Daggah

===========

On Page 3

Posted posted December 10, 2002 03:22 PM

Fact #3:

We have a treaty, unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797, stating in no uncertain terms that America is NOT a Christian nation. While it is true that no one can say with any certainty how Article XI found its way into the treaty, it WAS there when the Senate ratified it, making it clear that they approved of the statements within the treaty.

===========

Damn. If that's damage control, I must be psychic.

Daggah

If he, or any other atheist, is a hypocrite, it's because Christian bigotry such as yours made it foolish - even dangerous - to publicly be an atheist.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair was one of many who learned that lesson the hard way.

If you ask me, a little hypocrisy is a fair price to pay for one's safety.

Radorth

Oh come on. I was called a liar for removing a quote from a context I did not have.

Here you have Radcliffe Emersin still removing quotes from contexts thrust in front of him by skeptics and parroting atheist websites, and he is not the only one either. If I simply use Daggah's standard for a liar I end up with at least two David Barton atheists here.

Also I apologized for using a quote without tracing the source, and we're hearing about it a month later on another thread! So forgive me if I have no idea what you talking about, and it sounds like more skeptic-aggrandizing nonsense. Did you even bother reading the other threads or trying to ascertain the facts? Or do you just automatically assume all atheists have more integrity than Christians?

They certainly all claim to here, (though I have said it is a mixed bag). That's what scares me. And BTW, since you're defending the realm today, perhaps you can explain why a skeptic venerated for his integrity here is suddenly publishing quotes which would have saved us all a lot of grief on the "David Barton Automaton" thread. Are we to believe

A. He only recently discovered them, or

B. He now knows I know about them.

Rad

Radorth

That's not why Christians want a secular society (as Buffman pointed out), or why the clergy supported ratification, or why Jefferson got elected. You don't understand that. That's the problem, and why we hear these silly arguments like the Congress didn't want clergy in government, and by extension, Christians, apparently. Incredible!!! Meanwhile, Buffman also (to his credit) says that the states were never precluded from discriminating against atheists. I'm not saying I agree with that at all, but it tells us our early history is a real mystery to some skeptics here.

Try to grasp this: THE CHRISTIANS WERE NOT VOTING FOR A SECULAR SOCIETY OR EVEN ENVISIONING ONE WHEN THEY RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION. THEY WERE VOTING FOR THE CONSTITUTION SO GOVERNMENT WOULDN'T MESS WITH THEIR RELIGION.

If the Constitution said "fundy" Christians can't be Attorney General because they might violate separation (as some of you doubtless wish it said), I seriously doubt even Jefferson would have supported it, let alone one single clergyman.

Get it now?

So instead of revising history and sprading alarmist nonsense why don't you go and get the Constitution changed. I'm fine with it, especially since the Supreme Court is still letting us pray in public places. (Gee) I'm telling you the local cops and entrenced bureaucrats are far more dangerous than an Attorney General who won't be around long.

Rad

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

"It's the Christians' fault we're hypocrites."

Thanks. I can lose this entire argument, and walk away grinning from ear to ear now. (That's if I don't start crying first)

Lord have mercy.

Rad

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

hezekiah jones

... since the Supreme Court is still letting us pray in public places.

Haha! Just who is spreading the "alarmist nonsense" here?

By the way, got those cites, or were those just two more of your famous baseless assertions?

Radorth

Totally beside the point. Gee, you mean without all that help from Congress spreading the Word, there might be no Christians at all? You talk like if God was behind something, people would go for it, but that is not the history of the church or the world at all.

Re Jamie

Yes, but unfortunately almost everything interesting, practical and meaningful is beyond the scope of this thread.

Rad

hezekiah jones

Yes, but unfortunately almost everything interesting, practical and meaningful is beyond the scope of this thread.

How pathetic. You're such a troll.

Yellum Notnef

LOL!
That must be why this thread was started with Radorth in mind.

It seems that the key to dealing with Radorth is to be very robotic and show no emotion or personality what so ever. Anything mentioned that is NOT crucial to the discussion (jokes,wise cracks,off topic remarks) IS what Radorth will respond to while evading the real issues.

Living Dead Chipmunk

I still want to know how Christianity didn't exist before the Constitution was around the safeguard it.