My daughter says ..

[piece-itpete]

I agree with you D, but consider that the Bible was extensively taught in early American schools and did not result in a theocracy. Of course we were much stronger people then.

Btw, a fleeting memory popped up in my mind - while the Bible was not taught in school while I attended one of my elementary teachers, while discussing the battle where Washington had two horses shot out from him and 6? bullet holes in his jacket, blazed with intensity and said 'He was protected by God'.

Which is clearly why I'm an advocate of tyranny today

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

So the US was an atheist nation?

No, Pete. To be an "atheist nation" would require that we took the official position of atheism that there is no god.

John[/QUOTE]

[d-ray657]

I agree with the reasoning of the Supreme Court decisions upholding the principle that the state cannot prop up religion, and that any excessive entanglement between state authority and religion is a threat to religious liberty. Aside from that, folks like Barton appear to have a much broader agenda than promoting prayer and bible study in public schools.

With respect to the Washington quote, it is entirely appropriate for leaders to have deep religious beliefs. They don't abandon that right by becoming a public official. They do, however, take an oath to uphold the Constitution and their actions in the public sphere must reflect that oath.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

We are a 'nothing' nation? Hmmm....

D rereading my post I'm afraid I've been guilty of being unclear. My teacher 'blazed with intensity and said 'He was protected by God' '.

We (in this case, the government) have always promoted Christianity, and still are.

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

We are a 'nothing' nation? Hmmm....

Pete, that's just dumb.

My teacher 'blazed with intensity and said 'He was protected by God' '.

We (in this case, the government) have always promoted Christianity, and still are.

Well, your teacher did, or at least promoted theism, but for your assertion to be true it would require that those words (s)he spoke were read from the official government approved text book or lesson plan.

How is the government "still" promoting Christianity? Is there a cross on the wall of the Senate or House chamber? A statue of Jesus atop the Washington Monument? An Angel perched on Lincoln's shoulder at his Memorial? Anything?

John

[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]

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]

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?