Hello JRTjr,
You don't seem to be trying very hard to make a
good post, but instead have concentrated on answering everybody. I think I can speak for everyone when I say we'd prefer the opposite. You're repeating a lot over many posts to different people, but we can all reply to one really good post that explains yourself better.
From
Message 294:
Where is the law that religion shall not be established?
THe First Amendment to the US Constitution... It is even called
The Establishment Clause <-- clicky
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
Its quite clear.
In
Message 308 you wrote:
Ya, I’ve quoted the First Amendment (repeatedly). I know it by heart.
The first Amendment says nothing about forbidding an ‘establishment’ of anything.
It is, however, a clear declaration that the Government is not to restrict religious expression. I.e. if we have a cross on our states seal the Federal Government can not force us to take it off.
This is totally incorrect.
I explained this in
Message 222, that you replied to, but didn't acknowledge this part:
quote:
No, you're mistaken. Legallly requiring Bibles in court would be the establishment of a religion, not the exercise of it.
And removing the Bible is not preventing anyone from exercising thier religion.
The law is that religion shall not be established, nor prevented from being exercised.
Removing a cross from a seal does not prevent anyone from exercising their religion. If you wanted to legally
require the cross on there, then that would be the establishment of religion and unconstitutional.
What part of this do you have a problem with?
From
Message 296:
Catholic Scientist writes:
everybody know's that "Nature's God" is not a reference to the Christian God but instead to a Deistic god.
Everybody knows Santa Claus lives at the North Pole to; that does not make it so. ;-}
That does not make your argument any more convincing.
Your Deistic god theory would hold water if most or all of the signers were modern day Deists;
How so? That doesn't even make sense.
However, as I pointed out in post #231 at least 75% of the signers were Christians. So, unless you can provide substantial evidence to the contrary I stand on the evidence that says it is the Christian God being spoken of.
But you're wrong. Unless, its impossible for a Christian to write about a god that is not the Christian God.
If a Christian writes about "Nature's God", then he is most likely writing about a deistic god regardless of his personal religious beliefs.
But all in all, it doesn't really matter. We have the establishment clause and it says what it says. You're just plain wrong.
™ Version 4.2