Thread: Is displaying the Declaration of Independence in government buildings and schools unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by American

Bull****, a force can't bestow inalienable rights upon you. What comic book did you read that in?

Perhaps you misread my post. I was referring to what they thought a creator might be since they were deists. In this way, the creator might be anything at all including some force or unknown thing as well as some God of sorts. And no, I did not read this in a comic book. Rather, I read Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Kant and others. Have you?

Originally Posted by ttwtt78640

Nope, because it does not establish any particular religion.

Nor imply forcing such on others.

Originally Posted by Vadinho

Perhaps you misread my post. I was referring to what they thought a creator might be since they were deists. In this way, the creator might be anything at all including some force or unknown thing as well as some God of sorts. And no, I did not read this in a comic book. Rather, I read Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Kant and others. Have you?

The deists stories aren't even proven, except for atheists and others who don't want to acknowledge that most of our founders were Christian.

Originally Posted by American

The deists stories aren't even proven, except for atheists and others who don't want to acknowledge that most of our founders were Christian.

If his own statements in his letters dont prove it, what would?

Originally Posted by American

The deists stories aren't even proven, except for atheists and others who don't want to acknowledge that most of our founders were Christian.

Oh I think the presence of deists in the founding members is well documented. You must be a Barton reader to make such claims.

Originally Posted by American

The deists stories aren't even proven, except for atheists and others who don't want to acknowledge that most of our founders were Christian.

Diests were present within the founding group even though some might have called themselves Christians in name only. Surely you are not arguing that Jefferson was not a deist.

Originally Posted by Vadinho

Diests were present within the founding group even though some might have called themselves Christians in name only. Surely you are not arguing that Jefferson was not a deist.

You started using the term deists, and you did it for a reason; as most do. They don't want to acknowledge the existence of Christian thought in the founding of our country's politics. Deist was a term used during the Enlightenment, and basically you don't see it any other time. It's still Christian based, unless you want to try to sell us on the idea that Jefferson Bible was based on Islam?

Originally Posted by American

You started using the term deists, and you did it for a reason; as most do. They don't want to acknowledge the existence of Christian thought in the founding of our country's politics. Deist was a term used during the Enlightenment, and basically you don't see it any other time. It's still Christian based, unless you want to try to sell us on the idea that Jefferson Bible was based on Islam?

You brought up Christianity in order to destroy the influence of deism in the enlightenment period. Like Dan Barton, some Christians desperately want to link any progress made by mankind to Christianity while treating the horrors of that religion like a forgotten uncle. Christian thought had virtually nothing to do with the DoC or the Constitution but some persist as you seem to do here. Believe whatever you want, I could care less. History is not dependent upon a common understanding by observers 230 years later.

Originally Posted by Vadinho

You brought up Christianity in order to destroy the influence of deism in the enlightenment period. Like Dan Barton, some Christians desperately want to link any progress made by mankind to Christianity while treating the horrors of that religion like a forgotten uncle. Christian thought had virtually nothing to do with the DoC or the Constitution but some persist as you seem to do here. Believe whatever you want, I could care less. History is not dependent upon a common understanding by observers 230 years later.

Yeah, like your very liberal self.

Originally Posted by American

Yeah, like your very liberal self.

Does the world divide itself for you along partisan lines or do you entertain the concept of objective truths independent of the observer? What I have been trying to teach you is reality, you have been trying to defend a story you have been taught. Stories serve purposes but they usually do not serve the truth especially when created by folks with an agenda. Christian apologists have been trying to claim authorship for the ideas that formed the enlightenment and thus our founding documents and even the French Revolution. It works sometimes but not with historians or students of history. I suggest you look up Thomas Paine for more guidance.