The spectacular fall of YEC beliefs

I can't read all that but the first part of it doesn't suggest any problem with the government's being run by Christian principles, for basically law-abiding religions anyway. They don't require any adherence by individuals that would affect their conscience, being laws that govern a civilized society. Since I haven't read more than a few paragraphs perhaps you could show me otherwise.However, if their religion tells them to murder Jews and Christians as a service to Allah then Christian laws against murder would be a problem for them, and if they think Protestants and other religionists should be burned at the stake or buried alive or tortured on the rack, that might cramp their freedom of religion too if genuine Christian principles were in force.

Congress itself authorized the printing of Bibles for the schools, and it was a case in the Supreme Court that punished someone for blaspheming God, so if you think the amendments forbade such things it was the federal government that violated them..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Since general Christian principles were indeed supported by the federal government and the judicial system and not considered to be violations of the First Amendment, perhaps only the state of Virginia objected.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course. A civilized state would of course promote the bombing and shooting-up of churches and malls and places of entertainment, and the hijacking of airplanes to destroy buildings and kill thousands in the name of Allah and so on. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you for spelling all that out. I now recognize that as Madison's treatise that I read a long time ago and it is what I thought it was when PaulK first brought it up: against any kind of state enforced church or doctrine imposed on the people, basically an elaboration of freedom of conscience which was the big Puritan concern of the day; and Madison's concern was more for the church because an alliance with the state corrupts it. No, it is not against Christian principles running the government, it is against forcing people to believe something, which has nothing to do with having a basically Christian worldview as the foundation of governing principles.Thank you again, because I wouldn't have been able to spend the time to get that far into it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have too much on my mind to get into that but if David Barton is its source then I rescind it.Would you also object to the idea that the first moves toward literacy in Europe were made in order to teach the Bible? Are you aware that the original motto of Harvard University was not the single word "Veritas" but something that included Christ in it? Online it is given variously as Truth for Christ and the Church or Glory to Christ etc., and I'm not going to spend more time looking it up. But also Oxford University had a Christian worldview and aim too and still has Christian titles for its various departments. The original aim of education in the west was to further Christianity. How far we have fallen.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I agree with him.

I don't know how you manage to be so completely wrong about everything having to do with Christianity. I suppose you must have taken courses in it.

Produce your evidence.

Nonsense. You have no evidence. Universal literacy and then general educqation was a goal in the west and nowhere else that I know of, and it was because of the Christian desire to create a populace that could read the Bible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would like to remind you that ad hominems are not considered valid argument. I won't answer your questions about my personal life, travel etc., that you keep asking because you are just pursuing the usual ad hominem here. Who I am is irrelevant, the argument is what you need to be addressing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Please produce your evidence jar. Put it up on the board.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You know absolutely nothing about me, you have a lot of narrowminded bigoted views about who I am, and again it is absolutely irrelevant to the argument. The rule against ad hominem exists for a reason and your biased tiny mind can't change it just to suit your own narrowminded smallminded bias. If you object to the argument, answer the argument.

I'll deal with my side of the argument, you deal with yours. Cut the ad hominems, they are off limits. The idea that you can tell anything about me because I'm a creationist is idiotically smallminded of you.

You need to post actual quotes that are reliable evidence. And you didn't supply a summary either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.