I scanned your blog. Sorta. Actually I just want to put my two cents in. Regardless of the your findings, and the foundation- many would like to think this is a Christian nation and should be seen as such. I am guilty of the same. Therefore the majority should rise and speak. I see the Catholic church as a threat, for it has become a large cult. I see islam as a threat  for they want to wipe us all out. The Christians. So do we let them? Should we not dress for battle and fight for our own God? - call me an extremist, but we need a Christian Hitler. I am all for it, I would support, honor and defend. MY God, my beliefs as a Christian has been under attack. From the feeble ACLU to the Muslims. From atheists to satan himself trying to convince me God is fake, or dead. I stand proud, secure, and strong in my faith. And I would die for it if dieing is calling me. But I will not continue to be walked on, hunted down and persecuted. Fight fire with fire, or bow out and surrender. As for me and mine, we'll fight.

Dallas

Hey, Dallas, welcome back.

I am well aware of the number of folks who believe that ours should be a Christian nation or at least seen as one.  The question at hand, however, is whether our nation was ever intended to be founded as formally Christian by design.

As for your comment, "I see the Catholic church as a threat," when I see PaxChristi3 post, it can be enough, at times, to make a guy want to support your point.  ;-)

In an attempt to be UNbiased: I really can not say either way.  I wasent invited to help write the constitution.  So, me and jimmy was out fishing that day.  Being Christian I'd love to say yes it was. I can not argue on any point, because I do not have any facts, nor did I ever study the subject.

The catholic church however, I know enough about- to justly call an evil church. It is one of the oldest cults that I can say I am impressed by, but not in a good way. The papacy holds on to some really sick claims, such as the pope being equal to Jesus, and shall be "crowned with a tripple crown."

http://www.seventh-day.org/...

Many people go to church for hope and friendship and to be around other caring people and hear a positive message.  It is a ritual.  It is a routine.  They get pleasure in the message if it is true in the world we can touch and see and hear or not.

It should not be the governments business where someone’s heart and mind is theologically.

So it is a good thing that the United States is not a Christian nation.  It is a good thing to have seperation of church and state.

It is also very pro-religious.

Billthompson wrote, "So it is a good thing that the United States is not a Christian nation.  It is a good thing to have seperation of church and state.  It is also very pro-religious."

Precisely.  The two assertions, that we have separation of church and state and that we are very pro-religious, are not contradictory claims.

Well, Pete, if Sam posts here, he can rest assured that he will not be deleted.

BTW, it looks like Tony wrote a similar topic.  The "featured blog posts" box on the People page has highlight all three of our opinions.

Tony wrote, "Understanding is a challenge sometimes. He's actually a pretty level Dude, when you boil it down. You and he, would probably get along famously, face to face."

It's possible.  I have a friend here in Bako with whom we just don't engage in electronic communications.  Talking in person, everything's great.  But talking in "Instant Messenger" (something that I haven't touched in six years), for some mysterious reasons, we were absolutely guaranteed to begin misinterpreting one another's words and intent within ten minutes.

This electronic format does have its limitations.  Sometimes people who make great friends in person end up being incompatible in cyberspace.

You guys got something completely different out of Sam's essay than I did. He never said that the official religion of the U.S. was Christianity, or should it be. He said that Christian influence constructed our nation and that public Christianity shouldn't be stifled in this Country. He wrote a lot more words, but that's the jest of what I got from it.

A lot of you guys were reading in things that, frankly, weren't there. Even the comments about the Jews in the ACLU were quotes from someone else (some Jewish guy). I think that Sam printed them to show that there are minority fringe groups everywhere, that aren't necessarily supported by the majority,  that try to dictate policy. In an effort to be fair and thorough, he even pointed out the way-out fringe of the Christian religion. I gather that he doesn't have the time of day for ANY fringe group.

I know a little about Sam. He's one of those "I'll tolerate you if you tolerate me" kind of people. Sam doesn't follow ANYONES' agenda, but his own. Isn't that what Freedom is all about? He's able to agree to disagree, so long as YOU can leave it at that. That's a lot more than I can say for most academics that I've met.

About THE ONLY thing that he seems to be completely intolerant of, are Wife Beaters and Child Abusers. I'd even be willing to bet that, as long as you don't have your butt hanging out of your Daisy Dukes or wear eye makeup, he could even put up with Gays for short periods of time. He'd probably groan about it under his breath after you left, but I seriously doubt if he'd be the kind to get in your face about it. You know, "Live and Let Live", just don't force it down my throat.

Periodically, he STILL writes things that I don't understand. Most, not all of the time, I can think about it, weighing in his personality, age, background and level of education and come to understand where he's coming from. I don't always agree, but that's OK. I still think that he's a very Wise Old Dude, and I like him.....................That's why I get wound up when you guys go off half-cocked.

Well, he's welcome to discuss it here.  I will treat him far better than he has treated us.

H4F,

As much as I value time in my life, I'd be willing to bet that, at his age, he values his time even more. You may have ( collectively, not only personally) already burned that bridge.

When I was young, I had NO paatience for anyone or anything. At this point in my life, I have more patience than anyone I know, whose my age. I've also watched people with the patience of Job, lose that patience as they grow older. I'm sure that I will follow suit also.

I'm actually inclined to believe most of what you said about him.  As for any burnt bridges, I reckon a fire was set on each end of it.

But enough of the personal tit-for-tat.  I'm not going to bother his blogs anymore, unless he directly draws me into something.  If something needs refuting, I'll do so here.

I'm gonna be honest here.  I don't read many of Sam's posts because they are extrememly long and don't have any breaks for paragraphs or pauses.  That's like hitting me between the eyes so I tend to pass on it.  It's not usually a problem because the ones who are against everything Sam believes in are quick to let us all know what he said.

Although the "group" jumps on others at times, it pretty sad to see the majority of you ganging up on Sam the way you do.  You can talk all you want about how he degrades you, hates the ACLU, makes statements about Chrisitanity but you guys do the same thing in general over things you believe in.  Does Sam not have the right to voice his opinions and beliefs the same as you do?  Just because he's poles apart from you in beliefs doesn't mean he deserves to be hammered the way he is.

As for Sam..this business of deleting peoples posts when it gets too rough for you is very wrong.  I know you have the right to do that (Jason said so) but why on earth do you bother?  You know when you post that people are going to disagree with you so why post if you're gong to delete the arguments?  It makes you appear churlish.  A debate can't be a debate if you won't let it continue.

Again...If Sam is a bigot, or hates the ACLU what does that have to do with you?  Is it any skin off YOUR nose?  When people here go off on rants of their own do they get lambasted?  Only if they disagree with the majority of you.

All it takes is one of you to attack and the rest smell blood and circle.  How bout trying it the other way around?  Or just ignore the posts you disagree with.  It really is possible to just not read someone post when you know you're going to disagree.  Try it sometime.

Heh, actually, I didn't start this blog topic to talk about Sam, except to respond to Pete that if Sam came here to post, he would not be deleted.  As I wrote above, I'm just going to leave his blog alone from now on unless he directly pulls me into something.

But here's the weird thing: Sam and I are not poles apart.  I agree more often than not.  You've summed up well enough my dislike for how he treats people.

But enough of the personal evaluations from me at this time.  I'll just leave him alone.

Some people are just predestined not to get along, and I suppose this is one of those cases.

Nancy,

Normally, that's what I try to do. I don't add to Dusty's posts much, because I hardly ever agree and I don't feel like wasting my time with a never-ending argument.

Here's the thing about what I've seen on Sam's posts. Almost always, he gets attacked BY PEOPLE, ON ISSUES that they would normally 90% agree with. They just aren't receptive to the content. News Papers are written to the 7th grade level. Sam writes like an Ole' University Professor. Most of us don't keep ourselves accustomed to reading at that level. That's one of the many reasons that I really enjoy reading Sam's essays. They keep me sharp. If you're not accustomed to reading at that University Professor level, it's easy to miss the point. I like it because it pulls me back up rather than dumbing me down. Understanding is a challenge sometimes. He's actually a pretty level Dude, when you boil it down. You and he, would probably get along famously, face to face.

Geeeez...was I refereeing again?  I can see both sides issues here.  I'm in the minority a lot of the times so it's easier for me to see the circling begin than it is for you guys.    It reminds me of the shoolyard kids where one yells "yore momma wears combat boots" so the other kids have to beat him up for insulting mom.    It's not really fair to beat someone up because they are against your beliefs.  Isn't that what everyone says they promote?  Freedom of speech?

Anyway H4F.I wasn't picking on you in particular...most of the time there are a bunch in on it.  It was good of you to call a truce.

H4F,

Maybe you're right.......................

Thanks Nancy,

I'm done too.....

Tony..I don't doubt Sam and I  would get along just fine.  I enjoy talking with people who are intelligent and knowledgeable.  My problem is I don't have the patience to read something that is entirely in block style with no indentations or paragraphs.  It's not the content..it's just the difficulty in reading it that keeps me from getting into it.  After a while my eyes cross and I'm lost.

Since I don't read a lot of what he writes, obviousley I'm sticking up for him because he is vastly outnumbered for doing exactly what others here do.  Voicing his opinion.  He does have that right and shouldn't be constantly attacked for it.

Nancy,......................He doesn't talk like he writes......................He's an "Old Okie" and a charmer. :-)

How about.................Yes 'Em? ;-)

Tony..love those Okies..they might be kinfolk.

Yes 'em works for me.  hehe.

I've always said that without facial expressions, body language, and voice inflections, it's very easy to misinterpret someones meaning.  What sounds clever and funny in person while you're mugging for effect can come of as smart aleck or hateful in black and white on the screen.  We need emoticons on here.  We do the best we can with colons and semi colons but they only go so far. I was told we have them, but they never work for me and I don't see anyone else using them either.

Regardless of whether or not his statements are true, he is still entitled to make those statements under the constitution all of us agree gives us that right.  If people read his writings and believe them, then your disagreeing with them isn't going to change their way of thinking.

If you want to dispute what he says then by all mean, do so.  But all the name calling doesn't make anyone any better than he is.  As for "smelling blood on the water" oh yes.  That's exactly what happens here.  Once Sam has posted something that goes against your beliefs then not only one, but a half dozen people can't wait to express their outrage.  A little redundant I'd say, but then of course you folks are always right.

If I seem like I'm defending just Sam, that's not the case.  Being one of the minorities on this blog, I disagree with a whole lot of what is posted here..at least politically.  You say you can back up what you say and I say I can find just as much to dispute what you write.  That's because we have different beliefs and see things from another angle.  That's what this country is supposed to be all about.  You know..freedom to say what we think and how we feel.  Don't forget this is SAM'S blog and he is supposed to be free to say whatever is on his mind.  You don't get to dictate to him what he posts and he shouldn't be attacked like a wild animal just because his beliefs are far, far, from yours.  Argue with him, debate with him, but the attacks are unnecessary and against the very things you preach against.  Intolerance and freedom of speech restrictions for example.

As for him needing to answer you?  Or to post his sources?  Who died and made the bunch on here the end all be all?  He doesn't OWE any of you an answer.  Who decided that if you post something here you are REQUIRED by blog law to provide your sources?  Maybe you don't give credence to someone who doesn't back up what they say with facts or sources but that doesn't mean they have to do what you say or be damned for it.

Geeeeezzzz...why don't you just burn the books you disagree with while you're at it.

See guys, "Brown Shirts", Burned Books, Mob Attacks.....................Sam isn't the only one seeing certain traits in this behavior. Quite honestly, I see it too. This is the perception of those watching the attacks.

One little interjection on the matter of whether we really understood what Sam wrote:

1.  A mark of a good and effective writer is to see to it that the readers see in the article what the writer intended to communicate.

2.  A large number of people, including myself, Pete, Andrew, Mattloch, Tom, and even Steve Swenson took his "Christian nation" articles to mean that Christianity should be the state-affirmed, state-established nation meant to enjoy special formal privileges.  We see in his writings something a lot more "official" and overarching than simply the presence of a culture whose attributes are heavily influenced by the Bible.

3.  Therefore, either premise (1)  fails because Sam is not really a good writer at all -- since so many veteran readers here have misinterpreted his writings, or premise (1) succeeds -- Sam really is a good writer -- and really did mean to convey what so many of us have seen in his articles.

As for who is "burning books," please.  Had I and others merely pelted Sam with demeaning insults with no content challenging the statements in his pieces, I wouldn't have bothered to put it back, had he deleted them.

However, what was being deleted was a well-formed challenge to the alleged authenticity of a particular Patrick Henry quote -- explaining in detail my reasons for doubting the authenticity.  Sam chose to repeatedly delete a challenge to the factual nature of elements of his piece.

He wasn't merely deleting "bullies" -- he was purposefully deleting factual challenges to his position.

Who, really, is behaving in book-burning fashion?

I'm not going to keep hammering on this topic, but the above needs to be said.

Nice post H4F,

As a member of the academic community it is important that our work is "peer reviewed." This means that anything that is presented in a scholarly manner might be challenged. This keeps academics honest. Granted it is a little different in the blog world but I am, like many others here, compelled to challenge statements that have no basis in fact.

whoah!!! got a brain ache from all that tit 4 tat thing going on....

I am not gonna get into it with no one just want to add my 2 cents on George Washington being a Freemason, yep that he was and so is 19 other presidents including Bush and his dad and Clinton and Kerry and Arnold....this is whats wrong with our country...their involvement in the occult. They belong to the Skull and Bones, the Bohemian Grove(up in Sonoma county, by the way where the flooding happened and ole Arnold spent so much $  on to save) dont take my word for it study it yourself on what these are all about. As far as Freemasons they dont even know what they are involved in until they reach 32 and 33 degree. They worship Baphomet, a horned goat (satanist)  witches are into the same thing both backgrounds are mythology, Isis and Osirus...similiarity symbols and same ones, its why they all get along...The CIA is made up of the Illuminate, they create CHAOS to clean it up and look good to the public eye. It is kept from the news because the majority of the goverment,  political parties, and know who's belong to it or have to be ran by them in order to survive (jobs, careers, etc...

I do not need to have someone b$tch back at me research it yourself..I just am putting it out there for anyone that is interested is all..because what can be done about it?  notta thing.... 

Then you might like this site:

http://www.ismellarat.com/

It goes into the issue of Freemasonry and refutes the "Christian nation" myth from a Christian standpoint.

thanks I will check this out....did you read this book?   So many claim you can be a Christian and be conformed to this world, that is such nonsense...Freemasonry is of witchcraft and it is ludicrus to believe they are the same..think not.

No, I didn't read the book.  I got my information from other sources.  The book simply confirms it.

Yeah, there is quite the appetite -- more accurately, lust -- for worldly power these days.  We're a little past the peak of that fad, I think, but the power fad is still plenty evident.

Hardliner:

Well said and well documented.

Thanks