Christian Nation?

[Chas]

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.

[Crossless2.0]

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.

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.

[Anomalocaris]

He is not slippery. He is slimy. Furthermore he is so idiotically certain that such low grade slimy mental process as he is capable of would impress others that he speaks as if others are already impressed.

[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.

[Crossless2.0]

The point you keep missing, Drich, is that it doesn't matter if even an overwhelming majority of founders were Christian. It doesn't matter if an overwhelming majority of citizens were Christian. There is nothing in the Constitution that would suggest that this nation was founded as a Christian nation. Our form of government is inherently secular. (You have read the Constitution, haven't you?)

[Drich]

He is not slippery. He is slimy. Furthermore he is so idiotically certain that such low grade slimy mental process as he is capable of would impress others that he speaks as if others are already impressed.

Awww, chuckie you always have the nicest things to say when you've lost the high ground in a discussion.

---

The point you keep missing, Drich, is that it doesn't matter if even an overwhelming majority of founders were Christian. It doesn't matter if an overwhelming majority of citizens were Christian. There is nothing in the Constitution that would suggest that this nation was founded as a Christian nation. Our form of government is inherently secular. (You have read the Constitution, haven't you?)

This is what I mean by chicken pecking and scratching around a topic.

In truth the term "Christian Nation" is a subjective term. Meaning their is no one set meaning to it. therefore it can mean anything. That means people who argue this point can change the meaning of the word to prove whatever point they like.

Your either Ignorant or Beyond desperate if you are trying to argue semantics. Read the OP Again the whole arguement presented was based on the religious beliefs of the forefather of this country. The statement was made and remade that they were anti christian and anti religious all together. Everything I have said, quoted and done was based on these statements.

[Minimalist]

(You have read the Constitution, haven't you?)

I'll bet on "no." Too many hard words for drippy to absorb.

[Anomalocaris]

(You have read the Constitution, haven't you?)

I'll bet on "no." Too many hard words for drippy to absorb.

I bet too few words in the constitution had been misspelled for Drich to think he could read any of it.

[Crossless2.0]

This is what I mean by chicken pecking and scratching around a topic.

In truth the term "Christian Nation" is a subjective term. Meaning their is no one set meaning to it. therefore it can mean anything. That means people who argue this point can change the meaning of the word to prove whatever point they like.

Your either Ignorant or Beyond desperate if you are trying to argue semantics. Read the OP Again the whole arguement presented was based on the religious beliefs of the forefather of this country. The statement was made and remade that they were anti christian and anti religious all together. Everything I have said, quoted and done was based on these statements.

Pointing out that the founding document of the nation is secular through and through is hardly pecking and scratching around the topic. It cuts to the point concerning the question of whether the U.S. is a Christian nation in any non-trivial way.

By the way, I'm not here to carry the OP's water and have no particular concern with the founders' private religious views. If such views are your only point in this discussion, then I'll bow out because I really don't give a damn. I leave hero worship and arguments from authority to the religious and constitutional fundamentalists of the world.

[Minimalist]

Here, drippy.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charter...cript.html

The original constitution. It isn't too long...you should be able to get through it in a month or so.

Pay particular attention to Article VI.

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

And don't waste time looking for 'jesus' or 'god' or 'christian' or even the Deist 'creator.' They aren't there.