Ken Ham petulantly stamps his feet at reality, internet replies, "this is stupid."

[SteelCurtain]

[Esquilax]

No, the ToT says the US Government wasn't founded on the Christian religion. The establishment clause, again, protects religion from interference from Government. Not the government or any of its institutions from religion, which we've already established couldn't possibly be the case because all US Colleges and Universities were founded as Christian, schoolchildren sung Christian hymns from the very beginning, and the entire nation learned to read and write using the Bible.

Okay genius, apparently I'm going to have to spell this out for you: if religion is protected from the government, but government is not protected from religion, what is to stop a religious group from influencing the government to in turn influence other religions by enshrining that religion into law, thus violating the very basis of the point you think the establishment clause was made to carry out?

Leaving aside your idiotic continued use of the argument from tradition fallacy, your inability to see the implications of what you're saying tell me you haven't really thought about any of this, beyond the usual entitled theist talking points.

Not surprisingly, the religious arguments aren't accurate.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[robvalue]

My friend made a great suggestion to me (not a serious one). He said send all people of the same religion off to live together, by their religious rules and leave everyone else alone.

I've said it before, most christians would not want to live in a society governed solely by the laws of the bible. They may think they do, they may think that would be the ultimate kind of society, but I give it one day at the most before they are begging to have secular law back.

---

All they really want is secular law, plus their bigotry and special treatment.

[Esquilax]

All they really want is secular law, plus their bigotry and special treatment.

They want the law to be whatever will most benefit them, at all times, regardless of the cost to anyone else. No doubt our smug little friend will accuse me of misrepresentation again, it seems to be his go-to case for dismissing me out of hand, but that's fine: a lack of self-awareness is practically required for theistic entitlement to function.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The only claim i've made is that by "Church", they were most likely referring exclusively to the Christian Church, this is because Jews Have synagogues, Muslims have Mosques, other religions have temples, and the country was 99.9% Christian. I've fulfilled my BOP which is to explain why i think this is most likely. If you want to deny me, you inherit a BOP to explain why you think im wrong.

Here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

There is no mention of "church" in there, which renders your "point", dull as it is, irrelevant. The Amendment is clearly aimed at "religion" and not "church", meaning that it applies to all faiths, and not just your own particular brand of dementia.

You've pinned your argument to a word which doesn't appear in the Constitution. If I were you, I'm plan my reasoning better the next time I posted. Answering your objection was childishly simple.

You'll simply have to do better.

[robvalue]

Sure. Does any christian here actually believe they would want to live in a christian theocracy? Seriously? I dare anyone to say that they would.

Hint: look at muslim theocracies, and compare the bible to the Quran in terms of evil.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[SteelCurtain]

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Really? We have a theist reduced to arguing over the inference of the word 'church' in relation to church and state?

I mean come the fuck along, srsly.