YES, America CERTAINLY WAS FOUNDED as a CHRISTIAN NATION...

[Uncensored2008]

Don't dish what you can't take, whiner.

You will be batoned down here when you act out.

We all fear you, Fakey.

 

[bodecea]

Great discussion. i see UR bending slightly toward a realist narrative of American history. He also has improved his approach personally to others. That is good.

More condescending comments. I think its time for you to leave and take your narcissistic, king of this thread attitude with you.

The Goddess of Irony is please with your offerings today.

 

[bodecea]

Don't dish what you can't take, whiner.

You will be batoned down here when you act out.

We all fear you, Fakey.

We know you do...but don't presume to speak for others.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We know you do...but don't presume to speak for others.

Get back to putting plastic ware in the little baggies, Shortbus; or you'll have to stay at the home tomorrow.

 

[UltimateReality]

There is no reference to God in the Constitution....there is a date with the word "lord" in it. Spin all you want.

You're right. "Year of OUR Lord " is a reference to Christ. You won't win this argument, not matter how many times you repeat the same thing over and over.

No, it is a reference to a date where someone was executed....someone who many people believe came back from dead in some form.

 

[UltimateReality]

anyone who says there was NO intention of a separation of church and state is a liar after reading the founders words

Yeah, we got that. Separation of CHURCH and state. Like the CHURCH of England, or the Catholic CHURCH, or the Baptist CHURCH.

This is not separation of God and State.

 

[UltimateReality]

Similarly, "Year of OUR Lord " was simply a closing salutationand in spite of your desperate need to force chrsitianity into the constitution, the framers of the constitution knew that would be a disaster. Hence they used the term "creator": Amun Ra.

Why are you still commenting on this? You already got owned by Logic4U when you denied the word Lord was found in the Constitution. You obviously had never read the Constitution before two days ago.

I'm commenting on this because of your false characterization that the closing salutation of "lord" has some significance to the constitution. Of course it does not. It is simply your frantic effort to insert your religion into the constitution where it does not belong.

The framers of the constitution were very clear about being neutral to any and all religious views. They were clear about government not meddling in religion. It's completely unnecessary for you to re-write the constitution to include your religious views.

Feel free to go ahead and keep arguing against your strawman. It is quite amusing.

 

[Hollie]

Why are you still commenting on this? You already got owned by Logic4U when you denied the word Lord was found in the Constitution. You obviously had never read the Constitution before two days ago.

I'm commenting on this because of your false characterization that the closing salutation of "lord" has some significance to the constitution. Of course it does not. It is simply your frantic effort to insert your religion into the constitution where it does not belong.

The framers of the constitution were very clear about being neutral to any and all religious views. They were clear about government not meddling in religion. It's completely unnecessary for you to re-write the constitution to include your religious views.

Feel free to go ahead and keep arguing against your strawman. It is quite amusing.

It's not a strawman at all. You actually don't understand the meaning of that term which actually us amusing.

It's just a shame that you have this insensate need to insert your fundie Christian views into the constitution when the FF's where quite clear that their document was to suggest no religious preference.

Is christianity so weak that it can only survive if you force it on others?

 

[UltimateReality]

I love it. You corrected me. I'm not your step child, son. And since you haven't been keeping up, you should know that Hollie has never admitted whether or not she is gay, or if she is the man Rugged Touch or the woman Hollie. In fact, she hasn't admitted a single thing about herself personally. All we know of her is her intense hatred towards Christians and desire to see them all rounded up and slaughtered. She lays awake at night dreaming of the Roman Coliseum and all the hungry lions licking their lips for some good Christian meat.

And by the way, why didn't you come to my defense after she made the comment to me below? I have never stated what my sexual orientation is, just like Hollie/Rugged hasn't.

I corrected UR for being condescending to Hollie and subtly tried to intimidate a woman about her sexual orientation.

My goodness but that flaming, over the top, anti-gay tirade seems designed only to suppress the stirring of emotions and feelings you are having to your own latent homosexual feelings and desires.

I find that those who are dealing with their own insecurities tend toward religious fanaticism as a way to help suppress their latent desires. The radical "700 Club" militant fundies are a convenient place to find shelter from those latent homosexual thoughts / desires.

 

[Hollie]

I love it. You corrected me. I'm not your step child, son. And since you haven't been keep up, you should know that Hollie has never admitted whether or not she is gay, or if she is the man Rugged Touch or the woman Hollie. In fact, she hasn't admitted a single thing about herself personally. All we know of her is her intense hatred towards Christians and desire to see them all rounded up and slaughtered. She lays awake at night dreaming of the Roman Coliseum and all the hungry lions licking their lips for some good Christian meat.

And by the way, why didn't you come to my defense after she made the comment to me below? I have never stated what my sexual orientation is, just like Hollie/Rugged hasn't.

I corrected UR for being condescending to Hollie and subtly tried to intimidate a woman about her sexual orientation.

My goodness but that flaming, over the top, anti-gay tirade seems designed only to suppress the stirring of emotions and feelings you are having to your own latent homosexual feelings and desires.

I find that those who are dealing with their own insecurities tend toward religious fanaticism as a way to help suppress their latent desires. The radical "700 Club" militant fundies are a convenient place to find shelter from those latent homosexual thoughts / desires.

I have to note that you have never denied being arrested and jailed for trading sexual favors to men for illegal drugs.

 

[UltimateReality]

I'm commenting on this because of your false characterization that the closing salutation of "lord" has some significance to the constitution. Of course it does not. It is simply your frantic effort to insert your religion into the constitution where it does not belong.

The framers of the constitution were very clear about being neutral to any and all religious views. They were clear about government not meddling in religion. It's completely unnecessary for you to re-write the constitution to include your religious views.

Feel free to go ahead and keep arguing against your strawman. It is quite amusing.

It's not a strawman at all. You actually don't understand the meaning of that term which actually us amusing.

It's just a shame that you have this insensate need to insert your fundie Christian views into the constitution when the FF's where quite clear that their document was to suggest no religious preference.

Is christianity so weak that it can only survive if you force it on others?

Your strawman is the fact you think anyone on here is claiming the Constitution is a Christian Document or talks about God. You seem to be the only one that hasn't clued into the fact that everyone here admits the mention of Christ in the Constitution is merely a date reference, and is not indicative of implying some higher Christian meaning to the document. You continue to argue against something that no one is arguing, i.e. a strawman of your making.

Straw Man

Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.

Example (a debate before the city council):

Opponent: Because of the killing and suffering of Indians that followed Columbus’s discovery of America, the City of Berkeley should declare that Columbus Day will no longer be observed in our city.

Speaker: This is ridiculous, fellow members of the city council. It’s not true that everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the Indians. I say we should continue to observe Columbus Day, and vote down this resolution that will make the City of Berkeley the laughing stock of the nation.

The speaker has twisted what his opponent said; the opponent never said, nor even indirectly suggested, that everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the Indians. The critical thinker will respond to the fallacy by saying, “Let’s get back to the original issue of whether we have a good reason to discontinue observing Columbus Day.”

Where you did get totally owned by Logic4U is by saying that the Constitution didn't contain the word Lord, exposing your ignorance of the document. And then you went one step further and exposed your ignorance in believing Article VII was an amendment. Now you keep arguing against your strawman so no one will notice your gaffe. The complete US Constitution is readily available online with a simple search. You should read it some time.

 

[Avorysuds]

If the OP was right then we wouldn't be having this debate... So the OP is wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah, we got that. Separation of CHURCH and state. Like the CHURCH of England, or the Catholic CHURCH, or the Baptist CHURCH.

This is not separation of God and State.

I support the separation of church and state. I don't want the Pope or an Ayatollah determining what the civil government will do.

BUT that is a far cry from the absolute oppression of religion that the left engages in. Sorry, kids praying around a flag pole isn't the establishment of an official state religion. Infringing their right to do so, or the right to utter a prayer at an off-campus football game between the illegal gambling and PTA announcements, is an actual violation of the 1st.

The anti-liberty left seems to omit the "or prohibit the free exercise" part.

 

[UltimateReality]

I love it. You corrected me. I'm not your step child, son. And since you haven't been keep up, you should know that Hollie has never admitted whether or not she is gay, or if she is the man Rugged Touch or the woman Hollie. In fact, she hasn't admitted a single thing about herself personally. All we know of her is her intense hatred towards Christians and desire to see them all rounded up and slaughtered. She lays awake at night dreaming of the Roman Coliseum and all the hungry lions licking their lips for some good Christian meat.

And by the way, why didn't you come to my defense after she made the comment to me below? I have never stated what my sexual orientation is, just like Hollie/Rugged hasn't.

I corrected UR for being condescending to Hollie and subtly tried to intimidate a woman about her sexual orientation.

My goodness but that flaming, over the top, anti-gay tirade seems designed only to suppress the stirring of emotions and feelings you are having to your own latent homosexual feelings and desires.

I find that those who are dealing with their own insecurities tend toward religious fanaticism as a way to help suppress their latent desires. The radical "700 Club" militant fundies are a convenient place to find shelter from those latent homosexual thoughts / desires.

I have to note that you have never denied being arrested and jailed for trading sexual favors to men for illegal drugs.

Nor have I denied all the times I didn't get caught for trading sexual favors for illegal drugs. Please help me understand your point.

 

[Hollie]

Feel free to go ahead and keep arguing against your strawman. It is quite amusing.

It's not a strawman at all. You actually don't understand the meaning of that term which actually us amusing.

It's just a shame that you have this insensate need to insert your fundie Christian views into the constitution when the FF's where quite clear that their document was to suggest no religious preference.

Is christianity so weak that it can only survive if you force it on others?

Your strawman is the fact you think anyone on here is claiming the Constitution is a Christian Document or talks about God. You seem to be the only one that hasn't clued into the fact that everyone here admits the mention of Christ in the Constitution is merely a date reference, and is not indicative of implying some higher Christian meaning to the document. You continue to argue against something that no one is arguing, i.e. a strawman of your making.

Straw Man

Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.

Example (a debate before the city council):

Opponent: Because of the killing and suffering of Indians that followed Columbus’s discovery of America, the City of Berkeley should declare that Columbus Day will no longer be observed in our city.

Speaker: This is ridiculous, fellow members of the city council. It’s not true that everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the Indians. I say we should continue to observe Columbus Day, and vote down this resolution that will make the City of Berkeley the laughing stock of the nation.

The speaker has twisted what his opponent said; the opponent never said, nor even indirectly suggested, that everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the Indians. The critical thinker will respond to the fallacy by saying, “Let’s get back to the original issue of whether we have a good reason to discontinue observing Columbus Day.”

Where you did get totally owned by Logic4U is by saying that the Constitution didn't contain the word Lord, exposing your ignorance of the document. And then you went one step further and exposed your ignorance in believing Article VII was an amendment. Now you keep arguing against your strawman so no one will notice your gaffe. The complete US Constitution is readily available online with a simple search. You should read it some time.

The issue was your insistence that "lord", a simple closing salutation, had some relevance to the founding principle of the constitution which of course is not the case.

You were humiliated at being scolded for such a nonsensical claim and you have been trying to cover your tracks ever since.

 

[UltimateReality]

Is it just me, or has anyone noticed that JakeStarkey, super soldier and wealthy business man extraordinaire, isn't allowed to play on the internet at his 9 to 5 job at Home Depot?

 

[UltimateReality]

your insistence that "lord", a simple closing salutation, had some relevance to the founding principle of the constitution which of course is not the case.

You were humiliated at being scolded for such a nonsensical claim and you have been trying to cover your tracks ever since.

Seriously, Ragged Crutch? Please go back and find a specific post where I made this or anything close to this claim.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah, we got that. Separation of CHURCH and state. Like the CHURCH of England, or the Catholic CHURCH, or the Baptist CHURCH.

This is not separation of God and State.

I support the separation of church and state. I don't want the Pope or an Ayatollah determining what the civil government will do.

BUT that is a far cry from the absolute oppression of religion that the left engages in. Sorry, kids praying around a flag pole isn't the establishment of an official state religion. Infringing their right to do so, or the right to utter a prayer at an off-campus football game between the illegal gambling and PTA announcements, is an actual violation of the 1st.

The anti-liberty left seems to omit the "or prohibit the free exercise" part.

They have kids praying at the flagpoles here every year. Who's stopping them?

 

[bodecea]

Is it just me, or has anyone noticed that JakeStarkey, super soldier and wealthy business man extraordinaire, isn't allowed to play on the internet at his 9 to 5 job at Home Depot?

What is YOUR problem? Seriously.

 

[UltimateReality]

Is it just me, or has anyone noticed that JakeStarkey, super soldier and wealthy business man extraordinaire, isn't allowed to play on the internet at his 9 to 5 job at Home Depot?

What is YOUR problem? Seriously.

Seriously? Seriously. I don't have a problem. I thought getting together with a bunch of strangers whom you have no relationship with, and arguing about super sensitive topics like politics and religion, all the while saying things you would never say in person due to your internet anonymity, was supposed to be a form of entertainment.

It's not like anyone here is going to change their viewpoint, regardless of what truths are presented. What's your take?