Specially for bob...

---

Originally Posted By: OldFolksThor, Please comment on the article I posted, using your great insight and vast knowledge of history. Quote:>>>"I'm afraid you hardly qualify as an expert on the Bible, so are in no reasonable position to draw any conclusions of your own."Just as you hardly qualify as an expert on history, anecdotes and presumption without referenced citation qualifies you as nothing, so you are in no reasonable position to draw any conclusions of your own. If you pay attention to the documents presented, no great knowledge of history is required beyond that which is taught (or used to be taught) in public schools. Biblical knowledge, however, is NOT taught in schools...and since you most likely have not studied it, I'd say most likely your statement is incongruous and irrelevant. Quote:>>>"No...you showed what somebodies..."If Deists believe that (g)od the creator only created and never interfered with the cosmos, much less mankind, after that, then how can the God who created the world and man and talked with and punished and appeared and flooded and raped some virgin, had a kid with her - who he let be murdered be the same one? You can either know god or you can't it can't be both.Since no relationship is required, and we have evidence presented that Jefferson (a Diest) is referring to the Christian god, your statement above is not only irrelevent, but flies in the face of the evidence presented. Ergo, your argument fails. Quote:>>>"Verifiable church records of attendance would be a start."Start showing references, without them your statement are conjecture and assumption and are worthless.I found them once...they are available for those who want to find them. You can find them yourself...I'm not going to do your research for you. Quote:>>>"Add to that the fact that most all of the settlers coming to America from England in those days were coming here to achieve religious freedom."Religious freedom was only one part of a larger reason. Imperialism and economic opportunity played their part as well and were at least as great a motivator.Now, where's your references? What you state above is not in the textbooks I learned from. It's either pure latter-day malarkey or wishful thinking on your part. Less kindly stated, it's a lie. Quote:>>>"This also explains why they would be inclined to keep government out of religion...versus religion out of government."That statement doesn't even make sense. With regard to the whole "church & state" question that the video is partly concerned with, it makes perfect sense. Quote:Now please go back and address the article I posted. Even if it's to simply say those direct quotes are lies. See my first response at the top of this post.I will add to it that George Washington's farwell address, something which you have neglected to post, makes it quite clear as to where he stands concerning God and Christianity. Perhaps he had a change of heart during his tenure? Who knows...but I do know where he stood on it at the end of his public career. You need to stop getting all your info from anti-US history athiest sites and start digging into ALL of what has been written. It's easy to pull snippets here and there out of context to present a picture the way you wish it to be seen...but taken as a whole, it is quite clear to even the casual observer that the US began as a decidedly Christian country..both in populace and governance.

Originally Posted By: LuvMyCatsThere is no one truth. Everyone's is different. Absolutely, 100% false. The real truth is NOT relative to each individual...it is absolute. Some people's desire to see what they want to outweighs their desire to see the truth. The truth is then still true...and what the person then sees is self-delusion.

Originally Posted By: Rad

How is it that everybody else is wrong...

Not everybody else. Just that group of folks that have been brainwashed from day one and no longer question the source of their own incorrect information. Those who somehow avoided the brainwashing, or have questioned that which they were taught, have come to the point where they must reject much of their teachings in favor of the facts as they are. Others...the ones who blindly refuse to question their own ideas...reject any and all facts that contradict their own point of view. So...strangely enough...the ones claiming to be open-minded are those most often with a closed mind.

On Washington...for Scotty:_______________________________________________________________ God and Washington _______________________________________________________________God and Washington Steve FarrellTuesday, July 8, 2003 It never fails. Write a column in defense of the religious foundations of the United States (see "Paine's Prophetic Dream") and out of the woodwork come the lies and denunciations by an interesting collection of bitter folks with an ax to grind against Christianity, the Founders, the Constitution and any of us old fossils who still dare to defend such men and things in this "enlightened" era.One letter, typical of many others, told a whopper of a fib regarding George Washington. The writer sent me a quote from the Father of Our Country that was published online at an "Inspirational Quote Site" (I found the site). The publisher failed to reveal the source – he had good cause – nevertheless, he sent it out to his subscribers as the "inspirational quote of the day" and directed its recipients to circulate the quote far and wide across the Internet.I suppose nonbelievers have no problem engaging in the same kind of missionary labors they find so appalling in Christians. And they do a good job – their efforts reached right into this writer's home, in mass!According to this unidentified source, George Washington once said, "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."The problem is Washington never said it; and not only are these not Washington's words, but never was there a statement more out of character for a man than these ascribed to Washington. George Washington, perhaps more than any other Founder, saw the hand of God everywhere: early in his life, in the French and Indian War, in the American Revolution, and in the establishment of the American government under the U.S. Constitution. And judging from the volume of quotes from him on this subject, George Washington was not afraid to make his feelings known. From Washington's "Farewell Address" we read:"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure – reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of Free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric. "Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened." (1)This is the real George Washington. Religion, said he, is a critical factor, both in the establishment and perpetuation of our laws. The connections between private and public felicity, and morality and religion are numberless. Religion is a necessary spring from which popular government arises; it is the foundation of the fabric. Thus, government – in Washington’s view – should not stand neutral as regards religion, nor embrace a secular approach (as did the French; his comment was directed against the French) nor a communist approach (which would abolish religion in private affairs as well). Rather, he felt that a proper understanding of the nature of self-government requires that government ought to "promote" religious and moral principle as "an object of primary importance," especially in institutions of learning, so that public opinion in future generations might continue to be enlightened.Yes, "the Enlightenment" that Washington was firmly attached to was not the European secularist model. And note this: Promoting religion was not about force, not about creating a national church, but about protecting free religious expression in the schools for the sake of securing an enlightened electorate. Without this security, free government would fall under the weight of its own folly. This was typical Washington. Besides the magnificent Farewell Address, at every turn Washington fearlessly spoke his mind about God's hand in securing our liberties and the need to humble ourselves before him. In a letter dated Sept. 28, 1789, he wrote:"The man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude towards the great Author of the Universe whose divine interposition was so frequently manifested in our behalf. And it is my earnest prayer that we may so conduct ourselves as to merit a continuance of those blessings with which we have hitherto been favored." (2)Again he wrote:"The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations." (3) That God's protecting hand was on the side of the colonists was no doubt in part because their leader was ever encouraging his soldiers to act like Christians.In a general order dated July 9, 1776, Gen. Washington wrote:"The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger – The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country." To help encourage such faith and fidelity to Christianity among the troops, Gen. Washington procured chaplains "of good character and exemplary lives" over every regiment.It was in the same order that he referred to "his Country" as being "under God." (4)On a number of occasions, Washington requested that the troops refrain from gambling and profanity. His reasons for these requests are noteworthy:On, Feb. 26, 1776, he wrote: "All Officers, non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers are positively forbidden playing at Cards, and other Games of Chance. At this time of public distress, men may find enough to do in the service of their God, and their Country, without abandoning themselves to vice and immorality." (5)And again on Aug. 3, 1776, we read: "The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing, a vice heretofore little known in an American army, is growing into fashion. He hopes the officers will, by example as well as influence, endeavor to check it, and that both they and the men will reflect that we can have little hope of the blessings of heaven on our arms if we insult it by our impiety and folly; added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense, and character, detests and despises it." (6)Washington understood that men must meet God halfway, that prayer was not enough, that actions proved faith, that righteousness exalts a nation.After the war was over and independence won, Washington reflected, on June 11, 1783, in a letter to John Hancock, that America seemed "peculiarly designated by Providence" for "a display of human greatness and success" and "a fairer opportunity for political happiness than any other nation has ever been favored with." He then listed the blessings of heaven that combined in a manner never seen since the world began: "The Foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of Mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind after social happiness have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages, and Legislators, through a long succession [of] years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our Forms of Government, the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had a meliorating influence on Mankind and increased the blessings of Society; At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be compleatly Free and Happy, the fa[u]lt will be entirely their own." [my emphasis] (7) There are many things that can be said about George Washington. To claim that he saw no connection between the establishment of our free government and the Christian religion is not one of them. These few examples, among so many others, establish this point.NewsMax.com pundit Steve Farrell is the author of "Dark Rose," an inspirational novel critics are calling "a modern classic." Learn more. Contact Steve at farrell@newsmax.com.Footnotes1. Washington, George. "Farewell Address." Return2. Fitzpatrick, John C., editor. "The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799," New York, Sept. 28, 1789. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw300373)) Return3. Fitzpatrick, ed., Writings of George Washington, 12:343. Return4. Fitzpatrick, "The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799," Headquarters, July 9, 1776. Return5. Ibid. Headquarters, Cambridge, Feb. 26, 1776 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/r?ammen/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw040296)) Return6. The Papers of George Washington, General Orders (Washington's Order on Profanity), Aug. 3, 1776 http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/revolution/profanity Return7. The Papers of George Washington, Washington to John Hancock, June 11, 1783. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/constitution/1784/hancock.html Return_______________________________________________________________There are similar articles of substantiated truth out there to be found on most of the other founding fathers if, AND ONLY IF, one is interested in finding them. If one wishes to continue to bury ones head in the sand, one may continue to rely on athiestic liberal sites to get "their view" of history.

Some interesting snippets and one very interesting piece of documentation. Our educational heritage...prior to modern times (Click on "Education" to the left, under the flag...but also click on "Congress" and others, if you've got the guts.)

Your refusal to provide references, verifiable first hand accounts, or address, even indirectly, the quotes from the farmers means your arguments and opinions are worth nothing.

>>>"Now, where's your references?"

Here...
_
Colonization of the United States

Early settlers had a variety of reasons for seeking a new homeland. The Pilgrims of Massachusetts were pious, self-disciplined English people who wanted to escape religious persecution. Other colonies, such as Virginia, were founded principally as business ventures. Often, though, piety and profits went hand-in-hand.

England's success at colonizing what would become the United States was due in large part to its use of charter companies. Charter companies were groups of stockholders (usually merchants and wealthy landowners) who sought personal economic gain and, perhaps, wanted also to advance England's national goals. While the private sector financed the companies, the King provided each project with a charter or grant conferring economic rights as well as political and judicial authority. The colonies generally did not show quick profits, however, and the English investors often turned over their colonial charters to the settlers. The political implications, although not realized at the time, were enormous. The colonists were left to build their own lives, their own communities, and their own economy -- in effect, to start constructing the rudiments of a new nation.

What early colonial prosperity there was resulted from trapping and trading in furs. In addition, fishing was a primary source of wealth in Massachusetts. But throughout the colonies, people lived primarily on small farms and were self-sufficient. In the few small cities and among the larger plantations of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, some necessities and virtually all luxuries were imported in return for tobacco, rice, and indigo (blue dye) exports.

Supportive industries developed as the colonies grew. A variety of specialized sawmills and gristmills appeared. Colonists established shipyards to build fishing fleets and, in time, trading vessels. The also built small iron forges. By the 18th century, regional patterns of development had become clear: the New England colonies relied on ship-building and sailing to generate wealth; plantations (many using slave labor) in Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas grew tobacco, rice, and indigo; and the middle colonies of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware shipped general crops and furs. Except for slaves, standards of living were generally high -- higher, in fact, than in England itself. Because English investors had withdrawn, the field was open to entrepreneurs among the colonists.

By 1770, the North American colonies were ready, both economically and politically, to become part of the emerging self-government movement that had dominated English politics since the time of James I (1603-1625). Disputes developed with England over taxation and other matters; Americans hoped for a modification of English taxes and regulations that would satisfy their demand for more self-government. Few thought the mounting quarrel with the English government would lead to all-out war against the British and to independence for the colonies.

Like the English political turmoil of the 17th and 18th centuries, the American Revolution (1775-1783) was both political and economic, bolstered by an emerging middle class with a rallying cry of "unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property" -- a phrase openly borrowed from English philosopher John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690). The war was triggered by an event in April 1775. British soldiers, intending to capture a colonial arms depot at Concord, Massachusetts, clashed with colonial militiamen. Someone -- no one knows exactly who -- fired a shot, and eight years of fighting began. While political separation from England may not have been the majority of colonists' original goal, independence and the creation of a new nation -- the United States -- was the ultimate result.
_________________________________________________________________
from the book "Outline of the U.S. Economy" by Conte and Carr and has been adapted with permission from the U.S. Department of State._

>>>"I found them once...they are available for those who want to find them. You can find them yourself...I'm not going to do your research for you."

How did you graduate high school providing evidence like that?

>>>"I will add to it that George Washington's farwell address, something which you have neglected to post, makes it quite clear as to where he stands concerning God and Christianity."

"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?" GW-

Reminding men of the moral obligation they have to their oath of office is hardly a ringing endorsement of the inherent Christian underpinnings of the United States.

Beyond that, this a just political speech, albeit an important one, it is nothing more and carries no more weight then the Deceleration of Independence in the legal structuring of this country. If you want to prove your case you have to find the language to support belief in the Constitution, the governing document this country runs by.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

-Treaty of Tripoli, 1796 - ratified by the Senate 1797

Why do think Washington, if governing a nation founded on Christianity, would have his administration produce such a document?

Why do you think a Senate, filled with many of those who were apart of the constitution convention and many of whom were Christian, would pass such a thing? Were they liars?

That all being beside the point, this argument boils down to one thing and thats the constitution. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

That's it, nothing else matters. That is the extent of religious rhetoric in the constitution. The individuals and their personal beliefs are of little consequence. The important part is the document they produced is devoid of religion other than banning it's establishment and regulation.

Originally Posted By: thor

Some people's desire to see what they want to outweighs their desire to see the truth. The truth is then still true...and what the person then sees is self-delusion.
Kinda funny. You just proved your own point. Over and over again. Although, I'm not one to judge. :laughing:

Originally Posted By: thor

Others...the ones who blindly refuse to question their own ideas...reject any and all facts that contradict their own point of view. So...strangely enough...the ones claiming to be open-minded are those most often with a closed mind.
That must've been taken from your own book, because, oddly, it describes you, almost down to the last molecule.

Originally Posted By: thor

....... and no longer question the source of their own incorrect information.
So says the man who retrieves ALL his information from the internet, or other places, it's hard to tell without citation.

And I will say this again, I feel the need: Hubris isn't attractive on men, especially on ones claiming to be so pious.

no one said that none of the founding fathers were christians, just that they had a broader view than to constitute a nation as a christian nation. but there again, as you chose to ignore...

Originally Posted By: OldFolksYour refusal to provide references, verifiable first hand accounts, or address, even indirectly, the quotes from the farmers means your arguments and opinions are worth nothing. >>>"Now, where's your references?"Here...Colonization of the United StatesEarly settlers had a variety of reasons for seeking a new homeland. The Pilgrims of Massachusetts were pious, self-disciplined English people who wanted to escape religious persecution. Other colonies, such as Virginia, were founded principally as business ventures. Often, though, piety and profits went hand-in-hand.England's success at colonizing what would become the United States was due in large part to its use of charter companies. Charter companies were groups of stockholders (usually merchants and wealthy landowners) who sought personal economic gain and, perhaps, wanted also to advance England's national goals. While the private sector financed the companies, the King provided each project with a charter or grant conferring economic rights as well as political and judicial authority. The colonies generally did not show quick profits, however, and the English investors often turned over their colonial charters to the settlers. The political implications, although not realized at the time, were enormous. The colonists were left to build their own lives, their own communities, and their own economy -- in effect, to start constructing the rudiments of a new nation.What early colonial prosperity there was resulted from trapping and trading in furs. In addition, fishing was a primary source of wealth in Massachusetts. But throughout the colonies, people lived primarily on small farms and were self-sufficient. In the few small cities and among the larger plantations of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, some necessities and virtually all luxuries were imported in return for tobacco, rice, and indigo (blue dye) exports.Supportive industries developed as the colonies grew. A variety of specialized sawmills and gristmills appeared. Colonists established shipyards to build fishing fleets and, in time, trading vessels. The also built small iron forges. By the 18th century, regional patterns of development had become clear: the New England colonies relied on ship-building and sailing to generate wealth; plantations (many using slave labor) in Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas grew tobacco, rice, and indigo; and the middle colonies of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware shipped general crops and furs. Except for slaves, standards of living were generally high -- higher, in fact, than in England itself. Because English investors had withdrawn, the field was open to entrepreneurs among the colonists.By 1770, the North American colonies were ready, both economically and politically, to become part of the emerging self-government movement that had dominated English politics since the time of James I (1603-1625). Disputes developed with England over taxation and other matters; Americans hoped for a modification of English taxes and regulations that would satisfy their demand for more self-government. Few thought the mounting quarrel with the English government would lead to all-out war against the British and to independence for the colonies.Like the English political turmoil of the 17th and 18th centuries, the American Revolution (1775-1783) was both political and economic, bolstered by an emerging middle class with a rallying cry of "unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property" -- a phrase openly borrowed from English philosopher John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690). The war was triggered by an event in April 1775. British soldiers, intending to capture a colonial arms depot at Concord, Massachusetts, clashed with colonial militiamen. Someone -- no one knows exactly who -- fired a shot, and eight years of fighting began. While political separation from England may not have been the majority of colonists' original goal, independence and the creation of a new nation -- the United States -- was the ultimate result._________________________________________________________________from the book "Outline of the U.S. Economy" by Conte and Carr and has been adapted with permission from the U.S. Department of State.>>>"I found them once...they are available for those who want to find them. You can find them yourself...I'm not going to do your research for you."How did you graduate high school providing evidence like that?>>>"I will add to it that George Washington's farwell address, something which you have neglected to post, makes it quite clear as to where he stands concerning God and Christianity.""Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?" GW-Reminding men of the moral obligation they have to their oath of office is hardly a ringing endorsement of the inherent Christian underpinnings of the United States.Beyond that, this a just political speech, albeit an important one, it is nothing more and carries no more weight then the Deceleration of Independence in the legal structuring of this country. If you want to prove your case you have to find the language to support belief in the Constitution, the governing document this country runs by."As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -Treaty of Tripoli, 1796 - ratified by the Senate 1797Why do think Washington, if governing a nation founded on Christianity, would have his administration produce such a document?Why do you think a Senate, filled with many of those who were apart of the constitution convention and many of whom were Christian, would pass such a thing? Were they liars?That all being beside the point, this argument boils down to one thing and thats the constitution. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That's it, nothing else matters. That is the extent of religious rhetoric in the constitution. The individuals and their personal beliefs are of little consequence. The important part is the document they produced is devoid of religion other than banning it's establishment and regulation. Virginia (I assume you mean Jamestown) was but one settlement. The rest of the early settlers...the pilgrims, the puritans, etc, were all seeking escape from religious persectution. You pick the one small example and ignore the majority as it does not suit your agenda. But you are still wrong.

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: LuvMyCatsThere is no one truth. Everyone's is different. Absolutely, 100% false. The real truth is NOT relative to each individual...it is absolute. Some people's desire to see what they want to outweighs their desire to see the truth. The truth is then still true...and what the person then sees is self-delusion. So evolution is....?

wrong wrong wrong, everyone else is wrong.It must take great faith on your part to deny both fact and opinion posed by scholars and historians from within and without the US.You are a fortified island. You are a nation within a nation.It's a sad but vicious circle, isn't it? Deep faith can often lead to a fear of enlightenment. But, being surrounded by enlightenment, the only refuge for the fearful is in that faith.I don't know if there ever was a Jesus, but from what I've read about him, you would make him very sad indeed.

Originally Posted By: Rad Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: RadWhy do you require verifiable evidence, but expect us to take your word for it? In just the one episode I gave a link for (there are several others), he provided two documents and a lot of verifiable evidence (old textbooks, etc). Apparently you missed that. And, yet, you insist that you don't ask everybody to accept you at your word, but require verifiable links from others?  Originally Posted By: thorI found them once...they are available for those who want to find them. You can find them yourself...I'm not going to do your research for you. I've already provided a lot...I'm just not going to do anybodies research for them. I'm also waiting for you to provide something worthwhile to the thread. Could that be anywhere in our future.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: LuvMyCatsThere is no one truth. Everyone's is different. Absolutely, 100% false. The real truth is NOT relative to each individual...it is absolute. Some people's desire to see what they want to outweighs their desire to see the truth. The truth is then still true...and what the person then sees is self-delusion. So evolution is....? True. It is "natural selection" that is false. I'm quote certain we've covered this ground before. Now, do YOU have anything worthwhile to add to the subject of the thread, or must you attempt to bring up old arguments as your only form of defense?

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedwrong wrong wrong, everyone else is wrong.It must take great faith on your part to deny both fact and opinion posed by scholars and historians from within and without the US.You are a fortified island. You are a nation within a nation.It's a sad but vicious circle, isn't it? Deep faith can often lead to a fear of enlightenment. But, being surrounded by enlightenment, the only refuge for the fearful is in that faith.I don't know if there ever was a Jesus, but from what I've read about him, you would make him very sad indeed. No relevence to the subject at hand. I'd say you and your fellow liberals are about out of arguments...not that you really ever had any.

It's rather frightening, isn't it? thor hasn't even noticed, despite all the replies, that he is spelling 'deist' incorrectly. Perhaps he imagines his spelling is the right one and everyone else is wrong. More seriously, he thinks the Bible is something you must have learnt in school to know, which seems to imply he never reads it.

why is your lack of acknowlaegment of fact irrelevant to this thread?Also, if it makes you feel better about your self to call people names like "liberal" as though they were actually insults, it certainly diminishes you.

I've noticed his several mistakes too. It'd be a waste of time to correct them, as they have no merit to "the topic at hand." More seriously, I agree with you. U:Doesn't it though? It's like a child that happens to know better, erm, different, words than "stupid head".thor:No, I agree with U. Jesus (and/or) Higher Being would be mortified with you.And being out of arguments, is different than proposing them, and having them be thought of as make-believe.

C.S. Lewis mentioned once the danger of "Christianity and . . .". He said the trouble was that the "and" tended with time to dominate the Christianity. I think that may well be happening with the "Christianity and right-wing politics and free-market economics and the US as God's chosen nation" groups.

Part 01 Part 02 Part 03Thomas PaineBardon explains here that Paine was a Theist (different from a Deist, just accept it Thor) which nobody argues. But he also explains that Paine was not a Christian and did not believe in or support the Christian religion (which I think this whole debate is about). What Paine was supporting was Creationism, which is not exclusively Christian. At the time, it was one of the only theories out there and it was supported by the vast majority of people. Evolution was around at the time, but what Charles Darwin did was discover a mechanism for it to occur. As this was not known during Paine's lifetime, it was only an idea making Creationism equally likely to them. So Paine, and most of the scientific world, did not accept evolution as it had no verifiable theory supporting it at the time.Paine thought at the time that Creationism was science. Now we know better.Psalms 139A passage from the Bible that Bardon claims was the founding fathers' "basis of life". He has offered nothing to support this, showed no documents and referenced no specific documents or books.--------------End of video 2 - Still no documents presented. This is nowhere near as impressive as you made it out to be.--------------Danbury BaptistsBardon's laim that the Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson because they objected to the First Amendment and were afraid that it might give the federal government the right to regulate religion is a complete lie and absolutely ridiculous. Their letter wasn't even about the First Amendment, but in order to claim that Jefferson's words of "a wall of separation between church and state" was merely reassurance for the Danbury Baptists that the federal government was not going to interfere with their religious activities, Bardon has to lie about what Jefferson was replying to. Without lying about that, his interpretation of what Jefferson says in his letter doesn't make any sense.The Danbury Baptists letter never once mentions the First Amendment but was actually about their state's established religion persecuting against minority religions.If you want to read the letter yourself, as well as Jefferson's response, you can find it HERE. In the year of our Lord ChristThis argument and document (finally!) is one of Barton's older ones. The strange thing about this piece of paper that Barton loves to flash around is that he never once describes what the document actually is. He never shows more than the very end of it, not in this video or on his website or in any of his books.Now, Jefferson did not date any of his letters "in the year of our Lord" and he especially never added a "Christ". What is more likely is that he signed a letter that was already dated this way, which would probably be quite apparent if we saw the whole document, so perhaps this is why he doesn't.This document was most likely a pardon for a man named George McFarland. Based on Thomas Jefferson's papers and correspondence from October 1804, and the fact that Congress were not in session at the time, the only official documents he would have signed on October 18th were appointments and this pardon. Out of these possibilities, the one most likely to be written by someone who would have dated it "in the year of our Lord Christ" is the pardon. On October 4th, 1804, Jefferson listed this pardon on a to-do-list for James Madison, who was at home in Virginia in the early part of the month. By the time Madison got back to Washington and got someone to write the pardon, it would probably have been around October 18th.Not one presidential document actually written by Jefferson was dated "in the year of our Lord", let alone "in the year of our Lord Christ".Evangelising the Kaskaskia IndiansAnother document, finally we're getting some evidence. And yes, Catholic missionaries were sent to the Kaskaskia tribe as written in the treaty, but if the argument is that Jefferson used federal funds to send priests, Barton should have read all of Article 3 of the treaty because he left out stuff at the beginning and end of it.And whereas the greater part of the said tribe have been baptised and received into the Catholic Church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually, for seven years, one hundred dollars toward the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for said tribe the duties of his office, and also to instruct as many of their children as possible, in the rudiments of literature, and the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars, to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.Oh no! Not only using federal funds to pay a priest, but also to build a church!? Well, yes, and this was allowed because this was a treaty with a sovereign nation. Unless a treaty provision threatened the rights or interests of Americans, there was no constitutional reason not to allow it, even if the same provision would be unconstitutional in a law made by congress.And as the beginning of article 3 states, the Kaskaskia Indians were already Catholics. They began converting nearly a century before this treaty after meeting a French Jesuit priest, Father Jacques Marquette, along the Mississippi river in 1673. The priest and the church were provided by request of the Kaskaskia tribe.If anyone would like to see for themselves how Bardon selected what information to highlight, go to the third video and skip ahead to 16 minutes and 35 seconds. At this point you can see that it says that they were baptised Catholics, but when Barton highlights the bit he is talking about at 16 minutes and 42 seconds, he conveniently cuts that bit out.Church in the Captiol!Now this was a cute little lie that Bardon very quickly threw in and then moved on. He says that Jefferson started a church service in the Capitol building which is not true, this decision had absolutely nothing to do with Jefferson or even the Senate. The House of Representatives didn't need or ask for the approval of the Senate when the chaplains requested the use of the House chamber for Sunday services. The House itself didn't even vote on it. The Speaker simply announced that the chaplains had proposed to hold services in their chambers on Sundays, and the House got on with the more important business of the day, deciding where the stenographers should sit.Justice Hugo BlackFor this, I'm just going to quote Justice Black, as his words speak for themselves:"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.So Bardon pretty much just lied about this one. Nothing about the 1947 decision stopped people from expressing their religious beliefs. Separation of church and state does not mean all religions except Christianity.-----------------End of Video 3-----------------I liked video 3, way more interesting!

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: OldFolksYour refusal to provide references, verifiable first hand accounts, or address, even indirectly, the quotes from the farmers means your arguments and opinions are worth nothing. >>>"Now, where's your references?"Here...Colonization of the United StatesEarly settlers had a variety of reasons for seeking a new homeland. The Pilgrims of Massachusetts were pious, self-disciplined English people who wanted to escape religious persecution. Other colonies, such as Virginia, were founded principally as business ventures. Often, though, piety and profits went hand-in-hand.England's success at colonizing what would become the United States was due in large part to its use of charter companies. Charter companies were groups of stockholders (usually merchants and wealthy landowners) who sought personal economic gain and, perhaps, wanted also to advance England's national goals. While the private sector financed the companies, the King provided each project with a charter or grant conferring economic rights as well as political and judicial authority. The colonies generally did not show quick profits, however, and the English investors often turned over their colonial charters to the settlers. The political implications, although not realized at the time, were enormous. The colonists were left to build their own lives, their own communities, and their own economy -- in effect, to start constructing the rudiments of a new nation.What early colonial prosperity there was resulted from trapping and trading in furs. In addition, fishing was a primary source of wealth in Massachusetts. But throughout the colonies, people lived primarily on small farms and were self-sufficient. In the few small cities and among the larger plantations of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, some necessities and virtually all luxuries were imported in return for tobacco, rice, and indigo (blue dye) exports.Supportive industries developed as the colonies grew. A variety of specialized sawmills and gristmills appeared. Colonists established shipyards to build fishing fleets and, in time, trading vessels. The also built small iron forges. By the 18th century, regional patterns of development had become clear: the New England colonies relied on ship-building and sailing to generate wealth; plantations (many using slave labor) in Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas grew tobacco, rice, and indigo; and the middle colonies of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware shipped general crops and furs. Except for slaves, standards of living were generally high -- higher, in fact, than in England itself. Because English investors had withdrawn, the field was open to entrepreneurs among the colonists.By 1770, the North American colonies were ready, both economically and politically, to become part of the emerging self-government movement that had dominated English politics since the time of James I (1603-1625). Disputes developed with England over taxation and other matters; Americans hoped for a modification of English taxes and regulations that would satisfy their demand for more self-government. Few thought the mounting quarrel with the English government would lead to all-out war against the British and to independence for the colonies.Like the English political turmoil of the 17th and 18th centuries, the American Revolution (1775-1783) was both political and economic, bolstered by an emerging middle class with a rallying cry of "unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property" -- a phrase openly borrowed from English philosopher John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690). The war was triggered by an event in April 1775. British soldiers, intending to capture a colonial arms depot at Concord, Massachusetts, clashed with colonial militiamen. Someone -- no one knows exactly who -- fired a shot, and eight years of fighting began. While political separation from England may not have been the majority of colonists' original goal, independence and the creation of a new nation -- the United States -- was the ultimate result._________________________________________________________________from the book "Outline of the U.S. Economy" by Conte and Carr and has been adapted with permission from the U.S. Department of State.>>>"I found them once...they are available for those who want to find them. You can find them yourself...I'm not going to do your research for you."How did you graduate high school providing evidence like that?>>>"I will add to it that George Washington's farwell address, something which you have neglected to post, makes it quite clear as to where he stands concerning God and Christianity.""Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?" GW-Reminding men of the moral obligation they have to their oath of office is hardly a ringing endorsement of the inherent Christian underpinnings of the United States.Beyond that, this a just political speech, albeit an important one, it is nothing more and carries no more weight then the Deceleration of Independence in the legal structuring of this country. If you want to prove your case you have to find the language to support belief in the Constitution, the governing document this country runs by."As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -Treaty of Tripoli, 1796 - ratified by the Senate 1797Why do think Washington, if governing a nation founded on Christianity, would have his administration produce such a document?Why do you think a Senate, filled with many of those who were apart of the constitution convention and many of whom were Christian, would pass such a thing? Were they liars?That all being beside the point, this argument boils down to one thing and thats the constitution. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That's it, nothing else matters. That is the extent of religious rhetoric in the constitution. The individuals and their personal beliefs are of little consequence. The important part is the document they produced is devoid of religion other than banning it's establishment and regulation. Virginia (I assume you mean Jamestown) was but one settlement. The rest of the early settlers...the pilgrims, the puritans, etc, were all seeking escape from religious persectution. You pick the one small example and ignore the majority as it does not suit your agenda. But you are still wrong. That's the only thing you can comment on in my entire post?What are your thoughts on why Washington would allow his administration to produce a document that states in no uncertain terms that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation?Why do you think the Senate would ratify it?What about my contention that the personal faiths of the farmers is of little importance and that the only thing that matters is what they put in the constitution?