an errant ship. Let's face it, Hollie owned this thread.

While possibly pathetic, your song and dance is a great source of amusement.

Does the US Constitution include this reference" "..."the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

That would be a yes or no question.


Dance around all you like, Rumpelstiltskin.....

....it remains a yes or no question.


Answer when you're ready.

Answered in the past. You just quoted it. You brought this sentence up thusly: "Despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution". Fallacy duly refuted.

Are you spending the day bowing before the star in the sky that provides our daylight because it's "Sunday"? Should that focus entirely change if we were to write in a Romance language? And shall we tomorrow prostrate ourselves before a lunar deity?

OK then.

It's your flawed logic, but I know of no logic you can turn on and off like a light switch according to which myth one is pushing at the time.

Of course you're "having fun"; you've relieved yourself of the responsibilities of rationality; you've awarded yourself a "Get out of fallacy free" card and think it works outside your own mind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Since you've attempted to change the subject....that means you've thrown in the towel?

Great.


2. Now for your next fib, designed, I suppose, to save face?


Let's examine this: "... to force your religion on others that you will hope to insert your gods in the wording of the constitution..."

If you refer to the United States Constitution, it is capitalized.

3. Now...to prove how you leap to prevarication in your frustration, please show where I've demanded anyone subscribe to my religion.

Note....I've never mentioned my religion.


4. Clarity is so very important: I've simply proven a reference exists in the Constitution....and, it seems that it has caused you to begin to practically foam at the mouth.

So very sad.

Please respond, and correct your assertions.

You’re missing the fundamental fallacy of your own argument. Let's go over it point by point.

Let's look at what the Constitution says:
"Amendment I”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Basic definition of religion:

re•li•gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn) n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Is the object of including such terms as "under jesus" or "the christian gods" intended to be in any way complimentary to these gods? Is it paying reverence? Is it calling to a supernatural power or powers regarded as the creator and governor of the universe?

The inclusion of God into any philosophy by definition establishes it as a religious tenet. There is no way around it. If you in anyway acknowledge a god in your model, you are embracing a religious perspective. You may choose to define what religion is out of your particular brand of faith, but that doesn't mean you are not being religious. You are being religious by defintiion.

I’ll note the assumptive (and real nastiness) that accompanies your allegation wherein you hope to thump me with your bibles. The Christian gods, according to you, were installed in the Constitution by the FF’s. Really? Among all your claims, can please back up that with some evidence? I would like to see a signature or some record wherein gods are noted in the Continental Congress as ratifying the Constitution. You are assuming your argument is true by re-writing the constitution and then using that re-writing to prove your premise true.

It is perfectly clear why you'd like to move from this:

Did you deny that "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." is a part of the Constitution?

No?


Can you explain the phrase 'our Lord' sans religion?
No?


I don't have any desire to allow same.
I find it, in fact, central to proving that you aren't understanding the truth....or ready to deal with facts.

Isn't that the case?

 

[PoliticalChic]

While possibly pathetic, your song and dance is a great source of amusement.

Does the US Constitution include this reference" "..."the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

That would be a yes or no question.


Dance around all you like, Rumpelstiltskin.....

....it remains a yes or no question.


Answer when you're ready.

Answered in the past. You just quoted it. You brought this sentence up thusly: "Despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution". Fallacy duly refuted.

Are you spending the day bowing before the star in the sky that provides our daylight because it's "Sunday"? Should that focus entirely change if we were to write in a Romance language? And shall we tomorrow prostrate ourselves before a lunar deity?

OK then.

It's your flawed logic, but I know of no logic you can turn on and off like a light switch according to which myth one is pushing at the time.

Not refuted at all.
You provided an opinion....I, the fact.

If you and your mad friend were correct.....wouldn't that sentence have been removed?

 

[Pogo]

Answered in the past. You just quoted it. You brought this sentence up thusly: "Despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution". Fallacy duly refuted.

Are you spending the day bowing before the star in the sky that provides our daylight because it's "Sunday"? Should that focus entirely change if we were to write in a Romance language? And shall we tomorrow prostrate ourselves before a lunar deity?

OK then.

It's your flawed logic, but I know of no logic you can turn on and off like a light switch according to which myth one is pushing at the time.

Not refuted at all.
You provided an opinion....I, the fact.

If you and your mad friend were correct.....wouldn't that sentence have been removed?

No. It's standard legalese, and required to make the point, regardless of its etymology.
Get over the Asperger's interpretation. We don't change the name of Thursday just because we get a thunderstorm on Wednesday.



Btw cease and desist misquoting my posts. #30 is as convoluted a collision of false attributions as your pseudo-logic.

 

[Hollie]

You’re missing the fundamental fallacy of your own argument. Let's go over it point by point.

Let's look at what the Constitution says:
"Amendment I”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Basic definition of religion:

re•li•gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn) n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Is the object of including such terms as "under jesus" or "the christian gods" intended to be in any way complimentary to these gods? Is it paying reverence? Is it calling to a supernatural power or powers regarded as the creator and governor of the universe?

The inclusion of God into any philosophy by definition establishes it as a religious tenet. There is no way around it. If you in anyway acknowledge a god in your model, you are embracing a religious perspective. You may choose to define what religion is out of your particular brand of faith, but that doesn't mean you are not being religious. You are being religious by defintiion.

I’ll note the assumptive (and real nastiness) that accompanies your allegation wherein you hope to thump me with your bibles. The Christian gods, according to you, were installed in the Constitution by the FF’s. Really? Among all your claims, can please back up that with some evidence? I would like to see a signature or some record wherein gods are noted in the Continental Congress as ratifying the Constitution. You are assuming your argument is true by re-writing the constitution and then using that re-writing to prove your premise true.

It is perfectly clear why you'd like to move from this:

Did you deny that "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." is a part of the Constitution?

No?


Can you explain the phrase 'our Lord' sans religion?
No?


I don't have any desire to allow same.
I find it, in fact, central to proving that you aren't understanding the truth....or ready to deal with facts.

Isn't that the case?

It's perfectly clear your offering toothless testimony to try and support a pointless claim.

What "lord" is referenced in the closing salutation - (not a part of the constitution) - that you claim adds christianity to that document?

In the same way that the FF's used very Deist terminology in the writing of the constitution such as "Creator", they made no reference to any of the christian gods. The "Creator" could be Amun Ra. So could "lord" be Amun Ra.

You're desperate attempts to force your religion into the founding documents is baseless.

Isn't that the case?

In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.

Attempting to include an innocuous closing salutation in a later amendment to the constitution as indicative of including Christianity in the foundational document is both ludicrous and is distracting argumentation. The US Constitution quite literally and plainly leaves out any mentioning of your particular gods. And, it is this obvious deletion that caused the Danbury Baptists to argue in favor of incorporating some mention of the Christian god in the document that would define the nation's fundamental laws. The colonies of the time were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal by definition, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the FF's knew it. The separation of state and church does not mean ignoring the church or faith. It means the state cannot _legislate_ religious belief upon the populace -- and by definition, the _only_ way to achieve that is for the state to be neutral on _all_ matters of religion.

 

[Hollie]

And you did such a detailed job on this post....it's almost a shame that it is so simple to defeat your post.....how do you explain a reference to Jesus Christ in the document that memorializes the law governing the United States of America?

Shall I post it, or would you like to explain such a reference beforehand?


I'll await your response.

You still refuse to provide a reference to Jesus Christ in the consitution.

Do you recall you wrote out: "how do you explain a reference to Jesus Christ in the document that memorializes the law governing the United States of America?"

I have seen you provide nothing that references Jesus Christ.

It's your claim. Why do you refuse to support your argument?

 

[PoliticalChic]

And you did such a detailed job on this post....it's almost a shame that it is so simple to defeat your post.....how do you explain a reference to Jesus Christ in the document that memorializes the law governing the United States of America?

Shall I post it, or would you like to explain such a reference beforehand?


I'll await your response.

You still refuse to provide a reference to Jesus Christ in the consitution.

Do you recall you wrote out: "how do you explain a reference to Jesus Christ in the document that memorializes the law governing the United States of America?"

I have seen you provide nothing that references Jesus Christ.

It's your claim. Why do you refuse to support your argument?

You're sounding worse and worse.

Probably the result of your fanaticism.


1. Try to think clearly.....and focus like a laser:
Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."


How would a crazy person like you explain " our Lord."

Really.....I have an interest in what insight you might apply.

I cannot see but one explanation.....and you?


2. 'The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

a. Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
From Coulter’s best seller, “Demonic .”


Opinion?

 

[Hollie]

And you did such a detailed job on this post....it's almost a shame that it is so simple to defeat your post.....how do you explain a reference to Jesus Christ in the document that memorializes the law governing the United States of America?

Shall I post it, or would you like to explain such a reference beforehand?


I'll await your response.

You still refuse to provide a reference to Jesus Christ in the consitution.

Do you recall you wrote out: "how do you explain a reference to Jesus Christ in the document that memorializes the law governing the United States of America?"

I have seen you provide nothing that references Jesus Christ.

It's your claim. Why do you refuse to support your argument?

You're sounding worse and worse.

Probably the result of your fanaticism.


1. Try to think clearly.....and focus like a laser:
Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."


How would a crazy person like you explain " our Lord."

Really.....I have an interest in what insight you might apply.

I cannot see but one explanation.....and you?


2. 'The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

a. Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
From Coulter’s best seller, “Demonic .”


Opinion?

So... we're left with you being a candidate for the U.S. Olympic swim team: the backstroke.

Your claim to: "how do you explain a reference to Jesus Christ in the document that memorializes the law governing the United States of America?" is thus fraudulent as you admit there is no reference to jesus christ.

Making a claim that jesus christ is mentioned in the constitution when no such mentioning exists is what we would call a false claim.

Didn't your mommy or perhaps your 1st grade school teacher explain what a lie is and why lies are bad?

 

[Pogo]

I think I'll read this thread after a few more coffees ...

Other than the name calling it looks like a good debate...

It sure is.....

For some reason, the less enthused about religion go nuts when one points out that this nation was designed for a moral biblically based people.

No one ever demands that one need be to live here....but any mention sets 'em off.

I'm having a lot of fun.

Uh, yeah well can see what you're doing here with the extra quote chicanery... you keep inserting an extra quote-bracket of your own name so that when one of us quotes it, everybody's attribution reverses itself, putting words in the wrong person's mouth and/or making it impossible to follow who's saying what.

Are you going to claim that's unintentional? Then how come this post quoted above, the only one where that sabotage-edit would not benefit your obfuscation project, is the only one where this was not done? I quoted this post so that there's a record of it -- that you can't edit.


What's the game here? Muddy the water so much that everybody gives up, because you know you've been owned?

Is this part of that "biblical honesty"?

Visitor-readers, be advised....

 

[PoliticalChic]

You still refuse to provide a reference to Jesus Christ in the consitution.

Do you recall you wrote out: "how do you explain a reference to Jesus Christ in the document that memorializes the law governing the United States of America?"

I have seen you provide nothing that references Jesus Christ.

It's your claim. Why do you refuse to support your argument?

You're sounding worse and worse.

Probably the result of your fanaticism.


1. Try to think clearly.....and focus like a laser:
Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."


How would a crazy person like you explain " our Lord."

Really.....I have an interest in what insight you might apply.

I cannot see but one explanation.....and you?


2. 'The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

a. Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
From Coulter’s best seller, “Demonic .”


Opinion?

So... we're left with you being a candidate for the U.S. Olympic swim team: the backstroke.

Your claim to: "how do you explain a reference to Jesus Christ in the document that memorializes the law governing the United States of America?" is thus fraudulent as you admit there is no reference to jesus christ.

Making a claim that jesus christ is mentioned in the constitution when no such mentioning exists is what we would call a false claim.

Didn't your mommy or perhaps your 1st grade school teacher explain what a lie is and why lies are bad?

You see...that's why I said to focus like a laser.....you seem unable to do so.

Again?

Try to think clearly.....
Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."


How would a crazy person like you explain " our Lord."


Or do you simply realize that there really is only one answer..and giving it would destroy our most closely held biases....
That it?

Gotcha, don't I.

 

[nitroz]

How many wars have been fueled by religion? Most of them.

Religious war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is going on in Egypt and Syria?

Islam vs Dictatorship/government.



What about Africa? There are wars that consist of Christianity vs Islam.

What about Islamic nations? No other religion is spared.

Israel and the middle east? they are constantly in eachother's throats.

Christianity vs reality, diversity, etc. It goes on here in the US.






Politics.
What about moderate conservatives?
Atheist conservatives?
Conservatives who are actual conservatives, instead of corporate ass kissing, anti-american, ignorant, intolerant, self centered, religiously oppressed senior citizens who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old and was created by a power that has not been proven to exist and is based on a deviation of thousands of other religious beliefs that have popped up and vanished over the course of history.

Gay sex scandals that constantly pop up worldwide in churches, religions, and with the pope. (which includes innocent children being the victims)

Hypocrisy. (Tattoos, intolerance, abortion, divorce, etc)

 

[Hollie]

You're sounding worse and worse.

Probably the result of your fanaticism.


1. Try to think clearly.....and focus like a laser:
Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."


How would a crazy person like you explain " our Lord."

Really.....I have an interest in what insight you might apply.

I cannot see but one explanation.....and you?


2. 'The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

a. Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
From Coulter’s best seller, “Demonic .”


Opinion?

So... we're left with you being a candidate for the U.S. Olympic swim team: the backstroke.

Your claim to: "how do you explain a reference to Jesus Christ in the document that memorializes the law governing the United States of America?" is thus fraudulent as you admit there is no reference to jesus christ.

Making a claim that jesus christ is mentioned in the constitution when no such mentioning exists is what we would call a false claim.

Didn't your mommy or perhaps your 1st grade school teacher explain what a lie is and why lies are bad?

You see...that's why I said to focus like a laser.....you seem unable to do so.

Again?

Try to think clearly.....
Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."


How would a crazy person like you explain " our Lord."


Or do you simply realize that there really is only one answer..and giving it would destroy our most closely held biases....
That it?

Gotcha, don't I.

I see you're just ignoring your false claim and being held accountable for your false claim.

It's a simple matter for anyone to read the constitution and understand the secular nature and intent of that document.

As much as you wish to force your belief on others, re-writing the constitution on a message board has no affect on the wording of the original document which makes no reference (implied or otherwise), to your gods.

 

[Pogo]

How many wars have been fueled by religion? Most of them.

Religious war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is going on in Egypt and Syria?

Islam vs Dictatorship/government.



What about Africa? There are wars that consist of Christianity vs Islam.

What about Islamic nations? No other religion is spared.

Israel and the middle east? they are constantly in eachother's throats.

Christianity vs reality, diversity, etc. It goes on here in the US.






Politics.
What about moderate conservatives?
Atheist conservatives?
Conservatives who are actual conservatives, instead of corporate ass kissing, anti-american, ignorant, intolerant, self centered, religiously oppressed senior citizens who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old and was created by a power that has not been proven to exist and is based on a deviation of thousands of other religious beliefs that have popped up and vanished over the course of history.

Gay sex scandals that constantly pop up worldwide in churches, religions, and with the pope. (which includes innocent children being the victims)

Hypocrisy. (Tattoos, intolerance, abortion, divorce, etc)

Indeed. And leave us not leave out, Christianism versus Christianism, e.g. Ulster or the KKK.