The following is a debate a couple of others and I had with a fundamentalist Christian (I think, he never said what he was) on the response page of one of DefCon's blog posts. It gives you an idea of the irrationality of refusal to listen we're dealing with. By the way, Carson is the person responsible for my Quote of the Week.
First Amendment jurisprudence demonstrates that "freedom of religion" also means "freedom from religion." There is plenty of case law to back that up. When you get into another debate with an Xtian fundie, shoot him or her down with some U.S. Supreme Court precedent. You can find it on FindLaw under in the annotations under the First Amendment.
Bless,
Z
Hi i'm new to this, I hit upon this board I find It quite accessible and it's helped me out alot. I should be able to contribute & aid others like it has helped me.
Thanks Everyone, See You Later.
Hi-ya i am new here, I came upon this website I have found It exceedingly accommodating & it has helped me so much. I hope to contribute & support other people like its helped me.
Cheers, See Ya Around
Subscribe to This Blog
People! People! People! ………..I for one could care less about what you believe in. I am not going to try and convince any one here to go believe in God.
The point is that prayer in school or talk about God is not a violation of our first amendment. As long as there is a majority and neutrality among the students who are taking part in the discussion.
Recently a young woman who attended a high school in Henderson, Nevada was giving a valadictorian speech and made some references to God. The school staff pulled the plug on her microphone claiming a violation of church and state. There is no such thing as a wall between church and state.
The young woman is now filing a law suit against the school stating that her first amendment rights were violated. The school motioned to have the case dismissed when the preciding judge refused to dismiss the case.
The valadictorian has the first amendment right to freely express her religion.
Mj : I can assure you that ALL earth-born , earth bound extant theisms, and their respective dieties, are MERELY as equally valid as were the myths, the fables of the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Aztecs, mayans, and Incans.
AS for using REASON and LOGIC to contemplate the existence a “Creator” vel non, those tools are quite adequate at reaching conclusions WITHOUT EVER, not EVEN ONCE, defaulting to belief.
I would ask you to try it, but you would never be able to get out of the permanent dafault drive of belief where you have ensconsced yourself .
I think many of you get the letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist’s confused with seperation of church and state. The Danbury letter is simply a letter assuring the Baptist church that they were protected from the state.
Carson,
I agree with your opinion on the Nevada case, but prayer in public school is the governmnet not allowing freedom of religion. Schools operate as instituitions of the government, and everyone working there operates as an official representative of the government. Now, telling a child to pray for something he or she does not believe in is the government forcing religion on a child by respecting a particular establishment of religion, no matter how vauge. Prayer is still a religious exercise.
As for talking about God in school, that’s fine until a teacher starts telling his students that people who do not believe in Jesus are going to hell. Once again, this is respecting a particular establishment of religion by a government official, which is prohibited in the Constitution. Free citizens can express whatever belifs they want, but government officials cannot do the same while on duty.
Carson: you assignment is to compare and contrast the language of 1st Amendment with language of Art4, Sec4., and report bac why the Framers choseto differenctiate between the prohibition against ESTABLISHING religion and the MANDATE to GUARANTEE ” republican governments in all the states”.
They structure into the Const the SEPARATE rightsdand DUTIES of the Congress vis-a-vis religion and government.
Those are FACTS….not revisionist tripe as you are wont to opine!
“I think many of you get the letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist’s confused with seperation of church and state. The Danbury letter is simply a letter assuring the Baptist church that they were protected from the state. ”
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/shb/buckner_18_1.html
Sorry, hit submit a bit early… From the link above:
“Jefferson sent his letter as president only after having the U.S. Attorney General (Levi Lincoln, who was assuredly no John Ashcroft) and others review it. Jefferson intended the letter to explain and reaffirm his views on religious liberty and the Constitution. Those views firmly supported a strict separation, though at the time only with regard to the federal government. Jefferson sent his letter in response to an October 1801 letter from a Baptist congregation that urged him to defend a constitutionally mandated strict separation of church and state. (Connecticut and several other states did not have religious liberty at the time.)”
Carso : Our Const does, in fact, contemplate and its very structure incorporates not only Separation of church and State, but a PLETHORA of other INHERENT fundamental rights articulated and unarticulated, but inferred from the articulated rights.
I adumbrated many of those on a prior post, and will not now belabor such Suffice it to say since 1803 the Law of the land is and has been determined by the Const as , constitutionally cnstrued by the Supreme Court.
You may not like it, but it’s FACT!
Yehwhat,
Dude you have taken sentences from James Madison’s Remonstandce and tryed to make us believe that is means we are not free to practice religion. You obviously are reading from an athiest web site. I am a historian by hobie and have plenty of copies of this letter on hand. You may be able to fool others on here but you will not fool me.
The letter is regarding teachers taxation which is in no way fair. It would be a violation of our constitution if the Christian teachers were allowed to put a taxaticon on those who elect not to pay it. Madison clearly states in the letter that he is concerned with one religious sect dominatiing over the oher. The letter more or less clearly states that Madison was making sure that freedom of religion must remain a part of our society. The letter is not about removing god or religion however it is about maintaing the right for every one equally to practice their religion.
James Madison was a Christian too you freak!
If you knew anything about the why our founding fathers left England to come here and set up a government that allowed people to freely exercize what ever relgion they desired then you would probably understand letters such as the James Madison Remonstance.
Like I keep saying ……We have the right to freedom of religion and not freedom from religion!
If our government was secular then that would mean that our government was in violation of our first amendment rights.
Carson,
How do you justify that we do not have freedom from religion?
Yehfreak, where does it say seperation of church and state in our constitution?
you never have been to washington have you? Have you ever been to the house of representatives or the congressional chapel?
Not even in congression records from june 7th to september 25th 1789 is the words seperation of church and state ever mentioned.
You are an atheist fool you should be ashamed of your self for trying to fool others into believing our history is your distorted atheist view. Only one time the words seperation of church and state were used and that was in the Danbury letter written by jefferson and I am not going to ask yahfreak why it was written.
Yehfreak you have been brainwashed by the ACLU and DEFCON.
There is no such thing as a seperation of church and state.
Show me where it says this……
J-bar read the first amendment.
Carson,
Also, how is a secular government a violation of our first amendment rights? Do you even know what secular means?
I have read the first amendment. It doesn’t say we have to prectice a religion. Please enlighten me.
Another point….each and every one of you should be thankful for what our constitution states. Otherwise none of you here would be able to freely practice your atheism or wicca or what ever! The problem is that many of you are pissed off because you are the minority. only about 4 percent of America is atheist and you people hate god. Move to a country that is atheist or does not have Christianity if you hate it here thats all I have to say
J-Bar no shit!
secularism is a religion or a single belief J-Bar
“Yehfreak, where does it say seperation of church and state in our constitution?”
Where does it say “Freedom of Religion”? “Freedom of Speech”? “Freedom of Expression?”
Carson,
I’m waiting. What phrase in the 1st Amendment leads you to believe that we are not free from religion? What phrase says we must practice a religion? Also, it mentions the name of no religion, so does that mean that Islam can just as easily be used by the government. By your logic, the government must have a religion, but since the Consitution does not specify, I guess that opens the door to everything.
“you people hate god”
No, we just don’t believe one exists. Ours is a LACK of belief in a god.
Get an education.
No shit, eh? I asked you a legitimate question. How do you think the establishment clause of he 1st Amendment does not make us free from religion? Stop side-stepping the issue.
“secularism is a religion or a single belief J-Bar ”
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective
Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not ecclesiastical or clerical
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation
3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration
Good point, Stephanie. How can he hate a god we don’t believe in? I must hate Santa Clause too, since I don’t believe in him.
Carson : read the 1st amendment and compare it with Art 4 Sec 4
Carson,
Open a dictionary like Stephanie did. Secular means no religion. Also, since secularism is a religion, by your logic, then we can use it since you think there is no freedom from religion. Since the Constitution does not specifiy, then what’s the difference? Please, at least try and make your arguments compliment each other before you blindly spout off nonsense.
“each and every one of you should be thankful for what our constitution states”
Uh, yeah - that’s why we are defending it from hisorical revisionists and religious dominionists.
My thoughts exactly, Stephanie.
Carson, we’re still waiting here. I would seriously like to see you defend you “no freedom from religion” statement.
Stephanie,
Great post at 8:02. Love it.
Opps, on my 8:08 post I meant, “how can we hate..” not “how can he hate”.
Carson : are you actually contending that a PRECISE phrase has to be in the Constitution for some one to have the RIGHTS contemplated by the phrase?
If so , ponder the following.
NO WHERE in the CONST will you find the following:
“presumption of Innocence”‘
“proof beyond a reasonable doubt”:
“unanimous criminal jury verdicts”:
“NO TAXATION of CHURCHES” ;
“right to marry”;
“Right to marry of your choosing”:
“Right to marry outside the church”;
“Right to marry outsiide your race”;
“Right to have children”;
“Right to number of children”;
“Right to name children”:
“Right to sell property’:
“Right to sell for profit”:
“Right to will prorety to family”:
“Right to will proerty to church”;
“Right to own REVOLVER”:
“Right to own automatic rifle’:
“Right to move from stete to state”;
“One person one vote”;
“Right to morse code transmission”;
“Right to radio broadcast”:
“Right to TV/Movie/ Internet broadcast/use”:
“Right to do what you want with your spouse in PRIVACY of your home”:
etc
etc
etc
ALL of these ROIGHTS are INFERRED from ther ARTICULATED rights or from INHERNT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS retained by WE THE PEOPLE!!!
Now Carson and Jumper : RESPOND to this SPECIFIC argument. Don’t avoid it. Don’t move the goalposts. Don’t posit more OPINION.
COUNTER my ARGUMENT with FACTS in the fashion I have ADUMBRATED!
Personally, I think Carson’s just baiting us. He says ludicrous, incendiary things and then disappears without defending his points. If he really wanted to debate he would try to engage in some sort of dialogue. At least Jumper stays and makes an effort. I respect him for that. Carson, or whoever he’ll be next week, not so much.
Yeh Freak, stop trying to change things around…Stick to the exact text of the constitution.
It cleary states that we have the freedom of relgion.
No matter what YehFreak, we we be able to practice Christianity no matter what when and where.
have a nice day!
Jbar you are an idiot! stay out of this one you can’t handle it.
as far as yehfreak is concerned he don’t know what the hell he is taliking about either. he trys to distort the converstation and move off the subject . he uses the thesaurus way too much its so obvious. lets go by what our constitution states.
“It cleary states that we have the freedom of relgion.”
Show me where.
And there’s the name calling…
J-Bar There is no debate going on here. You can not debate what is written in our history. now you can make up stuff and distort things like yehfreak always does.
It so obvious none of you are historians or even remotely began to study american history.
you know absolutely nothing about our founding fathers other then what you have read on liberal atheist web sites.
I don’t see how what Yah posted is off-subject. It is quite clearly within the current dialogue. You stated that “freedom of religion” is in the Constitution. We pointed out that, not only is “freedom of religion” not in the text of the Constitution, but neither are any of the other things both Yah and I posted.
Furthermore, you have resorted to the classic avoidance/diversion tactic of attacking your opponents knowledge, without actually refuting their arguments. If you can’t back up your assertions, don’t make them. If you can’t refute the rebuttals to your baseless assertions, stop pontificating.
NO ONE here has EVER denied that the CONST mentions “freedom of religion”
There you go again Carson/davis/patridiot/flesh, avoiding an argument and moving the goalposts.
The entire debate on this annd many threads cncern our opposition to yours and the RRR’s attempt to establish a religion, or minimize government’s ever tyo willingness to benmd to then popular perssuasion and gine gvernment’s imprimatur of approva to some favore sect, such as “judeo-CHRISTIANS( emphasis on CHRISTIAN is inentional)
Steph uhhhhh! i have to type this out?
or can you just read the first amendment if you own a copy of the constitution.
Well, you happen to be (ahem) “debating” a historian right now. I personally have provided a number of resources for your edification, and yet, not only have you declined to peruse said resources, you attack them as biased - COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that all of these sources are the writings of the Founders themselves.
There’s that superiority complex again.
Shame, shame, shame.
Ok Carson,
Since you clearly refuse to read, I’ll tell you what the Constitution says: “Congress shall make no laws respecting religion or the establishment thereof.” That’s the exact text and the only place it mentions religion. How does that mean the government must have religion in it? Please, quit poo-pooing our arguments and calling us names. It does not make your point any more correct. Try and respond to our concerns.
Oh, and I’m a senior in college majoring in history, so I do know a little bit of what I’m talking about.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
My mistake from above, “freedom of speech” is actually in the text, but I fail to see “freedom of religion”…
“Free exercise of religion” I should have PRECISELY said
It says “free exercise”… that is not “freedom of…”. Do you not see the difference? We are guaranteed to be free from government interference in our choice of religion, or choice of no religion. How is that difficult to understand?
Christianity yehfreak is not a religious denomination or establishment of religion such as Catholic Mormon Baptist etc.
America being a combination of religions primarily Christian and Jewish all worship the same God. Now wouldn’t you think that if our governent respected only the catholics and not any of the other denominations or establishments people would get upset right?
Well that is why we have freedom of religion. and if our government promotes christianity or the same bible that all religious establishments read from then there is no seperation of church and state.
now if our government said that we can only pray in a Catholic fasion then you would have a claim.
People I am sorry for criticizing any of you it can get frustrating at times trying to convince others what is true about our history and what is not. especially when your the one being criticized for it.
Thaks, Stephanie, I read the establishment clause and tried to write it without referring back. My mistake.
Steph, doesn’t exercise mean practice or participate? It is also a verb.
And yes you are right about the government interfering with religion they have no right, unless our free exercise thereof has been violated. That means they can not tell the Danbury Baptists how to run their organization just like the Danbury’s can not tell our government how to operate.
“and if our government promotes christianity or the same bible that all religious establishments read from then there is no seperation of church and state.”
I can’t figure out what you are trying to say, here. Are you asserting that because the god of the Jews is the same god as the Christians and, according to your assertion, the “vast majority” of American citizens are christian or jewish, that the government is REQUIRED to pray and promote the bible?
Just because it operates under many differnt sects does not change the fact that the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Instead Christianity has numerous etablishments that cannot be respected. There is no one version of Christianity. It simply operates under several different establishments.
prohibiting the free exercize thereof:
Does that mean I can pray in school and other kids can too if they choose?
“People I am sorry for criticizing any of you it can get frustrating at times trying to convince others what is true about our history and what is not. especially when your the one being criticized for it”
Ahh, trying to “convince” us what is “true”… well, you happen to be at the wrong place for that - here you find a group of people uniquely qualified to defeat your “truth” (cough, cough) with the actual text, writings and thoughts of the men who framed our Constitution.
Carson,
You said, “That means [the government] can not tell the Danbury Baptists how to run their organization just like the Danbury’s can not tell our government how to operate.”
That’s exactly what we’re saying. No religious group can tell the government how to legislate. Nice way to contradict yourself there.
Carson: It’s obvious to most, if not all, who read your posts that you , sir, are NO student of history; you, sir, are NO stuent of the Constitution: you, sir, are NO student of Sup Ct decisions; you, sir, are NO student of LOGIC; you, sir, are NO student of the Law; you, sir, are NO student of Reasoned discourse; you, sir, are merely a BELIEVER who has been able to demagogue hs way elswhere, but will find NO QUARTER, NO CORNER herein within which to hide and spew forth yopur discredited dogma, revisionist tripe, and “ISMS”!
“That means they can not tell the Danbury Baptists how to run their organization just like the Danbury’s can not tell our government how to operate.”
AHA! The money quote! So if the Danbury’s cannot tell the government how to operate, does that then go for all Christian denominations? Jewish ones? How about Muslims? Buddhists?
“Does that mean I can pray in school and other kids can too if they choose?”
Of course it does!! Every person here defends your right to do so. However, if the school PROMOTES, or in any way ENDORSES religious practice during school hours or any school sponsored function, the SCHOOL has violated the Establishment Clause. The students are well within their rights to pray silently at their desks, or aloud during lunch, or to form groups in study hall, etc.
Carson,
By your admission, I guess the government is free from religion, afterall. Let’s see you backpedal away from this one.
Exactly J=Bar the majority of Americans are Christian or Jewish. They read from the same bible.
That is why the word establishment is emphasized in the first amendment.
An establishment of religion is the same as a denomination. It does not say we are not allowed to exercise our religion it clearly states that the government will not respect an establishment of religion and they we can freely choose to exercise our freedom of religion.
our founding fathers would have bared any kind of religious freedom from the costitution if they did not believe in God or were not Christians. Just like many of you atheists would do if you were writing your own constitution.
The constitution is clearly spelled out for us and if you can not see the simplicity behind what the first amendment means then I am sorry. It is pointless for me to try and explain any further.
honestly if you removed your beliefs just like I did mine and read the constitution from an un-biased point of view you should be able to pick up the message it portrays.
J=Bar the Gov is not free from religion they have to protect religion. read the first amenment again.
Carson YES YOU and KIDS may PRAY 24 hours a day, in or out of school. It may not be school/teacher led. It may not be dsruptive of PUBLIC school’s purpose , which is to educate, not INCULCATE with Religious dogma/tripe.
Do you not understand? We value our liberties, and we will fight to the DEATH to preserve yours as well. We cannot look the other way when civil liberty is infringed upon in any manner.
So, when certain religious groups infringe upon our civil liberties by hijacking the government, we raise a big stink and people like you come in and say what you say… If the time ever came that your liberties were being infringed upon (which in some cases they are), you will find staunch support HERE.
“It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others” - Thomas Jefferson
“the majority of Americans are Christian or Jewish. They read from the same bible.
That is why the word establishment is emphasized in the first amendment.”
Ok, so the word “establishment” is written in the First Amendment SPECIFICALLY because most Americans are Jewish or Christian? I think you will find more Muslims and Buddhists here than Jews, actually. The WORLD population for Jews is approximately 13 million.
And no, it is not the same bible for Christians and Jews. The Christian OT is different from the Torah and Tanakh.
Carson,
First off, Jews and Christians do not read from the same Bible. The Jews only read from the first two/thirds and it’s called the Torah. Learn some history.
Now, none of us are saying there should be no religion in America. None of us are saying that the Constitution forces us to be athiest. It allows us to choose the believe what we want. Hoever, the Constitution does say that there should be no religion in government. Huge difference. It simply says the government will not legislate with respect to any religion. How is it hard to see that it means there should be no religion used in the government’s duties? The point of DefCon is not to make America atheist. It’s to keep the government from becoming entangled in a particular religion, which leads to religious intolerance. We want to keep that tolerance because that’s what makes America great.
“our founding fathers would have bared any kind of religious freedom from the costitution if they did not believe in God or were not Christians. Just like many of you atheists would do if you were writing your own constitution.”
I personally couldn’t have written it any better than it already is. As an atheist, I do not want anyone telling me what I should believe or why - and I would NEVER presume to do so to anyone else.
Carson the Framers profibited CONGRESS….from the ESTABLISHMENT of religion and PROHIBITED Congress from interfering with “the free exercise thereof”.
You are confusing the two separate mandates/phohibitions by the FRAMERS of Congress.
Why then was it so important that our founding fathers created an amendment that would protect the freedom to exercise religion.
You really have to think about the church of England and how it was forced religion. They taxed the Irish Catholics sent people to death for forming their own Establishments of religion.
Our founding fathers said hey people should be able to worship God however they want to. Lets leave flee this place and go to that North America place and set up a governent that allows people to practice any relgion they want, without a government that forces their religion onto others and taxes other countries that are of other denominations or establishments. And at that time it was Christianity. There were Catholics, Babtists puritans etc etc. Our founding fathers set up a government that would protect and in essence protect all religious establishments.
There is really nothing confusing about this. There is an important message to follow if you know the history of our governmnet and the founding fathers.
” the Gov is not free from religion they have to protect religion”
Just where is the government tasked with “protecting” religion? Where is that in the Constitution or its Amendments?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
yehwah, what is an establishment of religion?
I am not confusing any thing. I have referred to the first amendment the whole time.
Why did they leave this up to congress then? or basically the states
Carson,
The government protects religion by not favoring any religion. If the government made laws in line with Fundamental Christians, then the government could find it necessary to burn Wiccans as witches. Understand? By staying free from religion, the government protects all religions from the prejudices each hold towards each other.
The Amendment does not REQUIRE the exercise of a religion! That is the beauty of it! It leaves to the conscience of every citizen to live and believe whatever they wish to, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE!!! All other forms of government until that time REQUIRED a form of religious belief - if you didn’t belong to the right one, you were burned at the stake, exiled, (or in the case of the Jews in Europe) forced into the ghettos and made second-class citizens.
What the First Amendment provides for, for the first time in history, is a form of government that is INDIFFERENT to the religious beliefs of its citizens.
“Lets leave flee this place and go to that North America place and set up a governent that allows people to practice any relgion they want, without a government that forces their religion onto others and taxes other countries that are of other denominations or establishments.”
To my knowledge, none of the major “founders” were emigres… they were all born here. So there was no “fleeing”.
Steph, the amendment clearly states that the government will not prohibit the free exercise thereof:
The constitution clearly states that we have a right to exercise our religion freely just like the you have the right to free speech.
UHHH! nevermind! this is a serious waste of time…..
I am going out tonight with my budies and gonna have a few beers
Ok each and every one of you are right you win! our founding fathers were atheists and hated religion and made sure that our goverment would not protect the rights of people to freely exercise their belief in God.
What ever!
You stated ” the Gov is not free from religion they have to protect religion”.
WHERE does the Constitution state that the government MUST protect religion? It doesn’t!! Religion (of any kind) has all the protection in Existence by the very fact that government CANNOT interfere with ANY religion WHATSOEVER!!
(I’m beginning to feel like Yah, with all of the caps!)
That protection is inherent in the founding document. For the government to “protect” religion, it would be interfering with it.
Carson: tell me what your factual basis is for your statement that “Jews and christians worship the same god”. Are you a student of comparative religions. Have you ever asked an Hasidic Jew if he worships the christian god?
Have you ever asked an Orthodox jew if she worships the christian god? A conservative jew? A Reform Jew? A rabbi of any stripe?
Their answers…an EDUCATION__might surprise even so learned an HISTORIAN as YOU!
“Ok each and every one of you are right you win! our founding fathers were atheists and hated religion and made sure that our goverment would not protect the rights of people to freely exercise their belief in God. ”
Now where have any of us said that? You state that the founders were all devout Christians. We debunk that by providing direct quotes and writings of the founders themselves. You state that this is a Christian Nation. We debunk that by providing you with direct quotes, writings, and the Treaty of Tripoli. You state that government sponsored religous programs aren’t a violation of the Establishment Clause, and we show you how it is indeed a violation. Then you proceed to make our arguments for us by stating that government can’t interfere in religion, and likewise, religion can’t interfere in government. You then end the discussion by putting words in our mouths. How is this an honest discussion by you?
Carson,
We never tried to argue that the Founding Fathers were atheists. We never said the Constitution makes the country athiest. I think you and I generally agree on the role of the 1st Amendment, but you kept this notion in your head that we were saying things we had never said.
Carson: Jews are JUST AS CERTAIN that Je-ZEUS was NOT god as you and your christian ILK are CERTAIN Je-Zeus was/is god.
Carson: “When you TRULY understand why YOU RENOUNCE all other POSSIBLE gods, PERHAPS you will BEGIN to understand why I RENOUNCE YOURS”!
LIke trying to debate a child. He hears what he wants to hear and refuses to listen. It seems to me all fundies think people like us try to claim that the Constitution forces Americans to be atheist. I’ve never said that. Sigh.
I especially loved his “Why then was it so important that our founding fathers created an amendment that would protect the freedom to exercise religion.”