"Why are atheists so toxic"

[ding]

That was an astonishing leap in logic you just made there. Don't be silly. I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad.

We'll, you are the one who claimed that religious people are voting based on their religious convictions. Do you stand by that statement, or not?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If you really do have a PhD, it shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out what I meant. I was quite clear.

Yes, you were. And now you want to back pedal because you didn't like being called out for it.

I literally could not have made it any clearer. If you want to see this as me back pedaling, please go right ahead. It seems to me that you want to void my right to vote because I believe in God.

In post # 100 I wrote, "My values inform my vote and my faith informs my values. I don't forfeit my right to participate in governance anymore than you do. "

In post # 143 I wrote, "I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad."

Ahhh, but you see, you want us all to forget about post #1777 - the specific post to which I responded - where you expanded that to include all religious people: "So it is ok for your values to inform your vote, but not religious people?"

So, you are saying that Christians vote their Christian agenda. Further, even in your original post you are, at the very least, admitting that you are voting for a theocracy. "I vote my values, and my faith informs my values". You want your faith to be the governing factor of the government. That is a theocracy.

How about the mural of "Landing of Columbus" in the United States Capitol Rotunda? Good Lord, I see a cross! Is that ok, or should that be taken down too?

 

[ding]

That was an astonishing leap in logic you just made there. Don't be silly. I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad.

We'll, you are the one who claimed that religious people are voting based on their religious convictions. Do you stand by that statement, or not?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If you really do have a PhD, it shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out what I meant. I was quite clear.

Yes, you were. And now you want to back pedal because you didn't like being called out for it.

I literally could not have made it any clearer. If you want to see this as me back pedaling, please go right ahead. It seems to me that you want to void my right to vote because I believe in God.

In post # 100 I wrote, "My values inform my vote and my faith informs my values. I don't forfeit my right to participate in governance anymore than you do. "

In post # 143 I wrote, "I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad."

Ahhh, but you see, you want us all to forget about post #1777 - the specific post to which I responded - where you expanded that to include all religious people: "So it is ok for your values to inform your vote, but not religious people?"

So, you are saying that Christians vote their Christian agenda. Further, even in your original post you are, at the very least, admitting that you are voting for a theocracy. "I vote my values, and my faith informs my values". You want your faith to be the governing factor of the government. That is a theocracy.

How about the mural of "The Baptism of Pocahontas" in the United States Capitol Rotunda? That seems very specific to Christianity. Is that ok, or should that be taken down too?

 

[Czernobog]

Wrong on two counts. First, it is not nearly as vague. Ask 100 people what religion refers to God, capital "G", and I promise you, the overwhelming majority, if not nearly all, will tell you Judeo-Christianity, I don't care how you want to equivocate. Ask those same 100 what religion refers to "their creator", and the answer will be much more varied.

Second, regardless of how much importance you may wish to assign it, try using the DOI, as a document in a court of law as precedence over an law or constitutional precedence. It is not a governing document of our government. Period.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

How can I be wrong?

I told you exactly how you were wrong. And copying the DOI to your post doesn't make you any less wrong, nor does it refute either of the points made in my post explaining how you are wrong.

Yes, you did and my reply to that was in post #150. I don't need to add anything else. I'm not the one who has the incongruity.

Yes. You did reply, and, well...

Simply posting the Declaration of Independence, has absolutely nothing to do with either of the points I made in my post.

You mean you didn't see what I wrote? That figures. Here you go.

How can I be wrong? I'm not the one who wants to remove all references of God from government. You guys are the ones wanting to do that. What exactly do you suppose Creator is? You are literally arguing to keep the reference of God in the DOI. Have you even ever read the DOI? How about Divine Providence? Is that Ok too? How about Nature's God? Is that ok now too?

Yeah...That's just repeating the same question you had already asked, and I had already answered in post #133, & #145. The language in the DOI is non-specific deism. That is not religion specific. God is.

First, God is not nearly as vague as "Creator" or "Divine Providence", and "Nature's God" specifically is a reference to Deism, not any theistic religion, such as Christianity. Ask 100 people what religion refers to God, capital "G", and I promise you, the overwhelming majority, if not nearly all, will tell you Judeo-Christianity, I don't care how you want to equivocate. Ask those same 100 what religion refers to "their creator", and the answer will be much more varied.

Second, regardless of how much importance you may wish to assign it, try using the DOI, as a document in a court of law as precedence over an law or constitutional precedence. It is not a governing document of our government. Period.

 

[ding]

That was an astonishing leap in logic you just made there. Don't be silly. I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad.

We'll, you are the one who claimed that religious people are voting based on their religious convictions. Do you stand by that statement, or not?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If you really do have a PhD, it shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out what I meant. I was quite clear.

Yes, you were. And now you want to back pedal because you didn't like being called out for it.

I literally could not have made it any clearer. If you want to see this as me back pedaling, please go right ahead. It seems to me that you want to void my right to vote because I believe in God.

In post # 100 I wrote, "My values inform my vote and my faith informs my values. I don't forfeit my right to participate in governance anymore than you do. "

In post # 143 I wrote, "I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad."

Ahhh, but you see, you want us all to forget about post #1777 - the specific post to which I responded - where you expanded that to include all religious people: "So it is ok for your values to inform your vote, but not religious people?"

So, you are saying that Christians vote their Christian agenda. Further, even in your original post you are, at the very least, admitting that you are voting for a theocracy. "I vote my values, and my faith informs my values". You want your faith to be the governing factor of the government. That is a theocracy.

How about the mural of "The Embarkation of the Pilgrims" in the United States Capitol Rotunda? Egads! He is holding a Bible!. Is that ok, or should that be taken down too?

 

[Czernobog]

We'll, you are the one who claimed that religious people are voting based on their religious convictions. Do you stand by that statement, or not?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If you really do have a PhD, it shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out what I meant. I was quite clear.

Yes, you were. And now you want to back pedal because you didn't like being called out for it.

I literally could not have made it any clearer. If you want to see this as me back pedaling, please go right ahead. It seems to me that you want to void my right to vote because I believe in God.

In post # 100 I wrote, "My values inform my vote and my faith informs my values. I don't forfeit my right to participate in governance anymore than you do. "

In post # 143 I wrote, "I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad."

Ahhh, but you see, you want us all to forget about post #1777 - the specific post to which I responded - where you expanded that to include all religious people: "So it is ok for your values to inform your vote, but not religious people?"

So, you are saying that Christians vote their Christian agenda. Further, even in your original post you are, at the very least, admitting that you are voting for a theocracy. "I vote my values, and my faith informs my values". You want your faith to be the governing factor of the government. That is a theocracy.

How about the mural of "Landing of Columbus" in the United States Capitol Rotunda? Good Lord, I see a cross! Is that ok, or should that be taken down too?

View attachment 115338

Ya know what, Ding? Feel free to **** off. You know ******* well the difference between displaying historical events, and displaying religious influence. "...one nation under God...".

 

[Czernobog]

We'll, you are the one who claimed that religious people are voting based on their religious convictions. Do you stand by that statement, or not?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If you really do have a PhD, it shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out what I meant. I was quite clear.

Yes, you were. And now you want to back pedal because you didn't like being called out for it.

I literally could not have made it any clearer. If you want to see this as me back pedaling, please go right ahead. It seems to me that you want to void my right to vote because I believe in God.

In post # 100 I wrote, "My values inform my vote and my faith informs my values. I don't forfeit my right to participate in governance anymore than you do. "

In post # 143 I wrote, "I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad."

Ahhh, but you see, you want us all to forget about post #1777 - the specific post to which I responded - where you expanded that to include all religious people: "So it is ok for your values to inform your vote, but not religious people?"

So, you are saying that Christians vote their Christian agenda. Further, even in your original post you are, at the very least, admitting that you are voting for a theocracy. "I vote my values, and my faith informs my values". You want your faith to be the governing factor of the government. That is a theocracy.

How about the mural of "The Embarkation of the Pilgrims" in the United States Capitol Rotunda? Egads! He is holding a Bible!. Is that ok, or should that be taken down too?

View attachment 115340

He is? What page is it turned to? What passage? All I see is a book.

 

[ding]

How can I be wrong?

I told you exactly how you were wrong. And copying the DOI to your post doesn't make you any less wrong, nor does it refute either of the points made in my post explaining how you are wrong.

Yes, you did and my reply to that was in post #150. I don't need to add anything else. I'm not the one who has the incongruity.

Yes. You did reply, and, well...

Simply posting the Declaration of Independence, has absolutely nothing to do with either of the points I made in my post.

You mean you didn't see what I wrote? That figures. Here you go.

How can I be wrong? I'm not the one who wants to remove all references of God from government. You guys are the ones wanting to do that. What exactly do you suppose Creator is? You are literally arguing to keep the reference of God in the DOI. Have you even ever read the DOI? How about Divine Providence? Is that Ok too? How about Nature's God? Is that ok now too?

Yeah...That's just repeating the same question you had already asked, and I had already answered in post #133, & #145. The language in the DOI is non-specific deism. That is not religion specific. God is.

First, God is not nearly as vague as "Creator" or "Divine Providence", and "Nature's God" specifically is a reference to Deism, not any theistic religion, such as Christianity. Ask 100 people what religion refers to God, capital "G", and I promise you, the overwhelming majority, if not nearly all, will tell you Judeo-Christianity, I don't care how you want to equivocate. Ask those same 100 what religion refers to "their creator", and the answer will be much more varied.

Second, regardless of how much importance you may wish to assign it, try using the DOI, as a document in a court of law as precedence over an law or constitutional precedence. It is not a governing document of our government. Period.

You do realize I'm not paying attention to what you are writing, right? My point has been made, I'm quite happy resting my case. You lose. I get it, you are upset with the dollar bill.

 

[ding]

If you really do have a PhD, it shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out what I meant. I was quite clear.

Yes, you were. And now you want to back pedal because you didn't like being called out for it.

I literally could not have made it any clearer. If you want to see this as me back pedaling, please go right ahead. It seems to me that you want to void my right to vote because I believe in God.

In post # 100 I wrote, "My values inform my vote and my faith informs my values. I don't forfeit my right to participate in governance anymore than you do. "

In post # 143 I wrote, "I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad."

Ahhh, but you see, you want us all to forget about post #1777 - the specific post to which I responded - where you expanded that to include all religious people: "So it is ok for your values to inform your vote, but not religious people?"

So, you are saying that Christians vote their Christian agenda. Further, even in your original post you are, at the very least, admitting that you are voting for a theocracy. "I vote my values, and my faith informs my values". You want your faith to be the governing factor of the government. That is a theocracy.

How about the mural of "The Embarkation of the Pilgrims" in the United States Capitol Rotunda? Egads! He is holding a Bible!. Is that ok, or should that be taken down too?

View attachment 115340

He is? What page is it turned to? What passage? All I see is a book.

Of course you do and you don't see any reference to God in the Declaration of Independence either, lol.

 

[ding]

If you really do have a PhD, it shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out what I meant. I was quite clear.

Yes, you were. And now you want to back pedal because you didn't like being called out for it.

I literally could not have made it any clearer. If you want to see this as me back pedaling, please go right ahead. It seems to me that you want to void my right to vote because I believe in God.

In post # 100 I wrote, "My values inform my vote and my faith informs my values. I don't forfeit my right to participate in governance anymore than you do. "

In post # 143 I wrote, "I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad."

Ahhh, but you see, you want us all to forget about post #1777 - the specific post to which I responded - where you expanded that to include all religious people: "So it is ok for your values to inform your vote, but not religious people?"

So, you are saying that Christians vote their Christian agenda. Further, even in your original post you are, at the very least, admitting that you are voting for a theocracy. "I vote my values, and my faith informs my values". You want your faith to be the governing factor of the government. That is a theocracy.

How about the mural of "Landing of Columbus" in the United States Capitol Rotunda? Good Lord, I see a cross! Is that ok, or should that be taken down too?

View attachment 115338

Ya know what, Ding? Feel free to **** off. You know ******* well the difference between displaying historical events, and displaying religious influence. "...one nation under God...".

I've been doing that to you for quite some time.

 

[Czernobog]

I told you exactly how you were wrong. And copying the DOI to your post doesn't make you any less wrong, nor does it refute either of the points made in my post explaining how you are wrong.

Yes, you did and my reply to that was in post #150. I don't need to add anything else. I'm not the one who has the incongruity.

Yes. You did reply, and, well...

Simply posting the Declaration of Independence, has absolutely nothing to do with either of the points I made in my post.

You mean you didn't see what I wrote? That figures. Here you go.

How can I be wrong? I'm not the one who wants to remove all references of God from government. You guys are the ones wanting to do that. What exactly do you suppose Creator is? You are literally arguing to keep the reference of God in the DOI. Have you even ever read the DOI? How about Divine Providence? Is that Ok too? How about Nature's God? Is that ok now too?

Yeah...That's just repeating the same question you had already asked, and I had already answered in post #133, & #145. The language in the DOI is non-specific deism. That is not religion specific. God is.

First, God is not nearly as vague as "Creator" or "Divine Providence", and "Nature's God" specifically is a reference to Deism, not any theistic religion, such as Christianity. Ask 100 people what religion refers to God, capital "G", and I promise you, the overwhelming majority, if not nearly all, will tell you Judeo-Christianity, I don't care how you want to equivocate. Ask those same 100 what religion refers to "their creator", and the answer will be much more varied.

Second, regardless of how much importance you may wish to assign it, try using the DOI, as a document in a court of law as precedence over an law or constitutional precedence. It is not a governing document of our government. Period.

You do realize I'm not paying attention to what you are writing, right? My point has been made, I'm quite happy resting my case. You lose. I get it, you are upset with the dollar bill.

Ity hasn't. You're just another militant Christian who can't stand a little criticism, and hates non-Christians. But, feel free to run away.

 

[Czernobog]

Yes, you were. And now you want to back pedal because you didn't like being called out for it.

I literally could not have made it any clearer. If you want to see this as me back pedaling, please go right ahead. It seems to me that you want to void my right to vote because I believe in God.

In post # 100 I wrote, "My values inform my vote and my faith informs my values. I don't forfeit my right to participate in governance anymore than you do. "

In post # 143 I wrote, "I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad."

Ahhh, but you see, you want us all to forget about post #1777 - the specific post to which I responded - where you expanded that to include all religious people: "So it is ok for your values to inform your vote, but not religious people?"

So, you are saying that Christians vote their Christian agenda. Further, even in your original post you are, at the very least, admitting that you are voting for a theocracy. "I vote my values, and my faith informs my values". You want your faith to be the governing factor of the government. That is a theocracy.

How about the mural of "The Embarkation of the Pilgrims" in the United States Capitol Rotunda? Egads! He is holding a Bible!. Is that ok, or should that be taken down too?

View attachment 115340

He is? What page is it turned to? What passage? All I see is a book.

Of course you do and you don't see any reference to God in the Declaration of Independence either, lol.

What page is the Bible turned to? What passage from the Bible showing? What? It's a Bible because you say so?

 

[Czernobog]

But, I';m done with you. You're an idiot, hateful, and a waste of my time. Welcome to my ignore pile. I will no longer waste time reading your useless drivel. The minute you told me that you were not even reading my posts, you proved that you were not even worth trying to have a discussion with. All you are interested in is reading your own words.

 

[ding]

Yes, you did and my reply to that was in post #150. I don't need to add anything else. I'm not the one who has the incongruity.

Yes. You did reply, and, well...

Simply posting the Declaration of Independence, has absolutely nothing to do with either of the points I made in my post.

You mean you didn't see what I wrote? That figures. Here you go.

How can I be wrong? I'm not the one who wants to remove all references of God from government. You guys are the ones wanting to do that. What exactly do you suppose Creator is? You are literally arguing to keep the reference of God in the DOI. Have you even ever read the DOI? How about Divine Providence? Is that Ok too? How about Nature's God? Is that ok now too?

Yeah...That's just repeating the same question you had already asked, and I had already answered in post #133, & #145. The language in the DOI is non-specific deism. That is not religion specific. God is.

First, God is not nearly as vague as "Creator" or "Divine Providence", and "Nature's God" specifically is a reference to Deism, not any theistic religion, such as Christianity. Ask 100 people what religion refers to God, capital "G", and I promise you, the overwhelming majority, if not nearly all, will tell you Judeo-Christianity, I don't care how you want to equivocate. Ask those same 100 what religion refers to "their creator", and the answer will be much more varied.

Second, regardless of how much importance you may wish to assign it, try using the DOI, as a document in a court of law as precedence over an law or constitutional precedence. It is not a governing document of our government. Period.

You do realize I'm not paying attention to what you are writing, right? My point has been made, I'm quite happy resting my case. You lose. I get it, you are upset with the dollar bill.

Ity hasn't. You're just another militant Christian who can't stand a little criticism, and hates non-Christians. But, feel free to run away.

Should we get rid of the Constitution too? The United States Constitution does mention God. In Article VII, the Constitution states:

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....

 

[ding]

But, I';m done with you. You're an idiot, hateful, and a waste of my time. Welcome to my ignore pile. I will no longer waste time reading your useless drivel.

A people without a heritage are easily persuaded. Karl Marx

No wonder you want to do away with our Christian heritage.

 

[MaryL]

We'll, you are the one who claimed that religious people are voting based on their religious convictions. Do you stand by that statement, or not?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If you really do have a PhD, it shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out what I meant. I was quite clear.

Yes, you were. And now you want to back pedal because you didn't like being called out for it.

I literally could not have made it any clearer. If you want to see this as me back pedaling, please go right ahead. It seems to me that you want to void my right to vote because I believe in God.

In post # 100 I wrote, "My values inform my vote and my faith informs my values. I don't forfeit my right to participate in governance anymore than you do. "

In post # 143 I wrote, "I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad."

Ahhh, but you see, you want us all to forget about post #1777 - the specific post to which I responded - where you expanded that to include all religious people: "So it is ok for your values to inform your vote, but not religious people?"

So, you are saying that Christians vote their Christian agenda. Further, even in your original post you are, at the very least, admitting that you are voting for a theocracy. "I vote my values, and my faith informs my values". You want your faith to be the governing factor of the government. That is a theocracy.

How about the mural of "Landing of Columbus" in the United States Capitol Rotunda? Good Lord, I see a cross! Is that ok, or should that be taken down too?

View attachment 115338

Reminds me of the basis of CARTOONS, what most artists based their artworks on, From da Vinci and Michelangelo onward. All of them had biblical influences, De Vinci an Michelangelo were also gay. Doing biblical tropes, ironic as hell.

 

[ding]

I literally could not have made it any clearer. If you want to see this as me back pedaling, please go right ahead. It seems to me that you want to void my right to vote because I believe in God.

In post # 100 I wrote, "My values inform my vote and my faith informs my values. I don't forfeit my right to participate in governance anymore than you do. "

In post # 143 I wrote, "I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad."

Ahhh, but you see, you want us all to forget about post #1777 - the specific post to which I responded - where you expanded that to include all religious people: "So it is ok for your values to inform your vote, but not religious people?"

So, you are saying that Christians vote their Christian agenda. Further, even in your original post you are, at the very least, admitting that you are voting for a theocracy. "I vote my values, and my faith informs my values". You want your faith to be the governing factor of the government. That is a theocracy.

How about the mural of "The Embarkation of the Pilgrims" in the United States Capitol Rotunda? Egads! He is holding a Bible!. Is that ok, or should that be taken down too?

View attachment 115340

He is? What page is it turned to? What passage? All I see is a book.

Of course you do and you don't see any reference to God in the Declaration of Independence either, lol.

What page is the Bible turned to? What passage from the Bible showing? What? It's a Bible because you say so?

Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage.
Dr. Ron Paul

 

[Czernobog]

Yes. You did reply, and, well...

Simply posting the Declaration of Independence, has absolutely nothing to do with either of the points I made in my post.

You mean you didn't see what I wrote? That figures. Here you go.

How can I be wrong? I'm not the one who wants to remove all references of God from government. You guys are the ones wanting to do that. What exactly do you suppose Creator is? You are literally arguing to keep the reference of God in the DOI. Have you even ever read the DOI? How about Divine Providence? Is that Ok too? How about Nature's God? Is that ok now too?

Yeah...That's just repeating the same question you had already asked, and I had already answered in post #133, & #145. The language in the DOI is non-specific deism. That is not religion specific. God is.

First, God is not nearly as vague as "Creator" or "Divine Providence", and "Nature's God" specifically is a reference to Deism, not any theistic religion, such as Christianity. Ask 100 people what religion refers to God, capital "G", and I promise you, the overwhelming majority, if not nearly all, will tell you Judeo-Christianity, I don't care how you want to equivocate. Ask those same 100 what religion refers to "their creator", and the answer will be much more varied.

Second, regardless of how much importance you may wish to assign it, try using the DOI, as a document in a court of law as precedence over an law or constitutional precedence. It is not a governing document of our government. Period.

You do realize I'm not paying attention to what you are writing, right? My point has been made, I'm quite happy resting my case. You lose. I get it, you are upset with the dollar bill.

Ity hasn't. You're just another militant Christian who can't stand a little criticism, and hates non-Christians. But, feel free to run away.

Should we get rid of the Constitution too? The United States Constitution does mention God. In Article VII, the Constitution states:

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....

 

[ding]

If you really do have a PhD, it shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out what I meant. I was quite clear.

Yes, you were. And now you want to back pedal because you didn't like being called out for it.

I literally could not have made it any clearer. If you want to see this as me back pedaling, please go right ahead. It seems to me that you want to void my right to vote because I believe in God.

In post # 100 I wrote, "My values inform my vote and my faith informs my values. I don't forfeit my right to participate in governance anymore than you do. "

In post # 143 I wrote, "I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad."

Ahhh, but you see, you want us all to forget about post #1777 - the specific post to which I responded - where you expanded that to include all religious people: "So it is ok for your values to inform your vote, but not religious people?"

So, you are saying that Christians vote their Christian agenda. Further, even in your original post you are, at the very least, admitting that you are voting for a theocracy. "I vote my values, and my faith informs my values". You want your faith to be the governing factor of the government. That is a theocracy.

How about the mural of "Landing of Columbus" in the United States Capitol Rotunda? Good Lord, I see a cross! Is that ok, or should that be taken down too?

View attachment 115338

Reminds me of the basis of CARTOONS, what most artists based their artworks on, From da Vinci and Michelangelo onward. All of them had biblical influences, De Vinci an Michelangelo were also gay. Doing biblical tropes, ironic as hell.

Really? You think their works remind you of cartoons?

Maybe you prefer this kind of art instead.

 

[ding]

You mean you didn't see what I wrote? That figures. Here you go.

How can I be wrong? I'm not the one who wants to remove all references of God from government. You guys are the ones wanting to do that. What exactly do you suppose Creator is? You are literally arguing to keep the reference of God in the DOI. Have you even ever read the DOI? How about Divine Providence? Is that Ok too? How about Nature's God? Is that ok now too?

Yeah...That's just repeating the same question you had already asked, and I had already answered in post #133, & #145. The language in the DOI is non-specific deism. That is not religion specific. God is.

First, God is not nearly as vague as "Creator" or "Divine Providence", and "Nature's God" specifically is a reference to Deism, not any theistic religion, such as Christianity. Ask 100 people what religion refers to God, capital "G", and I promise you, the overwhelming majority, if not nearly all, will tell you Judeo-Christianity, I don't care how you want to equivocate. Ask those same 100 what religion refers to "their creator", and the answer will be much more varied.

Second, regardless of how much importance you may wish to assign it, try using the DOI, as a document in a court of law as precedence over an law or constitutional precedence. It is not a governing document of our government. Period.

You do realize I'm not paying attention to what you are writing, right? My point has been made, I'm quite happy resting my case. You lose. I get it, you are upset with the dollar bill.

Ity hasn't. You're just another militant Christian who can't stand a little criticism, and hates non-Christians. But, feel free to run away.

Should we get rid of the Constitution too? The United States Constitution does mention God. In Article VII, the Constitution states:

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....

Don't be so hard on yourself, brother.

 

[ding]

If you really do have a PhD, it shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out what I meant. I was quite clear.

Yes, you were. And now you want to back pedal because you didn't like being called out for it.

I literally could not have made it any clearer. If you want to see this as me back pedaling, please go right ahead. It seems to me that you want to void my right to vote because I believe in God.

In post # 100 I wrote, "My values inform my vote and my faith informs my values. I don't forfeit my right to participate in governance anymore than you do. "

In post # 143 I wrote, "I don't want a theocracy anymore than I want to forget our Christian heritage. Both would be bad."

Ahhh, but you see, you want us all to forget about post #1777 - the specific post to which I responded - where you expanded that to include all religious people: "So it is ok for your values to inform your vote, but not religious people?"

So, you are saying that Christians vote their Christian agenda. Further, even in your original post you are, at the very least, admitting that you are voting for a theocracy. "I vote my values, and my faith informs my values". You want your faith to be the governing factor of the government. That is a theocracy.

How about the mural of "Landing of Columbus" in the United States Capitol Rotunda? Good Lord, I see a cross! Is that ok, or should that be taken down too?

View attachment 115338

Ya know what, Ding? Feel free to **** off. You know ******* well the difference between displaying historical events, and displaying religious influence. "...one nation under God...".

I can see why you are upset, one nation under God can be sooooo infuriating on a dollar bill. Don't forget about the pledge of allegiance or all that Christian artwork at the Capital or the reference to God in the Declaration of Independence or the reference to God in the Constitution or... oh nevermind, your head is about to explode.