Religious Liberty or Secularism?

[Hollie]

2. Did you notice that the wording of the constitution contains not a single reference to the Christian gawds?

3. How strange that the foundational documents for a "Christian nation" would never mention the Christian gawds.

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

Wanna try again?

There's no reason to. A closing salutation has no relevance regarding the wording of the constitution.

Wanna try again?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
..........From the "Treaty of Tripoli" which was signed during the term of George Washington
and ratified by congress during the term of John Adams.

If a Deist refers to "our lord" it doesn't mean the jesus or bible god

Thomas Jefferson: "When we see religion split into so many thousands of sects, and I may say Christianity
itself divided into it's thousands also, who are disputing, anathematizing, and where the
laws permit, burning and torturing one another for abstractions which no one of them
understand, and which are indeed beyond the comprehension of the human mind, into
which of the chambers of this Bedlam would a man wish to thrust himself. The sum of all
religion as expressed by it's best preacher, "fear god and love thy neighbor,' contains
no mystery, needs no explanation - but this wont do. It gives no scope to make dupes;
priests could not live by it."
..........Letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816


"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious
societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall
make no law respecting a religious establishment'"
..........James Madison, 1811, Writings, 8:133


"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the
Bible)."

Thomas Paine

Abe Lincoln

"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."

"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."


Ben Franklin

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-- Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758


Get a clue

Get a pair of specs.


This from the OP:


a. So, when President Obama goes to Europe and declares that the United States is not a Christian nation, he is correct: this is not a Christian theocracy, nor do I know of any movement to make it so.

b. But the most rabid proponent of secularization is hard-pressed to deny that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and values. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious, and invoked God numerous times in the founding documents.



Now...specify what you are arguing with....if anything.

"Judeo-Christian" No such thing two opposed religions

The comments of Jewish author Mr. S. Levin may well explain the Christian's need for the Judeo-Christian myth. Writing in the Israeli journal Biblical Polemics, Levin concludes: "'After all, we worship the same God', the Christian always says to the Jew and the Jew never to the Christian. The Jew knows that he does not worship the Christ-God but the Christian orphan needs to worship the God of Israel and so, his standard gambit rolls easily and thoughtlessly from his lips. It is a strictly unilateral affirmation, limited to making a claim on the God of Israel but never invoked with reference to other gods. A Christian never confronts a Moslem or a Hindu with 'After all, we worship the same God'."

Back in 1992 both Newsweek magazine and the Israeli Jerusalem Post newspaper simultaneously printed extensive articles scrutinising the roots of the sacrosanct Judeo-Christian honeymoon!

The statement heading the Newsweek article read: "Politicians appeal to a Judeo-Christian tradition, but religious scholars say it no longer exists." The Jerusalem Post article's pull quote announced: "Antisemitism is a direct result of the Church's teachings, which Christians perhaps need to re-examine."

"For scholars of American religion," Newsweek states, "the idea of a single Judeo-Christian tradition is a made-in-America myth that many of them no longer regard as valid." It quotes eminent Talmudic scholar Jacob Neusner: "Theologically and historically, there is no such thing as the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's a myth

Newsweek cites authorities who indicate that "the idea of a common Judeo-Christian tradition first surfaced at the end of the 19th century but did not gain popular support until the 1940s, as part of an American reaction to Nazism . . ," and concludes that, "Since then, both Jewish and Christian scholars have come to recognize that -- geopolitics apart -- Judaism and Christianity are different, even rival religions."

The Jerusalem Post accused the Christian Church of being responsible for the Holocaust. The French Jewish scholar Jules Isaac was quoted as saying: "Without centuries of Christian catechism, preaching, and vituperation, the Hitlerian teachings, propaganda and vituperation would not have been possible."

"The problem," concludes the Jerusalem Post, "is not, as some assert, that certain Christian leaders deviated from Christian teachings and behaved in an un-Christian manner; it is the teachings themselves that are bent."

Joshua Jehouda, a prominent French Jewish leader, observed in the late 1950s: "The current expression 'Judaeo-Christian' is an error which has altered the course of universal history by the confusion it has sown in men's minds, if by it one is meant to understand the Jewish origin of Christianity . . . If the term 'Judaeo-Christian' does point to a common origin, there is no doubt that it is a most dangerous idea. It is based on a 'contradictio in abjecto' which has set the path of history on the wrong track. It links in one breath two ideas which are completely irreconcileable, it seeks to demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and cold or black and white, and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion to a basis on which some, nevertheless, are endeavouring to construct a civilisation." (l'Antisemitisme Miroir du Monde pp. 135-6).

"Judeo-Christian" No such thing two opposed religions.'


And so ends any possibility that you have any valid opinion.

 

[legaleagle_45]

2. Did you notice that the wording of the constitution contains not a single reference to the Christian gawds?

3. How strange that the foundational documents for a "Christian nation" would never mention the Christian gawds.

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

Wanna try again?

There's no reason to. A closing salutation has no relevance regarding the wording of the constitution.

Wanna try again?

Nice attempted evasion, but clearly right there in the Constituion whether "closing salutation" or not are the words:

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth

Which complete refutes your original assertion:

Did you notice that the wording of the constitution contains not a single reference to the Christian gawds?

Perhaps you may wish to change that assertion to:

Did you notice that the wording of the constitution contains not a single reference to the Christian gawds except in the closing salutation which does not count because it destroys my argument

 

[Hollie]

Wanna try again?

There's no reason to. A closing salutation has no relevance regarding the wording of the constitution.

Wanna try again?

Nice attempted evasion, but clearly right there in the Constituion whether "closing salutation" or not are the words:


Which complete refutes your original assertion:

Perhaps you may wish to change that assertion to:

You need to review your claim .

Identity where the Christian gawds are mentioned in the constitution.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Identity where the Christian gawds are mentioned in the constitution.

Here:

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth

Anything else?

 

[Hollie]

Identity where the Christian gawds are mentioned in the constitution.

Here:

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth

Anything else?

Yeah. Where is the reference to the Christian gawds you keep claiming appears in the constitution?

What "lord" would a Deist refer to?

I see nothing that references the Christian gawds. You seem to be presuming lord means something in relation to christianity. I see nothing that references Christian gawds,

You have nothing, right?

 

[koshergrl]

a. So it appears you agree, in spite of your cutting and pasting the same nobsense across multiple threads, that the Christian gawds appear nowhere in the wording of the constitution.

b. Don't let that prevent you from spamming the thread with the same cut and paste nonsense you have cut and pasted before.

Good grief, are you pulling this crap again?

"Our Lord" refers to another lord. Right. We got it the first time, you weirdo wiccan ignoramus.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Identity where the Christian gawds are mentioned in the constitution.

Here:

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth

Anything else?

Yeah. Where is the reference to the Christian gawds you keep claiming appears in the constitution?

What "lord" would a Deist refer to?

I see nothing that references the Christian gawds. You seem to be presuming lord means something in relation to christianity. I see nothing that references Christian gawds,

You have nothing, right?

Err the reference date is a dead giveaway... referring to sumpin that happened 1787 years in the past. Pretty sure it was not a reference to Buddah. What do you think?

Anything else?

 

[Hollie]

a. So it appears you agree, in spite of your cutting and pasting the same nobsense across multiple threads, that the Christian gawds appear nowhere in the wording of the constitution.

b. Don't let that prevent you from spamming the thread with the same cut and paste nonsense you have cut and pasted before.

Good grief, are you pulling this crap again?

"Our Lord" refers to another lord. Right. We got it the first time, you weirdo wiccan ignoramus.

It seems a common pattern of behavior with angry fundamentalists to resort to name-calling when their arguments crash to the ground.

 

[Hollie]

Here:



Anything else?

Yeah. Where is the reference to the Christian gawds you keep claiming appears in the constitution?

What "lord" would a Deist refer to?

I see nothing that references the Christian gawds. You seem to be presuming lord means something in relation to christianity. I see nothing that references Christian gawds,

You have nothing, right?

Err the reference date is a dead giveaway... referring to sumpin that happened 1787 years in the past. Pretty sure it was not a reference to Buddah. What do you think?

Anything else?

And yet, here you are, still unable to support your claim.

Nothing else?

 

[koshergrl]

Stop squawking, you moron. You were lying when you wrote it the first time, and you're still lying now that you've said it 389 times.

 

[Hollie]

Stop squawking, you moron. You were lying when you wrote it the first time, and you're still lying now that you've said it 389 times.

Why is it so difficult for angry fundies to string words together into meaningful sentences?

 

[legaleagle_45]

And yet, here you are, still unable to support your claim.

The fact that I have completely refuted your claim is clear. The fact that you fail to acknowledge the clear reference to the Christain diety is something which is termed "denial" by experts. Too bad, I thought you might have some intelligent comments to provide, but obviously you do not.

Nothing else?

No need, your claim has been demolished, the fact that you pretend it was not is merely a testament to your stubborn desire to pretend you were not in error or a foolhardy attempt to convince others you were not in error. In either event, it merely demonstrates that you are incapable of intelligent discourse.

 

[t_polkow]

Stop squawking, you moron. You were lying when you wrote it the first time, and you're still lying now that you've said it 389 times.

Why is it so difficult for angry fundies to string words together into meaningful sentences?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07cmMhQxjfg]Crazy Wild-Ass Pentecostals - Remix! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[koshergrl]

Stop squawking, you moron. You were lying when you wrote it the first time, and you're still lying now that you've said it 389 times.

Why is it so difficult for angry fundies to string words together into meaningful sentences?

It's meaningful enough to those of us who have to tolerate your inane and woefully ignorant jabberings.

Seriously. The only thing of value in your posts is the laugh factor of the absolute ignorance of them. TDM comes and goes, but we're lucky...we've got you to fill the gaping hole left where the volume of her mind-bending stupidity used to reside.

 

[koshergrl]

Stop squawking, you moron. You were lying when you wrote it the first time, and you're still lying now that you've said it 389 times.

Why is it so difficult for angry fundies to string words together into meaningful sentences?

Define "fundy" you retard.

For that matter, define "angry". I doubt you can do either, because I've seen you repeatedly misuse that phrase, as well as the separate words. It seems you think the term applies to Oxford professors, methodist liberals, and anyone else who makes you look stupid.

Silly you, as if you needed any help to look stupid! Don't feel so threatened....even if we didn't point out your overweening stupidity and dishonesty, everybody would still notice. We just do it cuz it's fun.

 

[Hollie]

And yet, here you are, still unable to support your claim.

The fact that I have completely refuted your claim is clear. The fact that you fail to acknowledge the clear reference to the Christain diety is something which is termed "denial" by experts. Too bad, I thought you might have some intelligent comments to provide, but obviously you do not.

Nothing else?

No need, your claim has been demolished, the fact that you pretend it was not is merely a testament to your stubborn desire to pretend you were not in error or a foolhardy attempt to convince others you were not in error. In either event, it merely demonstrates that you are incapable of intelligent discourse.

That saliva-slinging tirade won't save your failed argument.

As I noted, a closing salutation that fundamentalists use in a failed attempt to insert christianity into the constitution is pitiable. The closing salutation appears as customary closing to documents of the time. Fundamentalists are never able to address why the Founding Fathers were neutral on religion because that would conflict their need to revise the clear intent of the legal document establishing the founding of the U.S.

 

[koshergrl]

I see you're incapable of defining the terms you like to use.

I doubt you know what salivate means, either.

 

[koshergrl]

And what makes it funny as all get out is you really think you're coming across as well informed and intelligent.

Do people actually treat you as if you are, in real life? Never mind, lol..I know better.

 

[Hollie]

Stop squawking, you moron. You were lying when you wrote it the first time, and you're still lying now that you've said it 389 times.

Why is it so difficult for angry fundies to string words together into meaningful sentences?

Define "fundy" you retard.

For that matter, define "angry". I doubt you can do either, because I've seen you repeatedly misuse that phrase, as well as the separate words. It seems you think the term applies to Oxford professors, methodist liberals, and anyone else who makes you look stupid.

Silly you, as if you needed any help to look stupid! Don't feel so threatened....even if we didn't point out your overweening stupidity and dishonesty, everybody would still notice. We just do it cuz it's fun.

They're so cute when they launch themselves into tirades.