Re this:
The principles on which this site is run are summarised here and here. The key rule is: “assume other posters are posting in good faith”.
That does not mean that you have to believe that they are posting in good faith, simply that you should make that assumption for the purposes of discussion.
I will not “correct” posts – people are responsible for their own posts, and for any errors they contain. I will not delete posts, although I may move posts to a different thread, or to the Sandbox or to Guano. They remain publicly viewable. I will however, delete links to porn or malware, and posting such links or material are the only grounds on which I will ban anyone. Posters are complete free to disagree with me, with each other, and to be mistaken.
UD is run on different lines. Fine. I prefer mine.
That’s absurd already.
You can repeatedly point out a falsehood, but it remains a falsehood.
Rational means following premises to logical conclusions.
When your premises are against evidence, it matters not whether you reason from them.
What premise of mine is against evidence?
That you have an authority for morality.
I’d have said that the welfare of people/sentient beings was fundamental to the meaning of the word “morality”. What else would we have the word for?
What “authority” have I claimed to have “for morality”?
Perhaps for what it has meant to virtually the entire western, modern world for hundreds of years – obeying the will of god, fulfilling god’s purpose, etc?
Without any principled argument, your “I don’t like it and won’t put up with it” is not substantively different from theirs – it’s just another “because I say so”, might-makes-right subjective perspective.
Are you claiming to know the will of god?
Which god? And why that one?
William, you are the one without principles.
Well, as I said, I am not wrong about the agendas of the ID/creationists; as you so clearly (for once) confirm.
As I mentioned, I have visited some of your churches and I have listened to your people demonizing others and things they know nothing about; demonizing in complete ignorance, just as you do.
The asymmetry here is that there are no scientists or anyone else going into your churches attempting to muck up your church services and teachings in the same way you sectarians seek to muck up the political processes and the educations of other people’s children.
I’ll repeat what I said before; you choose ignorance because you think it absolves you of any responsibility to the society that feeds and protects you. You choose ignorance because it allows you to demonize faceless people whom you refer to as secularists. Secularism is an evil to you; and you can feel secure in that belief as long as you remain ignorant.
Demonizing others is a central theme in socio/political agendas of sectarians such as the ID/creationists. The tactics include innuendo, pseudo-philosophy, pseudoscience that misrepresents real science, quote-mining and misrepresenting the thoughts of others, and outright lying about the morality and the motives of those who don’t subscribe to their sectarian dogma. And then they turn right around and accuse everyone else of doing exactly what the ID/creationists themselves are doing. That is deliberate provocation to cultural warfare, William.
Sectarians such as this draw attention to themselves by deliberately kicking others and then blaming those others. It has become a routine part of the political process in our elections and in our US Congress. Lee Atwater and his protégé, Karl Rove, deliberately threw red meat to these sectarians and introduced them to political power; and now we have gridlock over sectarian issues.
You willfully engage in all of these behaviors, William. You choose to be ignorant because, like a child who has just smashed a window, you think that if you don’t look at it, you can make yourself and others believe that you didn’t do it.
You can’t hide behind your pretentious pseudo-philosophy, William; as a “philosopher” you suck big time. Somewhere, somehow, you convinced yourself that you are a sophisticated debater in your ability to engage in “philosophical discourse.” What you don’t recognize is that you use the same old, hackneyed tactics that come right out of the ID/creationist playbook.
You, like all ID/creationists before you, want to replace the secular society in which you live with a sectarian theocracy. Like all such sectarians, you have come to demonize those outside your sectarian subculture; even though that secular society grants and protects your right to your church and your beliefs.
As such a sectarian, you are an ungrateful parasite on society, William. You contribute nothing of worth; you’ve drunk the sectarian Kool-Aid and you believe you live among evil demons. We know the drill.
What difference does that make? You made the comment and asked the question:
I’m pointing out that you are acting as if morality cannot possibly mean anything other than what is convenient to your position, when in fact morality has largely meant something else entirely for hundreds of years.
You’re attempting to win an argument about morality by definitional fiat by summarily ignoring what “morality” has meant to billions of people for hundreds of years.
Seriously, Mike, you have no ability to comprehend anything I’m saying. You are apparently trying to fit everything I say into some pre-packaged, stereotypical concept in your mind that renders you incapable of actually understanding what are relatively simple statements on my part.
You’re not wrong about them having an agenda, but then, who doesn’t have an agenda?
I see you are a fan of Barton. None of those acts you attribute to Jefferson and Congress took place.
Liz: and you wonder why more IDists don’t come here to “debate”?
Mike: I don’t think secularism is evil. I don’t wish to install a theocracy. I don’t go to church. I’m not a member of any particular religion or religious group. I don’t have a “dogma”. I don’t think I’m absolved of responsibility in this society – in fact, I do my best to be a good member of society. I greatly appreciate this society even if I think we are going through a serious challenge right now.
I don’t know what it is you’re ranting against, but it certainly isn’t me because most of what you’re going on about has nothing to do with me or my life.
And you wonder why you can’t get UD people to come here. Sheesh.
From Wikipedia, which references the Library of Congress:
Good resource to start learning about the real religious history of the USA and its founding forefathers: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel07
Since you haven’t bothered to say what it is that you would do if if you had your desires, we can’t very be faulted for speculating.
You seem to think teaching some form of ID as an alternative to evolution in public schools. Actually, I tend to agree that it would be a good idea to teach the history of science. I had that in a general science course in ninth great and thought it was great.
I think many ID proponents are such because they never learned why science superseded religion as the explainer of how things work.
I think secularism has gone too far in recent years hand that secularists have begun a campaign of attacking religious freedoms – most notably, that of Christians. There is no constitutional guarantee to be free from religion.
I think that the slow draw-down of the religious laws over time has been appropriate. I don’t think there’s any place for for most of the federal laws that exist that are about morals – such as personal drug possession and use, prostitution, etc. I don’t think anyone should have to swear an oath to god on a bible to give testimony; I don’t think there should be blue laws. I’m a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian, but unlike some others I have a great respect for what Christians did in establishing, financing, building and protecting Western society.
Jefferson also owned slaves. What is your point. I thought you were interested in principles rather than convenience.
Jefferson was not a believer, yet for convenience he approved of religion as a civilizing influence.
He also consented to have slavery permitted under the constitution.;
Really? You can’t fault someone for speculating about things when they could have just asked, and posting those speculations as if true in a long rant full of invective and personal attack based on those speculations?
So you now want to pull the persecution complex shtick.
You don’t appear to know anything about history – particularly the socio/political history of the ID/creationist movement; so what do you think you are arguing?
It appears that nobody here can figure out what you are attempting to “argue;” but at least it is clear that whatever you are attempting to argue, it is with complete ignorance of science. Why anyone would choose to remain in such a prideful state of complete ignorance escapes me; as I am sure it does everyone else here.
You are free to believe whatever you like; and you seem to think there is something “sophisticated” about believing whatever it is you believe while remaining completely ignorant of science. But your “argumentation” is stereotypical of novices who just discovered philosophy and believe they have achieved total enlightenment. Well, yippee for you!
And as long as you continue to parrot ID/creationist “philosophy,” that’s the camp in which you will be placed. You don’t appear to know anything else; and that, in itself, is a pretty convincing clue, despite your claims to the contrary.
And by the way; nobody here is attacking Christians in general. The problem is with envious sectarians who want to be in charge of everyone else. You know who they are.
So, bottom line; I don’t believe you have a clue what you are talking about. Is that clear?
“Believer” is rather vague. Jefferson was a theist, and considered himself a “real” Christian (follower of the teachings of Christ), even if he considered large portions of the Bible and most of the institution of religion to be contemptible.
I’m not sure what you think it matters that Jefferson had slaves. My point was that this country started out, for all practical purposes, by today’s standards, a theocracy. People ran for public office by debating who was the better Christian, by arguing scripture, and by interpreting the Bible in terms of their proposed policies. Government bodies issued religious proclamations as to national days of prayer and fasting. Debates went on in the House about what God wanted the USA to do in certain situations.
The context of this isn’t about Jefferson per se, but about the principles of secularism vs religion in terms of culture and governance. IMO, here in recent years the secularists have become radical, attempting to remove crosses from public lands and icons from public buildings. I think it’s starting to undermine our common moral and ethical base, balkanizing and overly disrupting our culture. IMO, it might even e destroying it, which is why I support the ID cultural/political agenda (even if I don’t agree with how Mike characterized it).
So, when Mike bitterly complains that “sectarian” advocates like myself don’t appreciate the country or want to fundamentally change it, I offer the above to note the irony. It is secularists that have changed the country from what it was when founded – and, for the most part, I consider that appropriate.
But, IMO, they’re going too far now.
I tend to agree.In my childhood one could be asked about one’s church attendance by a prospective employer and denied a job based on the answers.
Do you really expect me to view this past with nostalgia?
IMO, Mike, this is all projection. Admitting that I don’t know enough about science to argue particulars on merit is not the same as being “proud” of it. I’ve never said, or indicated, that I’m proud of it. I’m just admitting what is true.
I also never claimed to be “sophisticated”, or implied that my beliefs are such. I can only assume this is some kind of projection on your part.
You’d have to know what I’m talking about in order to have any warrant for such an accusation; it’s obvious that you do not, because you keep making assumptions about me, and my position, that are entirely erroneous – even after being corrected.
The last few centuries have seen the rise of secular states and a steady decline in violence.
This statistic of decline in violent death includes all the wars and atrocities of the twentieth century. When you count up the bodies, Hitler, Stalin and Mao killed fewer people by percentage than the religious wars of previous centuries.
And the decline continues.
Is “nostalgia” the principle by which you evaluate whether or not a cultural direction or governing policy is appropriate?
Source?
And I will keep making assumptions and assertions about you for as long as you continue to play this cat-and-mouse game.
By the way, do you know the history of that cat-and-mouse game, William? Do you know who plays it well? I do.
You make the assertion that you are free to believe whatever you want despite the evidence; but then you object when someone makes conclusions about you based on your game-playing.
I stand by what I said until I see otherwise. You just condemned yourself further with your gullible acceptance of pseudo-historian David Barton. Live with it.
I haven’t ever read or posted anything by David Barton that I am aware of. As far as I know, I never even heard the name until someone upthread mentioned him a few minutes ago.
That’s another of those erroneous assumptions I’ve been telling you about, Mike. You keep compounding them, one after another.
Mike E:
Apparently, just because JonF disagreed with what I wrote about the capitol and early state-sponsored religious activities in America, he simply speculated/assumed that I was parroting someone else whom he doesn’t consider to be a valid historical reference. As far as I know, I’ve never heard of the guy or read anything he might have said or written.
I backed up my the capitol-church claim with a quote from Wiki which references the library of congress, and then put in a link to a page in the LOC about the religiosity of the early government.
Apparently, you saw where JonF made his wild (and erroneous) speculation and accepted that, without evidence or corroboration, as some kind of factual statement about me, and then you attempted to (again) smear me with invective based on yet again another entirely erroneous bit of groundless speculation.
I hope this pattern of wild speculation, groundless assumption and inability to accept correction doesn’t often find its way into your scientific research, Mike.
That’s not radical. That’s a neutral movement for level-ground treatment of all persons, non-christian religious, and non religious alike. That is firmly adjudicated in a century of Supreme Court decisions confirming that indeed our government (local state and national) cannot favor one religion over another (nor over no religion). The fact that some government entities need to be dragged (while they falsely claim “anti-christian discrimination”) into compliance with long-settled Constitutional law does not make attempts to force compliance with said law “radical”. Your use of the term “radical” in that context is a slimy attempt to propagandize against the truth.
You should retract and apologize.
A century of Supreme Court decisions? Reference?
The Warren Court’s Everson v. Board of Education ruling is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that secularists have taken it too far. That was clearly a radical ruling, not even drawing on the constitution itself, nor upon the actual history of governmental religiosity by our founders, but rather upon a single, out-of-context quote about “separation of church and state” – which is not even in the constitution, and was certainly not practiced by any of the founding forefathers or the first several administrations.
Radicals have been using that ever since to attempt to purge public lands of any and all religious materials. Now, talking about your beliefs in the armed services can be considered a hate crime? How is that freedom of religious expression?
All this has become (IMO) a campaign by secularists to erase religion from the pubic domain and to stifle the free expression of religious ideas and beliefs. Considering the road where such anti-religious, secularist states have gone down in the past – towards totalitarian suppression and control – I think it’s a profoundly bad idea.
As I said, I think that much of the secularization has been appropriate, but that ruling, and what it has created, was where the secularists went off the rails.
Still feeling misunderstood, are you?
Have you even graduated from high school, William?
Most of us know about the theocratic histories of the colonies, William. The only people who want to go back to that time make the same arguments you do. They say something to the effect that the founding fathers meant this to be a Christian nation. They make the argument that there has been “too much secularization.”
You claim not to have heard of Barton; but the sectarians to whom he appeals make your arguments. We can see the influences on your thinking.
The world is much different now than it was back then; in case you haven’t noticed. The world population is up over 7 billion. The US and all other countries have much more diverse populations now. Racism, bigotry, homophobia, and other types of discrimination are no longer viewed as appropriate means of group cohesion. What takes place in remote parts of the world affects all of us.
The sectarian ideologies of the early colonies are not something to be looked at with nostalgia or as something that has been “lost” due to secularization.
Living in isolated ignorance, suspicion, fear, and hatred are no longer an option for groups who don’t like the world in which they live. People need mutually verifiable information and communication among themselves. Pseudoscience, pseudo-history, and pseudo-philosophy are no longer appropriate shields or cudgels that are used to carve out a subculture of people full of fear and loathing toward everyone else.
Yet, for some reason, you seem to think science isn’t important; and you apparently think that without knowing anything about science. You simply don’t have a clue about the template the Enlightenment and science have provided for how we go about getting and verifying information about nature and other people.
We no longer believe that “preachers,” despite their claims, have special insights. They are now held to the same objective standards as everyone else.
Religion is not the source of morality and appropriate behavior; religious zeal has been tempered by secular law. If you don’t know science and you don’t know about the Enlightenment, then you don’t know what that means.
WJM
Not you specifically (it’s not all about you, William!) but the ‘average IDist’. It’s the frequent science-mangling that goes on at UD (with nary a ‘correction’ offered by others more knowledgable on their own side) that prompted my participation in ‘the debate’.
According to my google search, that decision was in 1947, and the Warren court dates from 1953.
I was very much a theist, living in Australia, when I first heard of that case (some years after the actual ruling). At the time, I thought it a good decision, and good for Christianity.
I find it hard to respond to this unwarranted inference – this inept “analysis” – and stay within forum rules.
So I won’t.
Back when the Germans were bombing Pear Harbor.
Guys, things are getting a little steamy in here.
Can the pile-on back off?
thanks!
Cool, I’m out. William, if you’re serious, go and live in a Theocracy that isn’t Christian. You’ll get my respect for that.
Typical of the bastardized history which christian Dominionists foist off on an undereducated public. Shame you’ve fallen for it.
Everson v. Board of Education was a 5-4 victory for the religious-school student transportation subsidy, not for the taxpaying parent who objected to financing religious students’ busfare to private schools.
You are factually wrong on whether the “secularists” even won that decision, much less whether they had “taken it too far”. You are factually wrong when you attempt to characterize it as a “radical ruling”.
Maybe your Dominionist sources are upset because, while ruling the case for the private-school side, Justice Hugo Black wrote a stirring opinion:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1
Justice Black was a Baptist Sunday school teacher for decades. Yes, it’s true there have been many devout religious believers in US history who have clearly understood that freedom of religion requires freedom from government imposition of religion.
Note that the four dissenting justices all agree with Justice Black’s statement that the First Amendment entails the wall of separation of church and state. (Their dissent is, given the No Establishment clause, that the taxpayers’ religious-school bus subsidies should be overturned.)
Others have already pointed out your unintentionally hilarious slur against the “Warren Court”. As for your ridiculous nonsense that the ruling did not draw from the Constitution, well, it’s true that the phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution. Neither does paper money. Neither does the Electoral College. Neither does the Air Force. 😯
Of course the concept (not the specific phrase) of a wall of separation of church and state is drawn directly from the Constitution. It’s right there in black and white in the First Amendment.
That it was not always observed is not our fault today nor should those historic mistakes in government conduct be grandfathered in. Christian-favoring government traditions – morally wrong and downright illegal – need to be set aside like other relics of our poor past: slavery and stoning to death for adultery …
Ironically, the same sectarians who claim that “freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion” also want no part of “secular humanism” – a religion in their minds – or the “naturalism” of evolution; another religion in their minds.
These same sectarians also violently oppose Muslims building mosques in their communities.
And these characters are also involved in “primarying” members of Congress.
Unfortunately, the dumber they become, the louder and more political they become. Politicians in some districts are either terrified of these characters or they see opportunities to exploit their ignorance in order to get and keep themselves elected. We still have a long way to go to get past this kind of sectarian bigotry and hatred.
Hotshoe,
By “radical ruling”, I meant the part of the decision that referred to “separation of church and state”, not the outcome of the decision. It was radical because it had no constitutional basis, and no basis whatsoever in the traditions and history of the country. The first amendment provides a protection for religion against government, not a protection for government – or the general public – against religion.
Just because a Christian was involved doesn’t make it any less radical. Christians have been involved in many radical ideas – some good, some not so good. It was basically with Christian blessing the the US descended into a virtual totalitarian/Fascist state under Woodrow Wilson, who considered himself God’s right hand on earth.
While the decision was probably wrong, it was the ruling – the language – that was radical and has been taken to extremes to bully people against overtly and publicly displaying their religion to the point where talking about it may be considered a hate crime, making a mockery of free speech and freedom of religion (not “from” religion).
I agree that government shouldn’t collect taxes for the purpose of helping out any particular religion; I agree that children should not be forced to pray in schools by teachers; but we’re not talking about cases where the state is using some form of coercion to promote a religion. We’re talking about not being able to say “Merry Christmas”, children not being able to wear crosses to school or shirts that say “Jesus” on them.
Just because a citizen crosses a curb and is now on public land doesn’t mean that citizen loses all their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion; no, the first amendment is there to protect them and their rights to enter the public forum without fear of government sanction.
The ruling has turned into a means of coercing religious activities out of the public square, which is exactly the opposite of the intent of the First Amendment.
Fortunately, it looks like the Supreme Court is going to revisit this issue soon.
Unless one is completely ignorant of the religiosity of the early administrations and how it was expressed on official documents and as iconography on monuments and public buildings, how federal funds were used and how other resources were used to promote christian views and ideals, there is simply no way anyone can reasonable claim that the intent of the first amendment was to create a wall between church and state in the sense employed in that ruling.
Good grief … elected officials are still sworn with their hand on a Bible. What do you think it was like back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s? Public officials used to accuse each other of heresy – even Jefferson was accused of it.
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya – “That amendment, I do not think it means what you – or Justice Black – think (thought) it means.”
It’s no pleasure to encounter someone so ignorant of history that they actually think authoritarianism is a hypothetical that needs to be settled by argument.
I suppose that’s why you missed the sarcasm, too.
Once again, davehooke, the argument is about principle, not about history or fact.
You’re wrong. You need to stop spewing that nonsense. Clearly it did and does have a constitutional basis. You’re not a legal scholar and every reputable Constitutional scholar agrees that separation of church and state as affirmed by the Supreme Court has a constitutional basis.
Ignorant biased propaganda and simply not true given the writings of Jefferson, Madison, et al, and historical facts such as all US states disestablishing their state churches no later than 1833; 180 years ago.
More Dominionist disinformation. The true fact is that the First Amendment protects persons against religion favored by or imposed upon them by the government. Of course, no one is saying we are protected against religion itself – the churches can keep ringing their bells around the public square and there is nothing to stop them – but the government is forbidden to make me listen to their prayers within the halls of government.
Irrelevant. Still not a radical idea for a Supreme Court justice to clearly state that the Constitution means what it says. The State shall not establish a religion. That’s what it says, that’s what it means.
Talking about religion may be considered a hate crime??? Citation seriously fucking needed. USA only. Reputable journals only, not goddamned Glen Beck or Sean Hannity.
There you go again, pretending that one can have freedom “of” religion where one does not have freedom from religion. It’s logically impossible to have one without the other, but religionists can’t seem to grasp that basic concept in their desire to force people to believe in some religion, any religion, no matter how pointless or weak or immoral, rather than accept no religion.
No, we’re no talking about that, because it never happens. You can say Merry Christmas all you want. Go ahead, try it. Say it. Do you hear the police coming to arrest you for saying Merry Christman? No? I thought not.
You need to retract your right-wing-talking-point garbage.
Yeah, sorry christian kids, have to put away their crosses for a few hours a day rather than use them as symbols of their membership in the big club for kids who get to go to heaven, while tormenting the non-christian kids who aren’t in the big club and who they say are going to burn in hell for having the bad luck to be born in a non-christian family. Yeah, telling them not to wear Jesus shirts is definitely taking it “to extremes to bully people”. Don’t tell me you’ve never heard of a dress code. As long as a dress code is not prejudiced either for or against religion (nor for or against non-religion) then it’s not an example of “bullying” of which religionists are always pretending they are victims.
Correct, which is why christians are not arrested for praying on public land or reading their holy book in a public library. But neither do they have a right to waltz onto public land and erect a 20-ft tall crucifix with impunity, no more than they have the right to free expression by waltzing onto public land and erecting a 20-ft tall billboard for the flying spaghetti monster.
Wrong, wrong. Nothing is being coerced out of the public square. Unless you’re going to start whining that neutral application of constitutional government is “coercing”. Some icons have been ruled as unconstitutional preferential displays with the government favoring some specific christian sects or Abrahamic religion in general to the detriment of other religions and non-religion. Those have got to be removed in order to bring the government buildings and land back into neutrality. That neutrality is exactly what the founding fathers intended with the First Amendment; now we’re finally getting applied to the ignorant christian majority.
And if there’s justice, the sectarian reactionaries will lose again, as they have lost every major church-state decision for sixty years.
edit- last blockquote
Except when you want to bring in “history” to pretend that America should be a christian nation because it used to be a christian nation.
Principle? Not really so important to you when you’re not a Constitutional scholar and you’re losing the constitutional argument. Suddenly the argument is about “history” 🙄
How convenient for you!
William J. Murray,
So William is just another Glenn Beck and Fox Noise follower.
Every Christmas season, just like clockwork, these idiots break out the old “THERE IS A WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!!!” shtick.
It simply doesn’t happen; the vast majority of people in this country enjoy the holidays of nearly every cultural and ethnic group. It is especially fun in places like Hawaii where one gets to celebrate the Chinese New Year, various Polynesian and Hawaiian festivals. You can celebrate the vernal equinox with the Indian population and throw brightly colored dyes all over each other; there are Italian, Greek, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Wicca, and other religious celebrations. Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, New York City, and other major cities also enjoy multicultural events.
William apparently resides in a cloistered sectarian community, the members of which have never been outside the county or township in which they were born. That would account for his gullibility about the maudlin whining of people like Glenn Beck and the bimbos and dandies on Fox Noise.
Multicultural experiences are mind-expanding. However, the people who whine about the First Amendment tend to be xenophobic and paranoid about the history and traditions of other cultures. To them, religious freedom means only one thing; the exclusive right and governmental protection for the adherents of their religion, and their religion only, to proselytize when and wherever they please while others are forced to listen. What a boring, pitiful life that is.
The question is not whether those men believe in some religion, nor even if they believe that religious faith, prayer, and church attendance are absolutely vital to a good society. The question is whether they believe that the government should have any preference for religion. And the answer is black and white: No. If the framers had intended to make the USA a christian nation, they would have inserted explicitly religious terms into the Constitution. Nothing stopped them from doing so. Nothing except their intent NOT to make the USA a christian nation, not even in the most general terms. Not only no Jesus Christ, no Lord Almighly, but not even a meek and general invocation of “God”.
Here’s how a brilliant legal scholar illuminates the meaning of the First Amendment language:
[emphasis in original; some internal cites and footnote markings removed for clarity]
You are not a legal scholar. Your incredulity that men of faith could choose to erect a wall of separation between our various personal faiths and our government is not a valid argument.
Good grief, yourself. Here’s the non-religious truth in black and white:
Article II, section 1 of the Constitution:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Do you see any mention in that prescribed oath of “So help me, god”? Do you see any mention in the specifically-written direction about placing one’s hand on a bible? No. No. None at all.
Swearing on a bible was important enough to them to that it proves they intended to found a christian nation, but it was so unimportant to them that they accidentally forgot to write down the swearing on a bible part of the oath? Really, you think they were that dumb?
Of course not. If the USA were actually a christian nation as you pretend it is, the founding fathers would have intelligently inserted such christian wording into the oath of office. They did not do so, because they were determined to bar the government from requiring religious participation even in such a traditionally-religious action as swearing an oath.
Completely irrelevant. The question is not what they thought of each other as persons, not what they thought of each other’s religious practices, not what they chose to insult each other even within the halls of government. The question is what they thought the role of the government regarding religion was supposed to be. And we know the answer; they wrote it down in black and white for all posterity. No government preference of religion. No mention of deity. No hint of religious oath requirements. No religious test for participation in government.
Funny. Funny it turns out that an argument from authority is not a fallacy after all when the discussion is about the meaning of an article of the Constitution and the authorities put forth are several generations of Supreme Court Justices.
The only way you could hope to demonstrate that the First Amendment means what you pretend it means is to put forth a genuine legal authority which trumps a consistent century of Supreme Court rulings. Your personal incredulity is not a valid argument. Inigo Montoya, in this case, is not even wrong.