Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[Mountain Man]

Even if that reference can be understood based on contemporary documents to be a reference to the Xtian god, the DoI is still not referring to the Xtian god specifically.

So you don't think the ideals and beliefs of those who signed the document have any relevance to the ideas contained in the document itself?

[Sparko]

Right, and it means exactly what I said it means, Jefferson was not a Christian. He didn't believe in Yahwey, who he thought more like a demon, and from where he suspected Calvin drew from, and he didn't believe in Jesus as being anything more than a philosopher trying to set things aright and whose words and whose story was perverted in order to make of him a god. He seems to have been a Deist, but not at all a Christian. Christianity to him was a fable, just as is Minerva and Jupiter.

Completely wrong Jimmy, and I posted the evidence right there for you. wow.

[Roy]

So you don't think the ideals and beliefs of those who signed the document have any relevance to the ideas contained in the document itself?

Of course I do. But those ideals and beliefs aren't included in the DoI; they have to be obtained elsewhere.

The DoI does not refer to the Xtian god specifically.

You once again "forgot" to quote the actual text where you think it does.

[One Bad Pig]

It sets that religion apart from the others whose law codes are not displayed.

So you'd be fine with it if other ancient law codes were displayed as well?

[Roy]

So you'd be fine with it if other ancient law codes were displayed as well?

Wherever did I say anything about not being fine with it? Y'all can erect graven monoliths wherever and whenever you like as long as you keep them on your side of the Atlantic. I'm simply pointing out that doing so contradicts your constitution, as does mandatory school prayer, and exposing the inconsistency, blinkeredness and denial of those of you who are so piously claiming otherwise.

[JimL]

You read with your preconceptions, JimL, and your prejudices: The author denies that Calvin was a Christian:

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist,

He declares that Calvin's god was not his God, nor that of the person to whom he was writing.

The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world;

He declares that it would be better to believe in no god than in the god of Calvin. He claims that Calvin blasphemes his god, and the god of the person to whom he is writing. Oddly enough, I happen to agree with that assessment.

"It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin."

However, on one point you are right - Jefferson doesn't acknowledge Jesus as God in that letter. He does, nonetheless, express a belief in the God of Jesus. So, not a deist, but something along the lines of a Unitarian.

Tabibito, John Calvin was a Christian, Calvinism is Christianity. I understand that Jefferson didn't agree with Calvins type of Christianity, but he was Christian nontheless. And Jefferson not only didn't acknowledge Jesus as god, he said the whole Christian story built up around Jesus was a myth. So Calvins god, the Christian god, was not Jeffersons god, Jesus, the Christian god, was not Jeffersons god, Jefferson was a Deist not a Christian.
And btw, the god of Jesus was Yahwey, a dipiction of god which Jefferson despised and compared to Calvins depiction of the Jewish/Christian god.

[JimL]

Completely wrong Jimmy, and I posted the evidence right there for you. wow.

Yes, to bad you were unable to comprehend that your own evidence contradicts your belief, Sparko.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, to bad you were unable to comprehend that your own evidence contradicts your belief, Sparko.

Jimmy, here's a good tutorial on when to use "to" as opposed to "too".

Your welcome.


(Waiting for Rogue to chime in)

[One Bad Pig]

Wherever did I say anything about not being fine with it? Y'all can erect graven monoliths wherever and whenever you like as long as you keep them on your side of the Atlantic. I'm simply pointing out that doing so contradicts your constitution, as does mandatory school prayer, and exposing the inconsistency, blinkeredness and denial of those of you who are so piously claiming otherwise.

Nice dodge, Roy. I am speaking in the context of your assertion that such contradicts our constitution.

[Sparko]

Yes, to bad you were unable to comprehend that your own evidence contradicts your belief, Sparko.

You are suffering from Dunning-Kruger Syndrome Jimmy.

[Roy]

Nice dodge, Roy. I am speaking in the context of your assertion that such contradicts our constitution.

How could it not? It promotes one religion (or group of religions) over other religions and over none. It indicates that Judeo-Christianity is the official religion of the USA.

Adding many other law codes would negate that, and would in my view* be constitutional. But also unnecessary, and open to abuse - and there is no shortage of examples where unscrupulous people have trampled over laws, morals and the rights of others to ensure their religious views are forced onto others. I'd give it a week before the non-biblical codes became mysteriously covered over, vandalised, concealed behind furniture/doors/pillars, sited less prominently, removed for reasons of 'space management' or simply never erected at all.

*I'm not a constitutional scholar, I only play one on TW.

[JimL]

Jimmy, here's a good tutorial on when to use "to" as opposed to "too".

Your welcome.


(Waiting for Rogue to chime in)

Come on down off your high horse there good Pastor CP.

[Sparko]

How could it not? It promotes one religion (or group of religions) over other religions and over none. It indicates that Judeo-Christianity is the official religion of the USA.

Adding many other law codes would negate that, and would in my view* be constitutional. But also unnecessary, and open to abuse - and there is no shortage of examples where unscrupulous people have trampled over laws, morals and the rights of others to ensure their religious views are forced onto others. I'd give it a week before the non-biblical codes became mysteriously covered over, vandalised, concealed behind furniture/doors/pillars, sited less prominently, removed for reasons of 'space management' or simply never erected at all.

*I'm not a constitutional scholar, I only play one on TW.

I guess you haven't seen the Supreme Court building then?

[JimL]

You are suffering from Dunning-Kruger Syndrome Jimmy.

Sounds like an accusation coming from someone suffering from Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

[Sparko]

Sounds like an accusation coming from someone suffering from Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

that sounds like someone suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.