[WizardofOz]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

"Pioneers" of different movements are often times referred to as "founding fathers". Some of the "founding fathers" of TN and KY were also "Founding Fathers" of our nation, but even if they weren't it doesn't take away from the fact that they were "founders" (helped establish) of their respective states.

In other words, you have no idea who wrote the respective state constitutions, realize you put your foot in your mouth when you whimsically labeled these unknown people "founders" and are now backtracking.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

You tell me what the legal ruling was, and we can discuss whether it was wise or not (Make it easy on yourself, type in W i k i p e d i a . c o m).

Been there, done that. Check the thread.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Why is it again that you want incest and bestiality laws enforced, but not homosexuality? (simple question + simple mind = simple answer).

Been there, done that at least three times now.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Sharia Law has nothing to do with "religious tests" Ralphie. Do you know anything about Sharia Law?

A religious test as in require that the candidate is Muslim.

You lose track of what we're talking about sooo quickly.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Now let's try this Ralphie: "Should a Muzzie dominated area be allowed to "enforce" Sharia Law here in the United States.

Of course not. Your turn.

Should an area in the US, which is majority Muslim, be able to require a religious test when determining a candidates eligibility for public office?

Time for aCW to play it both ways.....wait for it....wait for it.

[BabyChristian]

Originally Posted by oatmeal

I do not either, because I would rather believe what scriptures teach than what "orthodox Christianity" teaches.



Like wise, for the reasons stated above. As far as common law, was he speaking of English common law or Constitutional law?

English common law definitely lacked scriptural basis.



Again, he is speaking of so called "orthodox Christianity" and its erroneous and felonious belief that Jesus is God and pagan ideology of the trinity.

He recognized the error of both. How? He had read and believed the scriptures for himself instead of allowing himself to be spoon fed the errors of the "orthodox Christians"



Ben Franklin was smart enough to have read the Bible for himself and draw his own conclusions about "orthodox Christianity" He could could see its errors clearly. No wonder he rejected "churches"

He, no doubt, recognized that believers do not "go to Church" for believers are the church.



Thomas should have asked TJ and BF some questions about what the Bible actually teaches.

A person who actually reads and understands the Bible would agree with TP's statement about the various denominations he listed.



John Adams saw the foolishness of the trinity and its related errors because he was knowledgeable of scripture, he saw the fallacy of the trinity. He rejected "orthodox Christianity" for what he describes as its attributes.



Anyone who has let scripture speak for itself knows that to be true.

Bible believers do not believe in "The divinity of Jesus " for we know that Jesus Christ is the son of God, not God himself.



Christianity is not a religion. It is the relationship of our heavenly Father with His children. So he is correct. When religion is allowed to pollute Christianity, true Christianity is obscured and hidden. For as the scripture teaches, people will know us as disciples of Jesus Christ by the love we have one for another.

Most certainly John Adams rejects the lies the fictitious miracles of the religion erroneously called Christianity, orthodox Christianity.

No doubt, he recognized the fallacy of bread and wine supposedly becoming the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Among other things.

All miracles recorded in the Bible have evidence of something having happened. People could see that something had happened and miraculously. The lame walked , the blind could now see, the lepers were cleansed, the dead raised to life, the Red Sea did part. All visible and detectable by the five senses.

Believers know that the bread and wine remain the bread and wine, for there is no miracle involved. The communion is a token of remembrance. Much like Thanksgiving turkey is the token of remembrance to give thanks to God for His abundant blessings to us in this great nation which only God, by the believing of our Founding Fathers could bring to pass.

Amen.

oatmeal

Weird, C.S. Lewis was a literary critic at Oxford and a teacher and an atheist. He read everything critically and ended up a Christian as a result, didn't want to be a Christian either.

Lewis taught philosophy and English literature at Oxford from 1925 until 1954, when he left for a professorship in Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University. At Oxford, Lewis was the first president of the Oxford Socratic Club, which served as a forum for debates on Christianity. He also founded the Inklings, an informal literary group whose members included two friends, the writers J.R.R. Tolkien and Charles Williams. The defining event of Lewis's life and work was his conversion to Christianity in 1929. Until this period, Lewis had professed strictly atheist beliefs for most of his intellectual life, but he became convinced that his studies and personal experience led him incontrovertibly towards a belief in theism. In his autobiography, Surprised by Joy (1955), Lewis described his reluctant conversion: "I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."

After a bit he became a Christian, not just a theist.

So I guess those guys were smarter than Lewis. I don't think so.

Tolkien was his friend and there have been many a brilliant bunch of people that have believed the Bible that scrutinized it.

http://www.enotes.com/c-s-lewis-6201...cism/lewis-c-s

[BabyChristian]

Originally Posted by Inzl Kett

You take quotes for 4 of the 56 founding father--the 4 least religious and build your whole premise off of that. As ACW said, that is pretty amateurish tactic.

No kidding. What a joke.

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
"Pioneers" of different movements are often times referred to as "founding fathers". Some of the "founding fathers" of TN and KY were also "Founding Fathers" of our nation, but even if they weren't it doesn't take away from the fact that they were "founders" (helped establish) of their respective states.

In other words, you have no idea who wrote the respective state constitutions,..

Nor do I really care. If you're really that interested, my research fee starts at $100 a minute (that's the special "Libertarian discount").

...realize you put your foot in your mouth when you whimsically labeled these unknown people "founders" and are now backtracking.

Just out of curiousity Ralphie, what would you call someone that writes the documents that sets the laws, etc. of a newly established state?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/founder


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You tell me what the legal ruling was, and we can discuss whether it was wise or not (Make it easy on yourself, type in W i k i p e d i a . c o m).

Been there, done that. Check the thread.

Tell me in your own words (none of that "copying and pasting" stuff).


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Why is it again that you want incest and bestiality laws enforced, but not homosexuality? (simple question + simple mind = simple answer).

Been there, done that at least three times now.

Actually you haven't. I really need to know why you would defend something that goes against the laws of the God you supposedly believe in (if you need me to show you where you state that God is the basis for all morals, I'll gladly do so), ESPECIALLY when it comes to His foundation for creating man and woman.

And I also need to know why you would outlaw something that, while God speaks against it, "humanist" man could easily say that it was a consensual act between father and daughter, or man and dolphin.

As I mentioned before Ralphie, incest and bestiality can't be as physically destructive as homosexuality (all those CDC studies ya know), so why would you NOT criminalize something that God abors when it comes to his intention for man and woman, plus something that is EXTREMELY physically harmful in the way of a sexual act?


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Sharia Law has nothing to do with "religious tests" Ralphie. Do you know anything about Sharia Law?

A religious test as in require that the candidate is Muslim.

Again, you're confused. The candidate who has been elected IS a Muzzie, and based on him being elected, is implementing Sharia Law.

But let's go back and talk about the wisdom of the establishment clause Ralphie. After all, if those wicked Christian Founding Fathers of our Christian founded republic had their say in today's culture, Bawney Fwank and Mohammed Mohammed wouldn't be holding public office anywhere in these here United States of America (Bawney would be in a mental institution with Ron Paul).



Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Now let's try this Ralphie: "Should a Muzzie dominated area be allowed to "enforce" Sharia Law here in the United States.

Of course not. Your turn.

Why?

Should an area in the US, which is majority Muslim, be able to require a religious test when determining a candidates eligibility for public office?

YES! Being that our nation was founded on Christian principles and laws, and NOT Muzzie principles? and laws, of course we should deny them the privelege (not to be confused with the right) of holding public office.

So there was this Muzzie, a Libertarian and a 13 year old dope smoking girl...

[aCultureWarrior]

While Ralphie contemplates his next brilliant move, attempting to avoid answering this question:

"I really need to know why you would defend something that goes against the laws of the God you supposedly believe in (if you need me to show you where you state that God is the basis for all morals, I'll gladly do so), ESPECIALLY when it comes to His foundation for creating man and woman.

And I also need to know why you would outlaw something that, while God speaks against it, "humanist" man could easily say that it was a consensual act between father and daughter, or man and dolphin.

As I mentioned before Ralphie, incest and bestiality can't be as physically destructive as homosexuality (all those CDC studies ya know), so why would you NOT criminalize something that God abors when it comes to his intention for man and woman, plus something that is EXTREMELY physically harmful in the way of a sexual act?

...I need him to answer this question as well:

Had the Founding Fathers of our Christian based constitutional republic NOT criminalized homosexuality (thus allowing two "consensual" buggerites to do their "thing" in the privacy of their own outhouse); and had the same Founding Fathers used the reasoning that by criminalizing incest, laws would help avoid birth defects that include mental retardation, wouldn't they be putting the so-called "rights" of the sexually perverted above the God-given rights of the unborn, even those that aren't born physically "perfect"?

[WizardofOz]

In other words, you have no idea who wrote the respective state constitutions,..

So stop making claims you have absolutely no evidence for. Just a thought. Don't claim someone is a founding father when you don't even know who that person is.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Just out of curiousity Ralphie, what would you call someone that writes the documents that sets the laws, etc. of a newly established state?

I would start with their actual name. Wouldn't identifying the person be the place to start?

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Tell me in your own words (none of that "copying and pasting" stuff).

Really? It's quite simple and found in Section 1 of the amendment.

The First Amendment features the "establishment clause". You know what that is, right? Or do I need to explain the establishment clause to you as well?

The Fourteenth Amendment features a "Due Process Clause". In the previously cited ruling for Everson v. Board of Education, the court ruled that the establishment clause is also binding upon each state of the union through the establishment clause, which "prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness" (section 1 of the fourteenth)

The court ruled that requiring a religious test deprives people of the liberty guaranteed in the First Amendment even if the test is at the state or local level.

A religious test for public office is thereby unconstitutional. Now if you disagree with the ruling, just say so I could go on so let me know if this doesn't make sense and I will happily expand the argument.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Actually you haven't. I really need to know why you would defend something that goes against the laws of the God you supposedly believe in

Just like you defend blasphemy and witchcraft despite the fact that they go against the laws of the God you supposedly believe in. You really never tire of being a miserable hypocrite, do you?

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

And I also need to know why you would outlaw something that, while God speaks against it, "humanist" man could easily say that it was a consensual act between father and daughter, or man and dolphin.

I have already made my case explaining why incest and bestiality should be illegal. How about you...why should incest between adults be illegal? Let's hear your thought-provoking argument.....

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Again, you're confused. The candidate who has been elected IS a Muzzie, and based on him being elected, is implementing Sharia Law.

No, you're confused. The candidate being a Muslim is what would make him or her eligible for office to begin with. The religious test for office could be as simple as requiring a candidate swears an oath to Allah and Islam.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

YES! Being that our nation was founded on Christian principles and laws, and NOT Muzzie principles? and laws, of course we should deny them the privelege (not to be confused with the right) of holding public office.

Ah, so the only people you think should be allowed into public office would be professed Christians. Is that accurate? No Muslims or atheists should be allowed to hold office?

Stewart: Do you feel like the majority in a locality should be able to determine… Barton: Yes, yes, and here in New York City, there’s schools that are 100 percent Hasidic Jewish, and I think they should be allowed to have Hasidic Jewish practices there because all 100 percent kids are… Stewart: So you would allow, like, let’s say Dearborn, Michigan was majority Muslim… Barton: And it is. Stewart: Are you all right with Sharia law and the whole business… Barton: Sure, sure. Stewart: Well, that’s consistent. Barton: But for somebody from the outside to come in and say “I don’t like this, you can’t do it” that’s what I have trouble with.

Video and transcript

I guess you're at odds with your hero David Barton who thinks that if enough Muslims reside in a particular area they should be able to implement their own religious law on all in the area.

drbrumbley - what arguments of Barton's do you like? The more I research him the more obvious it is what a revisionist he is.

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

In other words, you have no idea who wrote the respective state constitutions,..

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Nor do I really care.

So stop making claims you have absolutely no evidence for. Just a thought. Don't claim someone is a founding father when you don't even know who that person is.

So in order to use the term "The Founding Fathers of our Christian based Constitutional Republic", one must be able to name all 56 in order to give validity to the term?


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Just out of curiousity Ralphie, what would you call someone that writes the documents that sets the laws, etc. of a newly established state?

I would start with their actual name. Wouldn't identifying the person be the place to start?

So instead of using the terms "Founding Fathers of America" or "Founding Fathers of Kentucky", I really should be saying "George, Thomas, Benjamin, John, etc. etc. etc. who were the Founding Fathers of America"?


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Tell me in your own words (none of that "copying and pasting" stuff).

Really? It's quite simple and found in Section 1 of the amendment.

The First Amendment features the "establishment clause". You know what that is, right? Or do I need to explain the establishment clause to you as well?

The Fourteenth Amendment features a "Due Process Clause". In the previously cited ruling for Everson v. Board of Education, the court ruled that the establishment clause is also binding upon each state of the union through the establishment clause, which "prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness" (section 1 of the fourteenth)

The court ruled that requiring a religious test deprives people of the liberty guaranteed in the First Amendment even if the test is at the state or local level.

A religious test for public office is thereby unconstitutional. Now if you disagree with the ruling, just say so I could go on so let me know if this doesn't make sense and I will happily expand the argument.

As I pointed out many a time (before you go off on one of your "blasphemy/witchcraft" rants), while I'm NOT in favor of requiring people to believe in the God of The Holy Bible or have a state established religion that requires them to do so, I AM in favor of religious tests for those that want to hold public office; that test being "Are you of the Christian faith and will you legislate accordingly?"

Sorry Ralphie, if that were the case, Ron Paul wouldn't be getting his $174,000 a year and have a 24 year job with the Federal government.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Actually you haven't. I really need to know why you would defend something that goes against the laws of the God you supposedly believe in

Just like you defend blasphemy and witchcraft despite the fact that they go against the laws of the God you supposedly believe in. You really never tire of being a miserable hypocrite, do you?

If you CONSTANTLY answered a direct question from the opposing counsel in a court of law with a question, you would be held in contempt.

Now answer the important questions (including the last post that I made).


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
And I also need to know why you would outlaw something that, while God speaks against it, "humanist" man could easily say that it was a consensual act between father and daughter, or man and dolphin.

I have already made my case explaining why incest and bestiality should be illegal. How about you...why should incest between adults be illegal? Let's hear your thought-provoking argument.....

The jury would like you to answer again. And for the record, you will be held in contempt of court if you continue to answer a direct line of questioning with a question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Again, you're confused. The candidate who has been elected IS a Muzzie, and based on him being elected, is implementing Sharia Law.

No, you're confused. The candidate being a Muslim is what would make him or her eligible for office to begin with. The religious test for office could be as simple as requiring a candidate swears an oath to Allah and Islam.

Those electing him already gave him the "religious test", as they know his religion. Regarding the the latter part, I'll address that in the David Barton part of this post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
YES! Being that our nation was founded on Christian principles and laws, and NOT Muzzie principles? and laws, of course we should deny them the privelege (not to be confused with the right) of holding public office.

Ah, so the only people you think should be allowed into public office would be professed Christians. Is that accurate? No Muslims or atheists should be allowed to hold office?

It depends on if you like pro abortion, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution and recreational drug laws. If you do, then Christian legislators aren't the ones for you.

On the otherhand, if you like fathers murdering their daughters because they flirted with someone outside of their religion, then Sharia Law is just for you.

Stewart: Do you feel like the majority in a locality should be able to determine…
Barton: Yes, yes, and here in New York City, there’s schools that are 100 percent Hasidic Jewish, and I think they should be allowed to have Hasidic Jewish practices there because all 100 percent kids are…
Stewart: So you would allow, like, let’s say Dearborn, Michigan was majority Muslim…
Barton: And it is.
Stewart: Are you all right with Sharia law and the whole business…
Barton: Sure, sure.
Stewart: Well, that’s consistent.
Barton: But for somebody from the outside to come in and say “I don’t like this, you can’t do it” that’s what I have trouble with.



Video and transcript

I guess you're at odds with your hero David Barton who thinks that if enough Muslims reside in a particular area they should be able to implement their own religious law on all in the area.

Thank you for the link. I enjoyed the video immensely (boy,that David Barton sure doesn't know a thing about the founding of our country; John Stewart sure "schooled him").

Norman Lear's "People for the American Way":

"ACLU Announces Rights / Camera / Action"

NEW YORK - Rights / Camera / Action, a new program of the American Civil Liberties Union that uses the arts and popular culture as a platform for civil liberties discussions, kicks off this Sunday, June 8 with a panel discussion at the 2008 ACLU Membership Conference in Washington, D.C. Rights / Camera / Action will bring together artists and entertainment professionals, civil liberties experts, activists and public audiences of all ages to talk about the wide range of civil liberties issues addressed in film and the arts historically and currently.

As part of the Rights / Camera / Action program, the ACLU is working with the Norman Lear Center to study how portrayals of government power in popular film and television affect audiences' understanding of civil liberties. The findings will be published and presented to entertainment industry leaders later this year.

"Engaging the entertainment industry and its audiences in an ongoing dialogue about where cinema and civil liberties, art and commerce, expression and activism meet is a goal the Lear Center shares with the ACLU and we are excited about working with them on this project," said Martin Kaplan, Director of the Norman Lear Center. "This collaboration will serve the academic, entertainment, civil liberties and public communities well, individually and together."
http://www.aclu.org/organization-new...-camera-action

Commies hanging out with commies, how unusual.

"On Monday night, stars and political leaders gathered in Los Angeles to celebrate the 30th anniversary of People For the American Way Foundation and the 89th birthday of PFAW Foundation founder Norman Lear. California Gov. Jerry Brown, PFAW Foundation board members Alec Baldwin and Tracey Edmonds, Jane Lynch, will.i.am, Rob Reiner, J.J. Abrams, Lisa Ling and others joined the celebration.

Entertainment Tonight was there and put together this video of stars discussing the influence of Norman Lear and the importance of People For the American Way Foundation’s work:

The Huffington Post was also there and filed this report. Among the speakers at the event was Lynch, who spoke about the importance of PFAW Foundation’s work on marriage equality:

Lynch spoke of her marriage to her wife, Lara Embry, in 2010 in Massachusetts. On equality for all, she said to the room, "You have been fighting for me, and I thank you. This is a topic that is particularly important to me. Last time I checked, same-sex marriage has not ruined anyone else's marriage."
http://blog.pfaw.org/content/video-s...faw-foundation

You're hanging out with the right crowd Ralphie, a bunch of fags and communists. (Thanks for providing me with more ammunition).

Regarding David Barton's supposed approval of Muzzie law in places like DEEtroit Michigan:

I think if you sat down and presented the case against Muzzie legislators, and how the Founding Fathers would have looked at the Muzzie influence in current America, Barton would be DEAD AGAINST allowing them to hold public office.

[WizardofOz]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

So in order to use the term "The Founding Fathers of our Christian based Constitutional Republic", one must be able to name all 56 in order to give validity to the term?

Before labeling someone a founding father, know who the person is first. You're declaring an unnamed person a founding father. That's just dumb.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

As I pointed out many a time (before you go off on one of your "blasphemy/witchcraft" rants), while I'm NOT in favor of requiring people to believe in the God of The Holy Bible or have a state established religion that requires them to do so, I AM in favor of religious tests for those that want to hold public office; that test being "Are you of the Christian faith and will you legislate accordingly?"

We'll deal with this latest bit of insanity is a new thread. Perhaps some people who you go to for advice will be able to talk some sense into you.

You are more delusional than previous thought if you think you and David Barton have it right and everyone else has it wrong.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

If you CONSTANTLY answered a direct question from the opposing counsel in a court of law with a question, you would be held in contempt.

Now answer the important questions (including the last post that I made).

The jury would like you to answer again. And for the record, you will be held in contempt of court if you continue to answer a direct line of questioning with a question.

Held in contempt? You've lost your mind.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

On the otherhand, if you like fathers murdering their daughters because they flirted with someone outside of their religion, then Sharia Law is just for you.

Of course I do not think there should be ANY religious tests for public office whatsoever.

I am asking you to make your case. Why shouldn't Muslim communities be able to require a religious test for office? Why shouldn't Protestant communities be able to require a Protestant test? Why shouldn't Jewish communities be able to require a Jewish test? etc etc....

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Regarding David Barton's supposed approval of Muzzie law in places like DEEtroit Michigan:

I think if you sat down and presented the case against Muzzie legislators, and how the Founding Fathers would have looked at the Muzzie influence in current America, Barton would be DEAD AGAINST allowing them to hold public office.

Well, at least you're satisfied with your conjecture.
Conjecture makes a very compelling argument.

[aCultureWarrior]

Wise move Ralphie; when you've been defeated on every front, start a new thread.

[WizardofOz]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Wise move Ralphie; when you've been defeated on every front, start a new thread.

I split off one aspect of your insanity. The rest of your arguments are still be deconstructed and my counterarguments will always be here for you to address.

Now you can be exposed in two threads instead of just one

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

I split off one aspect of your insanity. The rest of your arguments are still be deconstructed and my counterarguments will always be here for you to address.

Now you can be exposed in two threads instead of just one

I see in another thread that you're a fan of Moveon.org.

Why am I not surprised?

Two Lesbians Raised A Baby And This Is What They Got
http://front.moveon.org/two-lesbians...-what-they-got

Stand Up, Rise Up! March To Wall Street Oct. 5
http://front.moveon.org/stand-up-ris...-street-oct-5/

I like this one. Look at some of the other sponsors besides Moveon.org (Planned Parenthood, Code Pink, COWS).
http://civic.moveon.org/event/events...?action_id=245

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
As I pointed out many a time (before you go off on one of your "blasphemy/witchcraft" rants), while I'm NOT in favor of requiring people to believe in the God of The Holy Bible or have a state established religion that requires them to do so, I AM in favor of religious tests for those that want to hold public office; that test being "Are you of the Christian faith and will you legislate accordingly?"

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

We'll deal with this latest bit of insanity is a new thread. Perhaps some people who you go to for advice will be able to talk some sense into you.

It's extremely rare that I even look at one of your threads, let alone post in it (don't hold your breath Ralphie).

You are more delusional than previous thought if you think you and David Barton have it right and everyone else has it wrong.

When you say "everyone else", you're of course talking about the communist founded ACLU and their brethen at People for the American Way and other leftwing organizations, right?


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
On the otherhand, if you like fathers murdering their daughters because they flirted with someone outside of their religion, then Sharia Law is just for you. [/quote]

Of course I do not think there should be ANY religious tests for public office whatsoever.

Everyone has a "religion" Ralphie. And as I mentioned, while the state doesn't hold a test, the constituents of the respective district do. What are your thoughts on atheists holding public office and legislating according to their worldview? (If that's what the people want, fine?).

I am asking you to make your case. Why shouldn't Muslim communities be able to require a religious test for office? Why shouldn't Protestant communities be able to require a Protestant test? Why shouldn't Jewish communities be able to require a Jewish test? etc etc....

If we want to turn this country into one multi-cultural sewer (and we're rapidly submerging in to it), then go for it. As this thread has shown: our country was founded by Christian men, with Christian laws and Christian culture. If you want to destroy it, embrace multicultaralism with open arms.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding David Barton's supposed approval of Muzzie law in places like DEEtroit Michigan:

I think if you sat down and presented the case against Muzzie legislators, and how the Founding Fathers would have looked at the Muzzie influence in current America, Barton would be DEAD AGAINST allowing them to hold public office.

Well, at least you're satisfied with your conjecture.
Conjecture makes a very compelling argument.

Call and ask him yourself:

(817)441.6044

[WizardofOz]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

It's extremely rare that I even look at one of your threads, let alone post in it (don't hold your breath Ralphie).

That's great if you don't. The intelligence level of the conversation in general is always significantly improved when you're not a part of it.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Everyone has a "religion" Ralphie. And as I mentioned, while the state doesn't hold a test

The question is whether or not you can tell me why they do not.....that's the issue, isn't it?

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

the constituents of the respective district do. What are your thoughts on atheists holding public office and legislating according to their worldview? (If that's what the people want, fine?).

How can an atheist legislate according to their worldview?

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

If we want to turn this country into one multi-cultural sewer (and we're rapidly submerging in to it),

America was founded on multiculturalism. Look at the history of immigrants coming through Ellis Island; Italian culture was different than Irish culture which was different than German culture et al.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

As this thread has shown: our country was founded by Christian men

This country was founded by men, many of whom happened to be Christian.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

with Christian laws

Inaccurate

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

and Christian culture.

Whatever that means.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I think if you sat down and presented the case against Muzzie legislators, and how the Founding Fathers would have looked at the Muzzie influence in current America, Barton would be DEAD AGAINST allowing them to hold public office. Call and ask him yourself:

(817)441.6044

Then why did he say "sure, sure" when asked if Dearborn MI should be allowed to enforce an Islamic test for public office?

I don't need to call him, the video and transcript speak for themselves.

[Sum1sGruj]

Land of Liberal "Truths" About the Founding Fathers and Secularism

[Granite]

They were flawed men who didn't seek veneration and who in most cases would be horrified of the idolatry heaped on them today.