My daughter says ..

[finnbow]

Pete - With all due respect, there is absolutely nothing in our constitution and subsequent laws or court rulings that support your position. Zero, zip, nada. And that's exactly why Barton and his ilk are forced to revise history to comport with their erroneous views as to the primacy of Christian beliefs in current day public policy. They can't win the argument on the basis of law, so they make this sh_t up, plain and simple. Their anectodal (and often false) assertions have no relevance.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Pete - With all due respect, there is absolutely nothing in our constitution and subsequent laws or court rulings that support your position. Zero, zip, nada. And that's exactly why Barton and his ilk are forced to revise history to comport with their erroneous views as to the primacy of Christian beliefs in current day public policy. They can't win the argument on the basis of law, so they make this sh_t up, plain and simple. Their anectodal (and often false) assertions have no relevance.

Not law - practice. Those who say we weren't a Christian nation are the revisionists.

Pete

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_England_Primer

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Not law - practice. Those who say we weren't a Christian nation are the revisionists.

I notice that you've used the past tense in this assertion several times. We were also a slaveholding nation, a genocidal nation (the Indian Wars), and a nation that denied the vote to woman and blacks (among others), among other unsavory attributes.

I fail to see the relevance of what we once were (a slaveholding nation) or what me may have been (a Christian nation) to today's public policy debate.

What is the relevance, and moreover your point, in your whole Christian Nation argument?

[piece-itpete]

http://chaplain.house.gov/

http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm

And of course, Obama has Wright

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

http://chaplain.house.gov/

You noticed, I presume, that the featured events included:

■Muslim Congressional Jummah Prayer Service
■Weekly Torah Study

This notwithstanding, I'd be interested in knowing the exact motivation behind your Christian Nation assertions. What point are you trying to make with this anyway?

[piece-itpete]

Yes indeed, those things equate to Christianity Finn

We can at least discuss things from an accurate historical viewpoint instead of tossing up whatever we want it to be.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Yes indeed, those things equate to Christianity Finn

We can at least discuss things from an accurate historical viewpoint instead of tossing up whatever we want it to be.

Pete

I didn't mean to equate them (even though they were perpetrated by a "Christian Nation" per your assertion.) My only point is that there are things we at one time may have been, but what does that have to do with anything moving forward?

Honestly, I would like to know what the motivation behind your (and Barton's) argument that we were a Christian nation (and that somehow today we're not). Why do you argue this point, ad nauseum, and why does he devote his life and a website to this quixotic argument.

Just for the sake of argument, let me stipulate your point. Again, so what?

[piece-itpete]

It absolutely applies to the original post. Go back to the first page and read from the beginning.

It also begs the question, what is 'free'? The Founders clearly had a different meaning than we do now, as I believe this thread shows.

Pete

[finnbow]

Well, back to the OP. If it is a Bible Study course in public school, it's inappropriate and should be discontinued. I don't think any reading of the First Amendment by any court anywhere would find otherwise.

OTOH, if it's a course on the history of religion, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc., it is entirely appropriate and likely a very interesting and valuable course. All of my kids have taken such a course and found it to be quite interesting and useful.

[piece-itpete]

See? That's what I was getting at. Where along the line did it become impermissable? I think that's a legitimate question....

Pete