and neither do I. AJ you're way out of line. You don't seem to have much reading credibility these days. How many times have I said that I am not trying to establish a Federal Religion? How many times have I said that the Constitution is perfect as written? How many times have I spoken about "freedom of" vs "freedom from?"
You need to do some historical reading....not revisionist history mind you....not somebody's opinion mind you....go back and read the founding father's own writings. We are fortunate that we have a vast library of historical evidence to wade through. Dead men, in this case, do indeed still speak.
Oh, and while you're at it......I got this advice from a person who spends a very large amount of time sifting thru these historical records. She said this to me when I told her about this debate:
My suggestion is to go to the 1828 dictionary and learn the definition of deist then and then look at the modern version of the meaning deist. And another suggestion is to learn as much as you can about the so called ‘deist’ Thomas Jefferson and ask people why he wrote a version of the bible using only Jesus’ words and quote them the quotes that Jefferson stated about Jesus. Lastly – have fun educating the public!
I'm not saying you are, what I am saying is that your statement implies that our nation is conceived out of Christian principles, and it isn't. Enlightenment principles, KFC.
By the way:
1828 Webster's dictionary, entry for deist.
DEIST, n. One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion, but follows the light of nature and reason, as his only guides in doctrine and practice; a freethinker.
Yup, that still sounds like Jefferson. Oh, and I do read his writings, and I also read other founding writings. I'm assuming you forgot that I've mentioned my fascination and, in some cases, fanatical interest, in history.
Also, mind explaining to me what your definition of revisionist history is?
Not according to what is says in #1, 2, not until you get to #5 do you even see the word christian and with that they mention a splinter religion the Christian Scientists, your argument makes no sense. Only you and people that choose to make the leap if illogic see it as you do.
First off, I should apologize for the terminology. I tend to use the word Christian, as an all encompassing and generic term for religion.
Secondly, the passage in the dictionary would have both god and God.
Thirdly, the entry clearly defines the difference between a Supreme God, and a god. The former being, more than likely, the Christian god. (As well as juidaic, et al.)Lets take a look at this again:
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. -- The term SB is primarily a Christ./Islam, Hindu and Deist reference. It means, the one, or The God.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. - Again, as I previously stated.
3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. -- More than likely this references polytheism
4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. -- general use, laymans term and possible polytheism reference.
5. Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. ( lowercase ) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. ( lowercase ) any deified person or object.
8. ( often lowercase ) Gods, Theater . a. the upper balcony in a theater.
b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.
In the English language, the rules state that one must capitalize God, because of it being a proper noun, specificying an existance; implying an existance, and going back to the previously mentioned faiths. Why capitalize the G in the word god when it really isn't in existance? It, by the rules of grammar, is considered a specific person, place, or thing.
You see? Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough