|
Illiad +anyone else.... | by tesla_koil | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
A link to the actual Constitution: | by NOLAWitch | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
It would be interesting to hear your counter- | by adiplomat | 2004-03-17 10:08:52 |
|
I've already given it in posts past, however, I'll | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 10:13:14 |
| Well, that's not really what I was asking for. |
by Adiplomat |
2004-03-17 11:31:57 |
What I mean is this; given that the Founding Fathers for the most part were believers in, or at least espoused a belief in, one sect or another of Christianity, it has been assumed that references to God (Creator, etc.) in their documents refers to that set of beliefs.
Usually what I've seen is that people think that those references were included but toned down because of the desire not to impose a specific religion. What I thought I've been hearing from you is the contention that there was no belief in Christianity whatsoever being referred to in these documents. What I want to know is whether that is in fact what you believe, and if so, what is your evidence to counter the fact that many of the Founders did, indeed profess Christianity.
I'm not trying to wander into the wider debate about religion and government. I'm trying to establish whether you indeed believe that the authors of the Constitution and Declaration were making no reference at all to their beliefs when they wrote those documents. It's a very specific question that I'm asking here, without reference to any wider issue. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
That is my assertion. They PURPOSEFULLY | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 11:44:46 |
|
Sorry. I did my (obviously inadequate) best | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 12:58:51 |
|
I don't understand your question either. | by quilting_kitty | 2004-03-17 13:04:43 |
|
Never mind that. Let HIM answer for a change. (n/t) | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:15:03 |
|
While you won't use the words, the smell of | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 13:33:18 |
|
The counter-evidence is clear: they didn't cram | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:41:14 |
|
You were warned. I'm done. (n/t) | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 13:50:00 |
|
Well, you did offer your genitals up for roasting. (n/t) | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:51:00 |
|
Oh, and I believe I stuck to the points in your | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:54:03 |
|
Ahem. | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 14:05:51 |
|
Cabbage of course. It's cooking right now. | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 15:01:07 |
|
For good, or just this thread? | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 13:54:51 |
|
If you don't like Historical Revisionism... | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 13:41:55 |
|
My only comment here is that you seem to think | by quilting_kitty | 2004-03-17 13:45:40 |
|
YOU are the one who should be answering | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:14:10 |
|
That is an unfounded assertion. | by BloodyViking | 2004-03-17 12:09:39 |
|
If you insist on referring ONLY to the documents | by Adiplomat | 2004-03-17 13:14:35 |
|
BZZZT! You're off the track again. | by NOLAWitch | 2004-03-17 13:17:25 |
|
Got proof? Didn't think so. | by Naruki | 2004-03-17 13:23:43 |
|
Many perhaps but not most. | by BloodyViking | 2004-03-17 13:32:24 |
