Is America a Christian Nation?

But, my dear Buzsaw, if a school board can tell you when to pray and who to pray to and what to pray for, then you do not have freedom of religion. Maybe they do, but you don't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Have you ever read what the Founding Fathers had to say about the Bible?Sheesh, have you ever read the Bible? Let me remind you of some of the more awkward passages.1 Peter 2 13-18: Romans 13 1-6: Note the complete absence from both these passages of the words "apart from King George the Third, obviously he doesn't count".The United States of America was founded in flat flagrant contradiction of principles clearly set forth in the Bible. If you think that the Bible is right, then it's time for you to repent your sinful ways and acknowledge Queen Elizabeth the Second as your rightful monarch. I love America. If you'd prefer a theocracy, move to Iran. You can help them stone homosexuals to death, you'll have fun.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Much though I may deride your opinions and arguments, I don't think that I've ever disliked you personally. I just think you're wrong about a whole lot of stuff. I haven't forgotten that. But I also remember that we are a republic with a constitution.I'm somewhat surprised that you take the attitude that you do, because you yourself belong to a minority religious group. You're a Seventh Day Adventist, aren't you? Very well then, suppose that the people in your district voted for a law that only Sunday could be kept as the Sabbath. Wouldn't you and I then join our voices in pointing to the First Amendment and talking about freedom of religion? Would you, under those circumstances, be talking so loud about how we're a republic with "representatives who will implement the wishes of the majority".No, in that case you'd agree with me in saying that freedom of conscience must always be defended. Except that I would always say that it must always be defended, whereas you apparently get to pick and choose.

I note also that they have chosen to portray Jesus as a non-Jewish mentally retarded hunchback.Don't even get me started on the perspective. Good grief. The tree's behind him, but the branches are ... oh good grief.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Up to a point. But that majority is limited in what they can do by the Constitution. They cannot, for example, pass a law enabling "cruel and unusual punishment" even if they really really want to.Under those circumstances, the majority wouldn't have their way and the minority would have theirs --- and this would not be "minority rule", it would be constitutional government. My apologies. My point, as amended to take this information into account, still stands. But the "oranges" in this case are of your own supplying. I never mentioned liquor laws or Sunday closing. I agree with you that elected bodies have the right and capacity to do these things.But I was talking about religious freedom. What I wrote was: "If a school board can tell you when to pray and who to pray to and what to pray for, then you do not have freedom of religion."And this is evidently true. If the majority is Catholic, they still can't make the kids say Hail Marys. If the majority is Democrat, they still can't make the kids pray for Democratic success in the next Congressional elections. And if the majority is theist, they still can't make the kids pray at all. However, you do get to pick and choose which policies you support. And apparently you are for religious freedom ... some of the time. When it suits you.

But these would not be Establishment Clause cases as such --- Lemon v. Kurtzman would not apply. In general, a law may be as religiously motivated as you please: it's when it's a law about religion that the Lemon Test kicks in.

"By the founders"? Well, not by all of them. James Madison, who, you will recall, wrote the First Amendment, and must have had some idea what he meant by it, had this to say about it: Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, see my previous post. We know how James Madison interpreted the First Amendment, and he wrote it.

Er ... because they might have been idiots?The fact is that the guy who wrote the First Amendment thought that it excluded the chaplainship to Congress. If we want to know what the Framers thought, we know what James Madison thought, and he wrote the Bill of Rights.So enough of your equivocation about how we don't know what the Framers thought. We know for certain that the guy who wrote the First Amendment thought that Congress having a chaplain was a breach of the Constitution.You might argue that it is in fact a good idea for Congress to have a chaplain, but let's have no more of your mealy-mouthed equivocation about how difficult it is to find out what the Framers thought. We know what James Madison thought. He thought that you were wrong. Utterly, hopelessly wrong.Now if you want to stand up and say that the First Amendment should be interpreted, not according to the meaning that the person who wrote it ascribed to it, but rather according to some idea that you've just made up ... then it's a free country. You can say what you like. But I shall say that the First Amendment means what the person who wrote it meant it to mean.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, that's the quickest I've ever convinced some on the internet that they were wrong.To be precise, I convinced a liberal that theocracy is constitutional.Yay me.Damn, it's so depressing. I can speak reason to the left, and this wil sway them, but I have no idea how to speak nonsense to the right. Logic and facts will convince the left ... what convinces the right?Let's give it a go ... hey, Buzsaw, IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA THEN FLYING PIGS WILL EAT YOUR CHILDREN ... how am I doing? Am I insane enough to convince you? What does it take?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I shudder to think of case 3.

The only one of those quotes even remotely relevant to the subject under discussion is the last one.And I take it to be a fairly damning admission. He pretty much admits that people wouldn't read the Bible unless it is made compulsory.You, and he, apparently think that this is a good reason to force children to read the Bible. I think that it's a good reason not to force children to read the Bible. If the inability of Christians to forcibly cram their dogma down the throats of children does indeed lead to the "extirpation" of Christianity, then let me know, because that's a grave I would be happy to dance on.

I agree with jar. This is just a wind-up, a "Poe". The same poster has sprinkled stupid all over many moribund threads, and no-one is as stupid as he pretends to be. Even Dawn Bertot isn't that stupid. Cold Foreign Object wasn't that stupid. No-one is that stupid. It's just a troll trying to wind us up. Look at his posting history to check. No-one can be as stupid as he is pretending to be.Though he must be fairly stupid, because you have to be quite fucking stupid for your hobby to be pretending to be completely stupid. So yes, he is a moron. But he is not sincere.

All his advice from one man? That he didn't make friends easily?

Um ... except that they subscribed to and practically invented "the Separation of Church and State concept used by progressives today". Yes, and they also believed in the separation of church and state.Like many conservative Christians before you, your reasoning appears to contain a fundamental(ist) error. It goes something like this:(1) Only irreligious people would want church-state separation and a secular government.
(2) The Founding Fathers were not irreligious people.
(3) Therefore, this is not what they wanted.But premise 1 is simply false.