worldnetdaily.com — "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson told his national radio audience. He even accused Obama of having a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."
Jun 27, 2008 View in Crawl 4
phyraxusJun 28, 2008
How much would you'd you bet that nearly every time they praise religion is during some kind of public setting? On the other hand, how much you'd want to bet that they showed their disdain for religion in some kind of private setting?
grahamjjJun 28, 2008
That is the opposite of what Washington said in his farewell address. You can ignorantly believe a lie but its just wishful thinking. These guy put there families homes and property on the line and prayed constantly for God to help them in their fight for their lives. Religion and morality was important then and it is today.
staticthunderJun 30, 2008
I do not think that free speech means freedom from ridicule.
grahamjjJul 1, 2008
You've called David Barton a fraud and he has given you enough evidence to convince most any open minded person. You have quote-mined him until something fraudulent could be misconstrued. I think Jesus came up against this kind of aproach as well. Barton sites hundreds of court cases and founders intentions and quotes. He doesn't site a 'mined' quote or lines from the founders writing but reveals their intentions which the courts in the US also established until Earl Warren rewrote the first amendment without siting a single precedent. When I read the first amendment I am enraged at what the Orwellian Warren court did to America in Engel v Vitale and Stone V Graham.They should have been impeached at least or tried for treason at the worst. Dimensio we have written back and forth several times. I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure I have wasted my time responding to your questions but what the heck.
apokalypsenowJul 1, 2008
Where does law come from? From the desire to enforce standards of acceptable behavior in order to maintain a workable society. Laws have been around far longer than your religion.
staticthunderJul 1, 2008
Yes, the law completely prevents people from stealing others wives - in fact, the law looks at them just like property, right? Thats what the Bible would have me do. And if you steal my car, I'm not going to steal yours, right? There is no incentive other than fear of damnation that prevents auto-theft, if I take your meaning?Bulls**t. Moral authority comes from bands of men who are willing to use coercive force, not from some invisible sky-wizard.
mgraham78Jul 7, 2008
Phyraxus, If grahamjj was intending to give a comprehensive survey of the thought of the founding father's, then MAYBE your reponse to him would be something other than mere cynicism. Why don't you produce some quotes, or some historical study that supports the your notion that the founding fathers showed a "distain for religion"? It's certainly not obvious to everyone that the founding fathers had a distain for religion.Also, your saying, "how much you'd want to bet that they showed their distain for religion in some kind of private setting?" isn't an argument. Even if grahamjj didn't prove his case, at least he gave you quotes. You just responded with sarcasm. If you have an argument for something, why don't you offer it.