Man you frequent some really freaky websites digot.
Wall Builders: historical revisionists founded by a Christian nationalist DAVID BARTON dedicated to the creation of one would call the United Christian States of America.
A man, self described as an expert on historical and constitutional issues despite having no academic credentials.
AND:
In 2012, Barton's New York Times best-seller[52] The Jefferson Lies was voted "the least credible history book in print" by the users of the History News Network website.[10] A group of ten conservative Christian professors reviewed the work and formed a negative view of its claims,[53] reporting that Barton has misstated facts about Jefferson.[54] In August 2012, Christian publisher Thomas Nelson withdrew the book from publication and stopped production, announcing that they had "lost confidence in the book's details" and "learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported."[55][56]
You know digot I am seeing a trend in your sources of information.
It is called bullsh|t. You use disavowed psychologists and incompetent historians as sources for your arguments.
Tell me something: Would you happen to be one of the infamous sources of 'facts' that FAUX NEWS uses? I really have to thank you for some of the most comedic moments of your recent elections.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
Stubby wrote:I guess Lincoln did not read the 1st amendment.
Yes, Lincoln was an ignorant hick that didn't know as much about our Federal Constitution as does stubby. Neither did Washington, or Adams, or Franklin or any of those other ignorant people who wrote it.
Stubby wrote: Why do you want to piss off people not in 'your' theological group? Do you piss off people from other races, gender or sexuality? Why are you being divisive?
That's rich coming from a guy with your sig.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Stubby wrote:And how does keeping references to religion out of government somehow promote non religious groups?
What a ridiculous notion. You're not talking about keeping religious references out of government. Government has always been permeated with religious references. You're talking about pandering to the atheists and removing all the religious references you can--quite a different thing than you're representing it as. What's stopping you from being honest about what you're pushing?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Diogenes wrote:I cannot lay my hand on any idea which ever came from Democrats that turned out to be a good idea. Most of them were unmitigated disasters. Can you name an idea which came from Democrats that turned out to be actually a good idea?
The Clean Water Act was and is a good idea start to finish and it had Democratic origins, but to be fair it was not fought against by the Republicans. It was simply time to respond with policy to the destruction created by the chemical revolution in the 1940's.
What most people don't understand is what a tremendous success the Clean Water Act has become. Too, many people don;'t appreciate the pollution superfund created by Reagan and what it was able to accomplish. there are lots of kudos to go around here, and the Dems deserve some of them.
Operations Allied Force and Desert Fox under Clinton were both well conceived. They were both led by Democrats.
And of course Al Gore invented the internet.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Stubby wrote: Why do you want to piss off people not in 'your' theological group? Do you piss off people from other races, gender or sexuality? Why are you being divisive?
That's rich coming from a guy with your sig.
Atheism is not a theological group. Atheism is a position on a single question. There is no church or pope or world view.
OMG
It is not about pandering to atheists, it is about protecting everyone's rights to believe what they want about god, allah, rama, thor, quetzalcoatl or any of the 1000's other gods.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
Stubby wrote:And how does keeping references to religion out of government somehow promote non religious groups?
What a ridiculous notion. You're not talking about keeping religious references out of government. Government has always been permeated with religious references.
From the US Constitution itself.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Stubby wrote:Atheism is not a theological group. Atheism is a position on a single question. There is no church or pope or world view.
You're drawing a distinction without a difference. Your sig is deliberately offensive to the vast majority. You are in no position to lecture anyone about being divisive. Regardless of context or discussion, you think the way to lead a conversation is to offend as many people as possible. No person with such a profound lack of common sense should be lecturing others on what is decent behavior.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
This being a website mostly populated with scientific types who know the value of evidence and peer review, I wondered if there would be a reaction and how much. The more educated people become, the more likelihood that they become atheists or least lapse in their faith because the multitude of scientific contradictions in the bible.
So in a sense it was deliberate but pissing people off was only one of the possible outcomes. I wondered if anyone would get the reference. It is Tyson's rebuttal of the argument from ignorance fallacy that O'Reilly asserts proves the existence of his deity.
However I would never have used it on a religious site. Pissing off religious website admins will get you banned.
Ask yourselves:
Why does it piss you off?
Would 'Allah is the one true god!" be as offensive?
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
The year of our lord argument and except sundays argument
Wow really.
Our dating system is an historical artifact of Western culture, and has no legal significance or implications for the meaning of the Constitution or the First Amendment. The American Colonies were established by Europeans;[you] naturally inherited the European practice of dating years from the birth of Christ. Nothing follows from this except the trivial observation that, in establishing [y]our independence, [you] decided not to completely overthrow [y]our cultural heritage.
In fact, the European dating system is infused with pagan holdovers that, if taken seriously, lead to exactly the opposite conclusions reached by accommodationists. We have a seven day week, after the model of ancient Israel, but we inherited Pagan names for these days; does the Constitution then establish Sun worship when it excepts Sunday from the ten days Presidents have to veto a bill before it becomes law? Does it establish worship of the Moon when it says that Congress will begin it's sessions on the first Monday of December? Does the use of European names for months mean that the Constitution establishes worship of Julius Caesar (July) or Augustus Caesar (August)? The issue was a serious one for some Christians; Quakers, for example, adopted numerical references for days and months precisely to avoid objectionable Pagan names. The rejection of the Quaker system suggests that the founders read very little into their dating practices. To base an argument on those practices is to stand on extraordinarily shaky ground.
To be sure, the Constitution could have avoided the words "Year of our Lord" in the date (as it does elsewhere when it refers to specific years), but it's hard to imagine why. "The Year of our Lord" was the standard way of dating important documents in the 1700s; its use was ritualistic, not religious. It is doubtful that anyone, Christian, deist, or otherwise, would have given the words a second thought, or ascribed to them any legal significance. And if the intent of the Constitution was to signal a favored status for Christianity, it could have done so in a thousand less ambiguous ways than including the words "in the Year of our Lord." That some accommodationists appeal to these words is silent testimony to how little evidence there is for the idea that the Constitution embodies Christian morality or thought
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
Stubby wrote:The year of our lord argument and except sundays argument
Wow really.
Our dating system is an historical artifact of Western culture, and has no legal significance or implications for the meaning of the Constitution or the First Amendment. The American Colonies were established by Europeans;[you] naturally inherited the European practice of dating years from the birth of Christ. Nothing follows from this except the trivial observation that, in establishing [y]our independence, [you] decided not to completely overthrow [y]our cultural heritage.
In fact, the European dating system is infused with pagan holdovers that, if taken seriously, lead to exactly the opposite conclusions reached by accommodationists. We have a seven day week, after the model of ancient Israel, but we inherited Pagan names for these days; does the Constitution then establish Sun worship when it excepts Sunday from the ten days Presidents have to veto a bill before it becomes law? Does it establish worship of the Moon when it says that Congress will begin it's sessions on the first Monday of December? Does the use of European names for months mean that the Constitution establishes worship of Julius Caesar (July) or Augustus Caesar (August)? The issue was a serious one for some Christians; Quakers, for example, adopted numerical references for days and months precisely to avoid objectionable Pagan names. The rejection of the Quaker system suggests that the founders read very little into their dating practices. To base an argument on those practices is to stand on extraordinarily shaky ground.
To be sure, the Constitution could have avoided the words "Year of our Lord" in the date (as it does elsewhere when it refers to specific years), but it's hard to imagine why. "The Year of our Lord" was the standard way of dating important documents in the 1700s; its use was ritualistic, not religious. It is doubtful that anyone, Christian, deist, or otherwise, would have given the words a second thought, or ascribed to them any legal significance. And if the intent of the Constitution was to signal a favored status for Christianity, it could have done so in a thousand less ambiguous ways than including the words "in the Year of our Lord." That some accommodationists appeal to these words is silent testimony to how little evidence there is for the idea that the Constitution embodies Christian morality or thought
Says some loser at this website. Like he has a f***ing clue what he's talking about.
For Rebuttal, i'll give you excerpts from the ORIGINAL Document which started the US.
Yeah, Historical artifact. Totally.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
He certainly knows more than you. His graphics skills are questionable.
Yep
great historic document. lots of references to god. It created your nation. But has nothing to do with your government. It was good enough to create your nation but not create the government.
The FF returned to the Continental Congress after winning independence to create another document to create your government. A document with no direct references to gods? They had plenty of opportunity to include religious language. Maybe they got into the sacramental wine and just plumb forgot!
Nation and government are not synonymous. You and most of the religious twilight zone are always conflating the two ideas.
Treaty of Tripoli
Article 11.
I am well aware of how the arabic differs from the English. But however the English and Arabic versions differs, the English text was read aloud in the Senate and received unanimous approval.
You are a majority christian nation with a secular government. Secular for many excellent reasons.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims),—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
It has everything to do with our government. It shows what was constitutional then, and what remains so absent an amendment to the contrary.
"They had plenty of opportunity to include religious language. Maybe they got into the sacramental wine and just plumb forgot!"
And yet, they opened every Congress with explicitly Christian prayer. The honest would draw a conclusion from that the constitution does not preclude such and "endorsement" of religion, neither does it preclude congress from deciding what mottos go on the money.
"Secular for many excellent reasons. "
And there is nothing more sectarian in "In God We Trust", than there is in removing it to satisfy the faith born hysterics of atheists. In fact, there is less sectarianism in it's remaining, so I hope it does.
"As the Government ... the two countries."
There is nothing in that quote which justifies the expungement of Christianity from public existence, let alone the more asecular still, "In God We Trust".
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
Stubby wrote:
Yep
great historic document. lots of references to god. It created your nation. But has nothing to do with your government. It was good enough to create your nation but not create the government.
The FF returned to the Continental Congress after winning independence to create another document to create your government. A document with no direct references to gods? They had plenty of opportunity to include religious language. Maybe they got into the sacramental wine and just plumb forgot!
So let me ask you this. If they had included overtly religious language in the document they used to create our government, would you then admit that such a government favored the Christian religion?
Let me rephrase that. If the Governing Document had contained explicitly religious language, would you admit you are wrong?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Stubby wrote:
Yep
great historic document. lots of references to god. It created your nation. But has nothing to do with your government. It was good enough to create your nation but not create the government.
The FF returned to the Continental Congress after winning independence to create another document to create your government. A document with no direct references to gods? They had plenty of opportunity to include religious language. Maybe they got into the sacramental wine and just plumb forgot!
So let me ask you this. If they had included overtly religious language in the document they used to create our government, would you then admit that such a government favored the Christian religion?
Let me rephrase that. If the Governing Document had contained explicitly religious language, would you admit you are wrong?
Thank you for admitting that it doesn't contain any.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
