Christian Nation?

[Drich]

Drich, did you notice few people are being quoted and requoted. There were more people in the continental congress that Franklin, Jefferson and Madison. And Thomas Paine, really? He was a pamphleteer. That's like saying Michael Moore represents the mainstream opinion of congress.

What I've noticed about the quotes is that they are tied to mysterious sources or an atheist only websites. No one wants to directly speak to or challenge the various presidential sites i quoted from. Just quote more nonsense as if volume somehow made up for lack of content.

I also notice they (when the quote something legit) are 'quoting' very short passages. When i quote a passage I get the stuff leading in and going out so one gets a feel for context. These guys are quoting sentences. I guess where they come from this is a legit way of doing things. In the land where truth is a concern quoting a sentence and then tacking on a commentary is a big red flag to a 1/2 truth.

The last thing I notice (and I always see it as a victory) is the 'chickens' (Those who like to scratch and peck around a topic but rarly commit to an idea or a stance) have come out to have their mini conversations trying to down play the teeth kicking the atheist position just took.

---

You apparently didn't actually read the post, because many of those have attributions.

The rest are easy to look up.

Drich is a slippery one. When it's a position he doesn't agree with, he's all about verifiability. The Gospels, on the other hand . . .

Arguments from authority, indeed.

We are having a conversation about US History (Something I really learning about) ALL of it is a matter of verifiablity. If not it would not be history. It would be a matter of faith.

The OP is speaking in terms of faith, but repersenting it as history. and you guys are all to quick to line up for that koolaide, because it confirms your bias.

---

Nothing you have provided here in the way of 'evidence' is verifiable. Most of which have been quoted from an unknown source. Did you not notice how I quoted from verifiable sources in that when i provided you with a source you could click on a link and follow to the surce material I quoted. As for the source material itself it varys from the president's own personal historical foundation, a website dedicated to the perservation and compliation of such data or someother source that can be checked on.

Why is that? are you not aware that such information if true can be multisourced? Only oneside commentary has to be sole sourced from some deep dark dank volume of some book no one has ever heard of.

If you want to have this discussion then please use the resources provided by the internet, quote them and leave links, so we can have a proper discussion.

Because right now in all you had to say, can be dismissed as a fallacy of false authority.

You apparently didn't actually read the post, because many of those have attributions.

The rest are easy to look up.

If so then the OP would have most certainly done that because that is where the bar has been set in this discussion.