Home More advice Religion, Spirituality & Folklore
The founding president of the country, and second president, were both non Christians. So...why is the religious right so crazy about trying to convert the country when, from inception, it wasn't that way?
"Jimahi I find it odd that you have Lincon and Obama shifting on your picture."
tseirpeht, why would you find it odd. The man who ended slavery and the first black president seems pretty logical to me.
"Or even that you would mention the founding fathers because Obama believed they were wrong. He said that the "founding fathers Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." "
First off, if you are going to put something in quotes, make sure it is accurate. This came from the 2001 PBS interview that wingnuts tried to use to prove hObama is a socialist. He is a constiutional scholar, so I will take his word for it. Here is the actual quote: "And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. "
You really should start getting info from real sources and not conservative wingnuts.
"As for the constant bickering over religion and evolution we are both with faults. By my reasoning I believe that evolutionist are forcing their faith upon religious people."
Evolution is science, not faith. End of discussion...
"Take for example that if your child was invited to speak at a school function for outstanding performance and they believed that it was their faith in God that inspired them to work hard for their achievments they would not be allowed to admit it."
Do you know this, or is this hypothetical. No one would be prevented from saying they got their inspiration, or whatever from god. They would not however be able to give a religious sermon.
"Although I do believe that the schools should not teach religious conviction but they should for the sake of tollerance be taught that there are those who believe in religion."
And who is saying they don't or can't? My son is taking AP global history right now, and they are learning about all regions. You can't study history without including religious belief.
"As for the details of religion should be taught by those educated in those elements. "
You mean like sunday school? I have no problem with that.
"Nothing could be worse for my religion then for a teacher to teach its aspects without fully understanding the faith. Understand that by our faith we are not to force our religion on other people but we are required to teach it. "
There is no reason religion should even come up in school unless it is part of a history class, or maybe a sociology class. YOUR religion should be taught by YOUR religious organization. Not in public schools. Read the first amendment.
Are we splicing hairs here? When you say they were not Christian, it "feels" implied that they were of some "other" religious sect, or not religious at all...this wasn't the case with Washington, Franklin, or Lincoln...it's a little up in the air on Jefferson, who maybe was a Diest...however, Diest's believe in God.
Quote from his biography...
"yet he was anything but irreligious, anything but an enemy to Christian faith. Our nation's third president was, in fact, a student of Scripture who attended church regularly, and was an active member of the Anglican Church, where he served on his local vestry. He was married in church, sent his children and a nephew to a Christian school, and gave his money to support many different congregations and Christian causes."
From a letter written by George Washington’s adopted daughter Nelly Parke Custis Lewis in 1833 talking about her father…..
"It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock, where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun, and remained in his library until called to breakfasdt [sic]. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men." He communed with his God in secret.
My mother resided two years at Mount Vernon, after her marriage with John Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution. When my aunt, Miss Custis, died suddenly at Mount Vernon, before they could realize the event, he knelt by her and prayed most fervently, most affectingly, for her recovery. Of this I was assured by Judge Washington's mother, and other witnesses."
A few weeks before his death at age 84, Benjamin Franklin summarized his religious beliefs:
"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavor in a few words to gratify it.
Here is my creed.
·I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. ·That he governs by his providence. ·That he ought to be worshipped. ·That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. ·That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.
p
And if someone believes in a diety, they are automatically a 'thumper', or a 'wacko'.
WRONG. You're automatically generalizing...
See, that's the problem with your whole approach. You sterotype everyone into one far out right wing group, you attack, you 'don't care what their situation is', you ridicule, do one line hit and runs, because everyone on this site is a 'wacko'.
WRONG. You're generalizing again...
Why are you on such a crusade - sorry no pun intended. You seem relatively versed on some aspects of religion, but you must attack those who are believers.
WRONG. Only those whose beliefs are misinterpretations, or whose opinions are misinformed. STOP GENERALIZING. IT ONLY MAKES YOUR OPINIONS MORE WORTHLESS.
You may have noted, in none of my posts have I every tried to change your mind about your beliefs.
I noted that you ran out of valid comments long ago. And since then, you've spent most of the time being antagonistic, and critiquing the way I deliver information.
Why are you so intent on going after and 'changing' others? That by the way is an earnest question I'm asking both of you.
I don't care if they change. Most of the people I 'go after' are too deluded to be helped. The real issue is that their distorted views could be a negative influence on others. And THAT I simply will not tolerate.
They've been given accurate information BY ME and many others, time & time again. But they simply won't accept it. Their frail little egos can't handle a non-believer(s) knowing their religion BETTER than they do. I've never willingly given ANY false or deceptive information, but THEY HAVE... consistently. One in particular has been caught flat-out LYING to people, in attempt to make their opinion LOOK better... and they won't deny it. They just slither away, and try to do it again later.
Is that what religion is about? Does being religious (or claiming to be) allow one to act in such a way? Is that the image that REAL believers want?
So that is where the line is drawn. Anytime they spout off... I'll be there to correct them. And anyone they're trying to convince, deserves to know ALL the information, whether they like it or not.
And you can PROVE your points?
Yes... I've already proven beyond a doubt, that you generalize and assume CONSTANTLY. The responses below will further attest to that.
Prove to me there is no God, and I'll quit believing in a heartbeat.
Why would I do that? I'm not atheist... [ASSUMPTION 1]
Show me the proof of how life began without a God, I'll denounce all religions immediately.
Once again... not atheist, nor a devout evolutionist [ASSUMPTION 2]. Although evolution HAS already been proven to occur in certain cases.
Show me the definitive proof of how our Universe came to be. You can't because science is still trying to answer these questions.
I never said the Big Bang was all that believable... [ASSUMPTION 3]
You have chosen to "believe" there is no God, you've no proof any more than I can show scientific evidence he is..
Assuming again? When did I EVER say the God doesn't exist? [ASSUMPTION 4]
Again arguing with falsehoods and hollow statements.
This whole time YOU have been assuming that I'm an atheist... which is not true. Falsehoods? WHERE? I don't lie... and you WILL NOT find any information that I've provided to the contrary. You've made it abundantly clear that you DON'T KNOW WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH, and you've made quite a fool out of yourself as a result.
There is no further debate with you. You don't believe in a deity, I do.
...once AGAIN... I'm NOT atheist... moron... [ASSUMPTION 5]
I took the liberty to MARK your assumptions (TOTAL = 5) in this post , to make it easier for you to SEE them. So... do you have anything VALID to say in response? Or will you regurgitate the same statements again?
And you can PROVE your points?
Oooh, missed the point
Why would I do that? I'm not atheist... [ASSUMPTION 1]
No by your own statement you are a HEATHEN, that means you don't believe in the God of the Bible. That makes you are a soft atheist. Cognizant term, atheist.
WRONG AGAIN
Once again... not atheist, nor a devout evolutionist [ASSUMPTION 2]. Although evolution HAS already been proven to occur in certain cases.
Never said anything about nor any reference to you being a devout evolutionist, so...
WRONG AGAIN.
I never said the Big Bang was all that believable... [ASSUMPTION 3]
No one ever said you did WRONG AGAIN
This whole time YOU have been assuming that I'm an atheist... which is not true. Falsehoods? WHERE? I don't lie... and you WILL NOT find any information that I've provided to the contrary. You've made it abundantly clear that you DON'T KNOW WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH, and you've made quite a fool out of yourself as a result.
You left out "hollow statements" along with falsehoods. I give you the foregoing paragraphs as examples of falshoods and hollow arguments.
If English isn't your first language. Hold the monitor very still with your milk hand and use the index finger of your sandwich hand and point at each word until you understand it.
...once AGAIN... I'm NOT atheist... moron... [ASSUMPTION 5]
and WRONG AGAIN. Look up the definition of "heathen" your term, not mine.
So you build your case with silly putty so you can move and change about and use the term "moron", "pathetic".
I quit arguing with those tactics in, oooh... I don't know maybe the 4th grade.
No by your own statement you are a HEATHEN, that means you don't believe in the God of the Bible. That makes you are a soft atheist. Cognizant term, atheist.
That was sarcasm… that you're taking out of context. And you’re still WRONG. You need to re-learn your definitions.
Never said anything about nor any reference to you being a devout evolutionist
I never said you did…
No one ever said you did...
You referenced SCIENCE, and the beginning of the universe. Tell me… with regards to the 'beginning of the universe' what other prominent theory are they trying to prove?
You left out "hollow statements" along with falsehoods. I give you the foregoing paragraphs as examples of falshoods and hollow arguments.
Well… you should provide a better example, since none of it was incorrect. And I don't have to respond to ALL of your mistakes. I don't have THAT much free time.
Look up the definition of "heathen" your term, not mine.
Look up the definition of sarcasm, idiot…
I quit arguing with those tactics in, oooh... I don't know maybe the 4th grade.
Oh, so THAT’s how far your education went… that explains a lot...
STILL waiting for you to make a VALID point. And STILL waiting for you to explain my beliefs. Or do you still need more time to figure it out? Is it so hard for you to admit that you just don't know? Or perhaps you're planning on pinning all your mistakes thusfar, on your inability to understand dry humor... among other things...
You've not quoted my "assumptions" and I don't do both constantly. Is that how YOU debate, make points with falsehoods. Tell a lie long and often enough...
the DIFFERENCE is that WE can actually provide INFORMATION that supports our opinions.
And you can PROVE your points? Prove to me there is no God, and I'll quit believing in a heartbeat. Show me the proof of how life began without a God, I'll denounce all religions immediately. Show me the definitive proof of how our Universe came to be. You can't because science is still trying to answer these questions. You have chosen to "believe" there is no God, you've no proof any more than I can show scientific evidence he is.. Again arguing with falsehoods and hollow statements.
And cappy, every posting you make is full of antagonism and caustic statements.
You've proven youself to an absolute FAILURE You're pathetic, just two out of your previous. Go back and look at your others.
I noted that you ran out of valid comments long ago. And since then, you've spent most of the time being antagonistic, and critiquing the way I deliver information.
Yes I do. There is no further debate with you. You don't believe in a deity, I do.
That is the only issue I have with you is your ferver and antagonistic attacks on others. I don't know whether you realize it, but your attitude only feeds those who believe in a deity. Your blunt force attacks don't dissuade at all.
"Debating is great jimahl, debating religion is not what you do. You ridicule. I can't think anyone who has called you a moron for being an atheist, or dumb or it is stupid. You attack those who have a belief that you do not. Chiding them and asking why not pray to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?"
I will debate religion all you want. Where do you want to start? I do not ridicule people for being christian, or any faith. I challenge people who are ignorant, like those who deny evolution because it interferes with their faith. I happen to find that particular practice of fait dangerous. You feigned outrage comes off sounding rather silly. I don't tell people to pray to santa or the easter bunny. I just point out that the effect is the same as praying to any diety.
"Public message board? Yes Right to Post? Yes I do not bash anyones skulls?"
Nor do I. Show me where I have.
"NO I debate?"
Do you call ignoring what I am saying and attacking my tactics debate? It sure doesn't to me.
"No And the question is why? I don't know jimahl why you do what you do, but I do know that what you do on the religion postings is not debate."
Why, because I challenge it? Because I express my opinion about what religion really is about?
Get over yourself seao2florida...
**Get over yourself seao2florida... ** Wow, jimhal, that's a freudian statement if I've ever heard one, lol.
And jimhal, again, what you do is not debate here. If you wish I'll pull some of your chiding, ridiculing lines. First and sometimes only posts off this website for you if you really don't remember making them. They are not at all hard to find, this section is repleat with them. Want me to pull the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus remarks, Why would I pray to something that doesn't exist? You debate on the politcial board. You ridicule in the religious section.
I've never ridiculed your status as athiest in any fashion. I do sometimes wonder about it since you spend so much time here. It's almost like the skinheads who go around beating up homosexuals because they are trying to make up for their latent homosexuality. But then I'm no professional, just a personal observation.
My beliefs are my beliefs. I don't force them on anyone, you included. I have no intent of trying to change you, could frankly care less, I just tire greatly seeing you spend so much time trying to force your opinions on everyone else or debase thiers, much like several of you do and then accuse the "religious wackos" of doing the same thing.
I'm sure there were atheists in the 1700's just as there are now. But the bulk of this nation was judo-christian. Since then we have accepted all faiths who come here. As to the religious right, I find that term sometimes used to label anyone who believes in a God or is just spiritual. Not all are banging on your door on Saturdays, and not all of us are trying to convert you.
I do have issue with some here who have the stated purpose of "bashing theists skulls". I will not try to convert you, and if there were an atheist section to this website I don't believe I'd ever post on it. I would read through it, because that is what I do, I gather information from many places about most things in my life. But as someone who believes in a power greater than myself, I don't feel very qualified to speak to atheism. I don't know what I'd have to offer them except that which they don't want. Atheism has nothing to offer me but an opposing point of view, which I will keep looking at, because hey, no one has empirical proof of God, maybe an atheist will come up with some empirical proof he doesn't exist and then I can change my mind. We haven't been able to show how life or the universe began. I'm banking Stephen Hawkins is right.
Jimahi I find it odd that you have Lincon and Obama shifting on your picture. Or even that you would mention the founding fathers because Obama believed they were wrong. He said that the "founding fathers Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." As for the constant bickering over religion and evolution we are both with faults. By my reasoning I believe that evolutionist are forcing their faith upon religious people. Take for example that if your child was invited to speak at a school function for outstanding performance and they believed that it was their faith in God that inspired them to work hard for their achievments they would not be allowed to admit it. Although I do believe that the schools should not teach religious conviction but they should for the sake of tollerance be taught that there are those who believe in religion. As for the details of religion should be taught by those educated in those elements. Nothing could be worse for my religion then for a teacher to teach its aspects without fully understanding the faith. Understand that by our faith we are not to force our religion on other people but we are required to teach it.
**..the DIFFERENCE is that WE can actually provide INFORMATION that supports our opinions. From the SAME place the wackos get theirs. So why is OUR information more accurate more oftten than the thumpers? There's a huge difference between doing what your religion says; and doing what you THINK it says, or what you were TOLD it says, or what you WANT it to say... **
And if someone believes in a diety, they are automatically a "thumper", or a "wacko". See, that's the problem with your whole approach. You sterotype everyone into one far out right wing group, you attack, you "don't care what their situation is", you ridicule, do one line hit and runs, because everyone on this site is a 'wacko'.
Why are you on such a crusade - sorry no pun intended. You seem relatively versed on some aspects of religion, but you must attack those who are believers. You may have noted, in none of my posts have I every tried to change your mind about your beliefs. Why are you so intent on going after and "changing" others? That by the way is an earnest question I'm asking both of you.
I'm still waiting for him to state MY beliefs... that he claims to know so well...
No cappy, it is you who generalize, I don't "assume" anything.
WRONG. You do BOTH constantly... and I've QUOTED you EACH time you've done it in our debates.
**You "assume" that anyone who counters you is a "wacko", "Bible thumping" or "right winged nut". **
NO... I DON'T... you've brought this up before, and you still can't prove it... You have NO validation for these claims... so either go FIND some validation... or DROP IT.
there are people out here with an I.Q. of greater than 2 digits who have an opinion. May be a shocker, but it is a matter you should consider.
You definitely aren't a shining example of that, you know. You're still trying (and failing) to be antagonistic... you're repeatedly making claims that aren't true... and that you CAN'T back up. You've proven yourself to be an absolute FAILURE, when it comes to paying attention to important details. You're pathetic... but feel free to keep on flailing away, you're only making is easier for me...
Debating is great jimahl, debating religion is not what you do. You ridicule. I can't think anyone who has called you a moron for being an atheist, or dumb or it is stupid. You attack those who have a belief that you do not. Chiding them and asking why not pray to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?
I respect anyones right to believe what they want, and I really don't have much of a choice about supporting a president who believes in god, since atheists are so discriminated against.
Respect anyone's right to believe what they want? No you don't you attack and ridicule them.
I won't address the next one, you're just whining.
This is a public message board and I have just as much a right to post as thiests do as long as I don't break the rules. I do not bash anyone skulls, I debate
Public message board? Yes Right to Post? Yes I do not bash anyones skulls? NO I debate? No And the question is why? I don't know jimahl why you do what you do, but I do know that what you do on the religion postings is not debate.
...Understand that by our faith we are not to force our religion on other people but we are required to teach it.
:) And therein lies the problem. A lot of people I've met who are non Christians know more Christian history, etc, than the Christians do that attend church...and, Obama, if he said that, was wrong.
Then again, the founders of the country didn't give right to women. They were wrong in that, of course ;). I was only pointing out one issue...besides, given the language & heritage of the US (English) and how England switched from Catholicism only so a King could get a divorce to protestantism...well, doesn't it make sense to have setup the country as they did, with Church & State separated?
Then we can go further back & wonder, how did England become Christian / Catholic, and look at the killings and or threats of middle & "dark age" rulers as the turning point...far, far better to keep the violent and adulterous history that resulted in modern day beliefs in England far away from the United States.
wait, that cant be right that george washington wasnt a christian h started the tradition in the presidential oath quote "by God" and every president since has said that and every president also took the oath on the bible no offense to atheists or anything but I highly doubt that anybody was that atheist AT THAT TIME would not have gotten elected and thomas jefferson and lincoln were christians the idea that jefferson was atheist was myth started by his rival alexander hamilton in order to sway the people to vote 4 him to win the presidency in that elecion year lincoln was christian because the bible that barack obama used was the same bible that licoln used to take his oath the bible lincoln had used was a replacement bible because lincoln's FAMILY BIBLE did not arrive in time for his innauguration I sincerely doubt washington was an atheist but ll do more research into that
Sure, go a head and pull my posts. I have nothing to hide. But please inlcude the question it came from so the full context can be seen.
Maybe I spend time in here is because I am interested in the subject matter, and I am interested in enlightening those who have been brainwashed by religion. Am I violating any rules? And please don't compare me to skin heads. I am not beating anyone up or violating their rights. I am offering my opinion. I don't "force" my opinon on anyone. Not sure how one could even do that on the internet. Maybe you don't have any intent on changing me, but there are plenty on here who do. Are you actually trying to say there aren't any "religious whackos" on here? There are many on here who deny evolution and believe the earth was created exactly as the bible says. I am sorry, but they are whackos for beleiving that.
"By my reasoning I believe that evolutionist are forcing their faith upon religious people."
First, "evolutionist" is a nonsense-term. There are scientists, but "evolution" is not a belief in the same way that "creationism" or "christianity" is.
"Take for example that if your child was invited to speak at a school function for outstanding performance and they believed that it was their faith in God that inspired them to work hard for their achievments they would not be allowed to admit it."
Nobody is trying to prohibit that. The objection is to state sanctioned or enforced religious observations. If you as an individual want to express your religious faith - including in an acceptance speech - you're welcome to. What you or anyone else can't do is expect everyone to pray, or to add religious rituals to a state function.
Seao2florida, please stop with the "bashing theists skulls" crap. It was a private joke to me on my profile. I have already explained that. This is the second time you brought it up in a public question.
"As to the religious right, I find that term sometimes used to label anyone who believes in a God or is just spiritual."
No true at all. There are many liberals, Obama being one, who have religious faith. The difference is the relgious right wants to ram it down peoples throat. They want it codified in our laws. They want religious iconography displayed in public places. Most of the "religious left" is content to keep their faith to themselves.
Yes, you are right, not everyone is. There are many who are not zealots. But there are many who are.
I respect anyones right to believe what they want, and I really don't have much of a choice about supporting a president who believes in god, since atheists are so discriminated against. We will have a jewish or even a muslim president before we have an openly atheist one.
This is a public message board and I have just as much a right to post as thiests do as long as I don't break the rules. I do not bash anyone skulls, I debate. Do you not understand that was a joke between RG and me, and it means something to us that it doesn't to you.
I just tire greatly seeing you spend so much time trying to force your opinions on everyone else or debase thiers, much like several of you do and then accuse the "religious wackos" of doing the same thing.
...the DIFFERENCE is that WE can actually provide INFORMATION that supports our opinions. From the SAME place the wackos get theirs. So why is OUR information more accurate more oftten than the thumpers? There's a huge difference between doing what your religion says; and doing what you THINK it says, or what you were TOLD it says, or what you WANT it to say...
Cap, you wouldn't recognize a "valid point' if it ran over you. You make hollow statements, I've used your own words and you wriggle and writhe to get out of it.
I recognize them quite easily, and you have yet to make any. Just as you have avoided direct questions numerous times, because YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. Taking things out of context DOES NOT provide any valid points. As an ADULT, you should be well aware of that.
And 'hollow statements' seems to be your catch-phrase and nothing more, since you also failed to provide examples...
Obama's ENTIRE quote
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice. (The Warren Court) didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution ... that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
your inability to deny my statement only proves I'm right...once again... answered it then, am answering it now.
captain, you're the one who does passive-aggressive one-liner hit and runs. No he hasn't been called a liar at all since I've been here, I've watched him do it to others, since I've been here. Name calling is what you do when you haven't an argument to present. Witty and antagonistic is what you do, and occassionally you are witty albeit not always on point with the question.
Capt. Read my posts. It's not "my religion".
Who said I was talking about YOU? Clearly I was referring to the 'religious wackos' that YOU mentioned. You're incompetent in your OWN right...
Wow you do get torqued and wound up don't you? Chill out. It's a simple little internet posting. And at this point no one is going to read it but you and me. Whew!!
...that was pointless... so you're quite the drama queen too...
Cap, you wouldn't recognize a "valid point' if it ran over you. You make hollow statements, I've used your own words and you wriggle and writhe to get out of it.
No I went a little further but 4th grade is the level I have to come down to for you.
Want to call me an "idiot", "moron"?
Why don''t we just compare the size of our manhood and get it over with?
Now make your last posting because I'm done with you.
answered it then
No... you didn't...
No he hasn't been called a liar at all since I've been here
Being called a LIAR wasn't the issue, it was being called quote: ''a moron for being an atheist, or dumb or it is stupid.''
Do try to keep up...
Name calling is what you do when you haven't an argument to present.
Oh, so THAT'S why you do it so often...
Well, it was written at time when individual persons fully expected to take care of their own basic needs (or by their church, or even neighbors)...not fullfilled by the government. They left England for freedom from the monarchy...there was fear of an overbearing government...NOT fear that they wouldn't be able to "care for self"...
p
I was taught in school, and all thruout my life, that this nation, was birthed for religious freedom, and that the laws, etc. were all based on the bible. I will never believe otherwise, and I have watched the slide downhill in my lifetime, I fear for what kind of country we will have 15 years down the road, should Jesus tarry.
Well not everyone here is from the religious right. And with your belief that we don't want the Commander-in-Chief praying to the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, how could you vote for Obama? I do believe he might be more religious than John McCain.
And "bashing theists skulls" seems to be what you patrol these waters for.
I'm correcting YOU when you're WRONG... which is often. It doesn't matter who you're talking to; and your inability to deny my statement only proves I'm right... once again...
If you would try to focus on the issues, instead of trying and failing to be witty or antagonistic, you might be taken more seriously. But no...
No cappy, it is you who generalize, I don't "assume" anything. You "assume" that anyone who counters you is a "wacko", "Bible thumping" or "right winged nut". I'm sorry, there are people out here with an I.Q. of greater than 2 digits who have an opinion. May be a shocker, but it is a matter you should consider.
No cappy, it is you who generalize, I don't "assume" anything. You "assume" that anyone who counters you is a "wacko", "Bible thumping" or "right winged nut". I'm sorry, there are people out here with an I.Q. of greater than 2 digits who have an opinion. May be a shocker, but it is a matter you should consider.
No he didn't seao2florida. I have said it, and so has captain. Not all believers are wackos, but some are, and some them post on here, and we have every right to challenge them.
Still waiting for all those posts of mine?
Capt. Read my posts. It's not "my religion". Wow you do get torqued and wound up don't you? Chill out. It's a simple little internet posting. And at this point no one is going to read it but you and me. Whew!!
I think what he's trying to imply is that Christians are being condemned for their religion by atheists, and in this way Christians do not actually enjoy religious freedom
*** I can't think anyone who has called you a moron for being an atheist, or dumb or it is stupid.***
Well... you haven't been here very long... so how could you know?
Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Paine and even Lincoln were also not christians.
The idea that the US was founded by devout chrisitians is simply a myth.
silverwings, you say that this nation "was birthed for religious freedom" yet you want a christian nation. I just don't get it.
Captain, I hope I don't ever have a disagreement with you... I thought I was a decent debater. You would kick my a$$... lol
I will never believe otherwise,
even if you are shown evidence to the contrary?
And there goes jimahl's stalking cheerleader.
...
