Mageth

I see your point, although my guess would be that the majority of the 83% in 1776 that weren't church members, if asked, would have identified themselves as "Christians." Whether they were True Christians (TM), whatever that is, is another question and one I'd prefer to leave up to the theists.

But this is useful information to have around when a theist claims "America was established by God as a CHRISTIAN nation, but woe, look how far we've fallen!"

ybnormal

Radorth:
Or do you just automatically assume all atheists have more integrity than Christians?

In its most simple terms, each people, as a group, and in general? Of course! That's a no-brainer, for me personally. This mainly from the perspective that as a group, unlike xians, Atheists are not hypocrites by default, by calling themselves Atheists. xians as a group, set themselves up as being superior to others, thru their most basic ideology, that everyone else should convert and be "just like them". In that sense, and as a group, xians elevate themselves to some higher standard, whereas most Atheists, and certainly I myself, claim no such blanket supremacy. And yes, I'm a real hardass about this principled view. Sorry, but IMO, this fault of Christianity is just dirt-simple bigotry, which commands no integrity.

That said, I'm off your back, on this thread anyway. I have nothing against you personally. Strange as it sounds, I've kinda grown to like you for some reason, and have even grown to respect your determined ability to keep coming back for more abuse. Whatever your faults, and we all have them, you do seem to find yourself firing so many mortars, that it brings out the reserves. And like Toto said, I too believe that you are just consumed by your ideology... you want soooooo bad to believe some things which can only be supported by your faith. You'll either accept that or you won't.

I've already gone on record saying that if it were my argument, I'd confine it to the Constitution itself, as this topic implies, because there is really NO other "evidence" to be discovered anyway. To do otherwise, is to allow xian historians to once again, define a much broader and totally different debate. And surely you must recognize that you constantly use that to your advantage. But then again, my way would be boring and I would not learn all this new and interesting stuff.

Peace!

Radorth

Yeah we don't care why it was removed. Could be because it was politically motivated B.S. Could be because the Senate actually wanted it that way. Could be because Adams liked the sound of it, politically speaking. (It goes away with Adams) Could be Barlow demanded it as a way to convince others of our peaceful intentions. And finally, it could have been removed because Jefferson wanted it that way.

Interesting it doesn't appear in the Arabic version. My, well, hopefully you can find something better to offset 10 or more examples of the Congress helping to spread the Gospel, you know, buying Bibles, hiring chaplains, giving preachers tax, encouraging the teaching of Christian ideals in schools, that kind of thing

Rad

Daggah

Something better, you say? Dozens of examples have already been posted. So quit weaseling around, Radorth, and admit that you are in error. The USA is NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION.

And one has to assume that the Senate that sat in and voted on this treaty were unanimously stupid or lazy, because every one of them voted to rafity the treaty and show their support of the statements within.

If there was disagreement with the statement made by Article XI, the vote would not have been unanimous.

Bill Snedden

I've been following this thread with no little amount of interest, and after wading through a voluminous 8 pages of irrelevant contentions and off-topic sniping, I'm unable to find much real discussion around the subject of the thread.

It seems to me that in order to support a positive position on the OP, one would have to

A) state the principles upon which one believes the U.S. Constitution to be based.

B) provide argument and evidence to support the contention that those principles are uniquely Christian OR that the reliance by the Founders upon those principles was driven solely by their Christian faith.

Needless to say I believe such a task to be quite impossible, however it would be interesting to see a proponent at least attempt the actual argument instead of digressing into irrelevancies.

It would might also be interesting to see opponents state their disagreements in a civil manner...just a thought...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Radorth

I never use "Barton's" quotes. I've never read Barton. I don't trust Barton, so I have no idea what you are talking about. I sometimes refer to Federer, (as you should if you want to claim to know all) except when he sources Barton and nobody else. In the case of Dayton, and your demand to see the original document, that is just ridiculous. You well know that many original documents are lost to us and only recorded by other writers, and in some cases CHRISTIANS ALONE have done the research, or made a note of them, and you wouldn't believe them anyway so what's the point? The quotes I give are usually longer than the atheist ones given here, and pretty much stand alone. Are you saying somebody made up the Dayton quote or what? Get real.

Your favorite axe grinding sources certainly wouldn't make a note of Dayton saying that, now would they? Has any university made a concerted effort to collect every scrap of Dayton's records, as with Washington? You even admit you only have access to a portion of them. So just sitting around making condescending remarks and demanding original sources which you alone might know about here is just plain disingenuous. Your post has "double standard" written all over it, especially when half your choir here is just talking heads who've never done ANY research, ever, other than reading atheist websites.

I also told you I spent over an hour on the UVa site looking for the "Jesus Christ" quote, so all you can really say is that you are better at finding sources than I. Well, big deal. I haven't spent the hours collecting them that you have. Neither has anyone here and your snooty remarks toward me alone are unjustified, not to mention disingenuous, made-up commentary on my beliefs about Washington.

You still need to apologize.

Rad

Radorth

I've already admitted I can't prove by objective fact the narrow interpretation of the thread subject. I did supply at least 5 Christian principles which drove the founders, and made the Constitution possible, which nobody can find anywhere because they are too lazy to look. Doubtless they are the same ones Adams had in mind. Meanwhile my opening statements and references have not been refuted, and they were always what I came here to argue.

Let's argue a new thread sometime entitled "No God, No Navy, No America" sometime, shall we? Who's up for it?

Heh.

Rad

Radorth

I don't have 8 hours a day to search the world in support of my personal crusade, that's why. Neither does Emerson or Daggah. We work. Of course they don't have families far as I know.

It's a great marvel how you abuse people asking a sincere question just because they are Christians, while walking on eggshells with or ignoring atheists digging huge holes for themselves. You've got all the grace of a lawyer giving the other side 400 pages of &^%$ to read through just before the trial. Thanks but I think I'll just keep doing what I'm doing, giving stand alone quotes like 3 other atheists here do, which I pretty much take at face value unless I can prove otherwise. I don't start whining for original sources and entire contexts, do I?

BTW, I thought you said your other source would answer my questions. It didn't of course because it was written by people on the same crusade you are on, so I was just wasting time I don't have.

Rad

Radorth

LOL!!! You didn't, did you? You put up a website with at least ten single sentence quotes and not one single source. Right? Man you are a sad case if you call that a "cite"


Toto quotes me here, but then leaves out my reply which was that I did read it, and I don't use quotes with Barton as sole source.

He's referring to an obviously satirical conversation I wrote between Franklin and a reporter about atheists in America, and he fails to tell you I did admit an exaggeration.

Anybody interested in the rest of the good, bad or ugly facts can go read the whole thread. You will find out why I was not forthcoming with the source even though I knew it and gave the gist of it. But his tendency to self-aggrandize is already pretty well documented I guess.

These kids today, I tell ya'

Rad

Butters

Radorth,
You sure you want to stick with this story? I lurk on several boards, and I might not be to lazy to go and find where you did use "Bartons's" quotes, and even defended him when someone pointed out that the quotes you used were bogus.