alt.education

Peter Franks wrote:

>:|buckeye wrote:
>:|> Peter Franks wrote:
>:|>
>:|>> :|buckeye wrote:
>:|>> :|> A CHALLENGE TO ANYONE
>:|>> :|>
>:|>> :|> I challenge you or anyone else to show, with valid primary souce historical
>:|>> :|> documentation, valid secondary source documentation/commentary, cites etc
>:|>> :|> by respected scholars that THIS COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN
>:|>> :|> NATION. (That perhaps most of the citizens who were religious were
>:|>> :|> Christian does not qualify)
>:|>> :|>
>:|>> :|> I doubt that you or anyone else would ever accept this challeged because it
>:|>> :|> is a myth and therefore can''t be shown to be true.
>:|>> :|
>:|>> :|Christian, no.
>:|>> :|
>:|>> :|Deity, yes. Source: Declaration of Independence
>:|>> :|
>:|>
>:|> Diety nation? LOL
>:|>
>:|> Oooohhhhhhhh boy. The DOI didn't found anything.
>:|>
>:|> Your "source" is a non source.
>:|> Better luck next time
>:|
>:|Sorry, you can't just discard what you don't agree with.
>:|


Has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with.
What I said was factual. like it or not.


>:|The Declaration of Independence is most definitely the founding document
>:|for this country.


(1) False

(2) Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The late USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************

>:|All subsequent acts, including the Constitution, are
>:|predicated on the principles espoused in the Declaration.

(1) False

(2) Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The late USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************

>:|My point has been made and substantiated.


LOL. False.


All I see is a "You say"

You say this you say that.

You saying something is not evidence, is not proof, is nothing but your
You say opinion.


I can provide a great deal of documentation substantiating exactly waht I
said. However, if I am not mistaken if have done that in the past with you
and you bitched and didn't bother to study any of it.

Bottom line is, by now you have been here long enough to know that I really
can back up those things that I claim.

Now run along. Go back to asking your lame never ending quiestions of Josh
who seems to be about the only person who is willing to play with you and
it appears routinely spanks you.



***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************