Do any of you see any line between disagreement & insults?  Not that I’m claiming to have never crossed the line, but I try (not to).  Do you feel insulted when others disagree with you?  As for emotional investment, I actually see a value in this kind of commitment, & believe that we all do it in some form or another.  For example, we stay commited to another person even when s/he hurts us because of the emotional investment, & over the long haul, this often pays off.  An atheist might have too much of an emotional investment in his/her own reputation & intelligence to yeild that to anything else for ANY kind of other good.

Ellie,
I’m sorry if it was taken as a insult or put-down. It was meant as instruction to understand how some of us have arrived at our opinions. That’s not to say our opinions are better or worse, just different. One of the problems with fundies is their attempt to show that their opinions are better. Another indication of what the founding fathers were trying to protect this country from: religious tyrany.

I am sorry for starting the insults by responding sarcastically to Spocko’s post, I will try not to do so in the future.  But if I slip, please tell me so rather than responding in kind.  I dish it out assuming fun play, then don’t accept it in the same fashion.

All’s forgiven

Do you now see how fifth graders would have some trouble sorting out these kinds of decisions? Even we adults have problems with them.

If you have no interest in understanding, then by all means, ignore me!  It frustrates me that I’m labeled closed-minded or delusional when I don’t agree.  Those are personal attacks, not persuasive arguments.

I wish EE had the capability to ignore you.

In this particular case, the pot is calling the kettle black. We have a claim, with a selection of quotes in support - for what they are worth. We have a counterclaim, which amounts to “did not” and find out yourself why I’m right.

Are you trying to say that calling you to support your own claims is a personal attack?

Do any of you see any line between disagreement & insults?

Apparently you don’t.

Ellie, I’ve noticed you often make statements that assume some perspective not given (such as an unusual meaning to a word, or some historically unsupported change of mind attributed to one of the founding fathers) and then act wronged when someone calls you on it.  (And then magnanimously offer forgiveness - gee, thanks!) As for getting insulted in vigorous discussion, well, grow up.  At least grow a skin.

Sarcasm, while often overused, is a valuable way of exposing absurdity.  If you get all sensitive about it, you’ll miss the point.

You’re basically demanding that others treat you with kid-gloves; “It frustrates me that I’m labeled closed-minded or delusional when I don’t agree.” Yes, that is the response you will get when you reject evidence with vague references to a vast body of knowledge you supposedly have, and then say:

I’m not really concerned with proving anything

Right - we figured that out already.

DOF

But wait, how can you be so insensitive!

you often make statements that assume some perspective not given (such as an unusual meaning to a word, ...) and then act wronged when someone calls you on it.

Upon reflection, that reminds me of David, too.

Hmmmm.

Let me see if I can summarize this thread:

ellie:  the founding fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation.

SEB: no, they didn’t.  (quotes listed)

ellie:  those were taken out of context, and besides, they’re too few to matter.

SEB:  no, they weren’t.  (more quotes, with illustrations)

ellie:  well, the founding fathers were doody-heads.

ellie:  I’m feeling outsmarted by all of y’all, you elitist scum.  It must be because you’re evil atheists.

No, David tried all these arguments in some form or another on us, and based on our refutations, refined his arguments into a more complicated and varied position.  If David were back, he wouldn’t be starting from square one again like this.

PS - Les, Spocko’s excellent post ought to be added to the FAQ.

Again, I don’t have much to add to what’s been said eloquently here by others.  My thanks especially to Spocko for the great research- this is what makes history come alive.  Which leads to this:

Founding fathers, excluding Jefferson (who was an elitist, racist, mysogonistic in my humble opinion,) contrary to Spocko’s biased opinion quotes based in little facts & quotes out of context, though not devout or fanatic, took Judeo-Christian beliefs for universally held common sense.

ellie- your evidence?  From you we’ve had, so far, merely lots of opinion on this and zero facts.

And as far as Jefferson being a misogynist- I’m sure he was.  And so is the Judeo-Christian God, and Jesus.  This not to excuse misogyny, merely to place it in historical context.  If you disagree, I’ve got lots of Bible quotes ready.  But then you know the Bible already.

ellie- your evidence?

That should be obvious. The Bible and church groups, of course.

It’s getting a little nasty in here....  Let’s all take a moment and reflect upon how cute kittens are.

Yes, I like a little pussy. (OOPS)

Now THAT was nasty.

Posted by leguru:
the strongest human motivation is fantasy.

This I will disagree with.  The strongest human motivation is selfishness.  Selfishness is the cause of the creation of democracy and capitalism IMHO.  Selfishness is the cause of class struggle, poverty, and the political machine.  I’m surprised no one felt the need to comment on my post.

It’s getting a little nasty in here....  Let’s all take a moment and reflect upon how cute kittens are.

Happy to help out!

Umm, who’s David?

GeekMom, I don’t think the founding fathers intended this too be a Christian nation, but that several of them exhibited Christian lives, which is why I haven’t posted entire books that I’ve read on the events in their lives & the actions they took in response (which I figure you can but yourselves), to which Spocko never responded, & what is this about them being doody heads?  What I said about ONE founding father (MUCH earlier), Jefferson, was simply his slave ownership, mistresses, argument against a national bank and picking & choosing what parts of God’s Word he thought were relevant that I don’t like.  I don’t feel outsmarted.

DOF, the forgiveness wasn’t offered “magnanimously” to you, because you didn’t say anything, but to one who asked for it, so far no one has offered me the forgivenes that I asked for, “magnanimously” or not, only harsher & crueler condemnation, thanks for making my point, SocialistSwine.

to get back “on topic” I was wondering do y’all think this country is more “Christian” than others on the planet?  If not, can you give examples of others? If so, why?  Is it in spite of the original intents when the government was founded?

My understanding is that the founders intended to create a society where people of different beliefs could coexist without slaughtering one another. 

The term, “Christian” is often bandied about as if everyone agreed on what it means.  In that function, it’s a container for other properties.

Can a nation be said to be “Christian?” It presupposes another discussion in which the characteristic properties of “Christian” are agreed upon and applied to the average character of the nation. 

Seems like the founding fathers were concerned with the balance of these two properties: “free” and “just.” We have our work cut out just defining those, but they’re not uniquely “Christian” properties.

I actually don’t find the United States to be all that Christian.  There are more people who refer to themselves as Christian in the US than most the other developed nations in North America and Europe. 

However, many third world nations in Africa and South America are much more Christian (at least have a greater percentage of the population report that they’re Christian).  Also there are a few other developed nations, such as Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy which have very Christian populations.

to get back “on topic� I was wondering do y’all think this country is more “Christian� than others on the planet?

I thought the topic was the religious beliefs of the founding fathers and one teacher’s attempt to proselytize to his 5th grade class.  Did I misread the first post?  With the exception of the especially cute kittens (thanks decrepitoldfool), I think that the discussion has stayed on topic. 

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest Vatican City may have a higher percentage of Christians than the U.S. 

I do not believe the U.S. is more “Christian” than others.  I do beleive that the christian comunity(Generally) in the U.S. doesn’t believe there is merit in the secular state.  France on the other hand may be taking the secular state thing a little far with the whole state schools and religious icons debate.
Good social policy often flies in the face of Christian belief.  The last Canadian Prime Minister was a Catholic and was branded the modern day anti-christ because of his support for same-sex marriage which would make another minority feel included by our society.  Is that a bad thing?

(ellie) so far no one has offered me the forgivenes that I asked for

That’s probably because one could reasonably doubt your sincereness. A simple “oops, my bad” suffices, but not when preceeded by “up yours, too”.