Rainbow crosswalks?


Of course not because it doesn’t sync up with what you beleive.


Wrong again. It didn’t “sync up” with what the majority of those in the U.S. thought at THAT time. ca. 1790.


Nice strawman.

I said it that "I think it gives us some insight into how Jefferson (arguably one of the most influential of the founders) and others at the time thought. "

I didn’t say “the majority”, I meant to imply that Jefferson wasn’t the only founder who thought this way.


Oh, so if only ONE other person thought like Jefferson, that makes your assertion true??? Nonsense, of course.


Jefferson was the President at the time the letter was written.

If the letter was written to the Danbury Baptists were rejected by others at the time, where are the rebuttal/s? I mean, if other members of the government at the time felt that the US was founded as a Christian nation as you and FC claim, it seems to me there would have been a strong rebuke by those that believe as you do. I mean, remember, Jefferson wasn’t writing this letter as a private citizen but as President of the United States.

So again, I ask, where is the rebuke of Jefferson’s words to the Baptists of Danbury? Where are the contemporaneous responses that uphold your claims that there was a belief that the US was founded as a christin nation, rather than a nation of people who were largely descended of Christians and Christin Traditions.


LOL. Are you REALLY this obtuse, CSB? Jefferson wrote a letter to a specific church. It wasn’t published and he didn’t seek congressional approval for writing it. It was a PRIVATE missive in answer to a letter from the church expressing concern about the 1st Amendment’s establishment clause. People who disagreed wouldn’t have even KNOWN about it until long after it was written and mailed.


Where did I say or imply that he sought Congressional approval? I merely pointed out that he was President when he did it.

Except there were (at least) 2 people who knew before the letter was sent and he did seek opinions on the matter…

The president was keenly aware of the political implications
of his pronouncement on a delicate church-state issue. Before
sending his considered response, Jefferson solicited the political
advice and comment of “his chief consultants on New England,”
Attorney General Levi Lincoln, a Massachusetts Republican,
and Postmaster General Gideon Granger, a Connecticut Republican.

Dumas Malone, Jefferson the President: First Term, 1801-1805 at 109 (Little,
Brown and Co., 1970). Je££erson’s solicitation of advice from his cabinet officers further
controverts the claims of critics who discount or belittle the Danbury letter as a hastily
drafted little note of courtesy, lacking deliberation or precision.

Furthermore, why would you think that a rebuke of the president’s words couldn’t be written after he sent it? Certainly news of the letter and it’s contents were known after it was sent and any party that disagreed with him would have said something, right??

Now, who’s being obtuse?


You are, apparently. There were no such thing as “Republicans” when Jefferson was President.


Jefferson’s party was the Democratic-Republican party sometimes called the Republican party for short of which Granger was a member…

So Jefferson’s letter wasn’t a private letter hastily scribbled down and my point stands.

“The Democratic-Republican Party (also known as the Republican Party and various other names)[a] was an American political party founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the early 1790s. The party championed republicanism, political equality, and expansionism. The Democratic-Republicans became increasingly dominant after the 1800 elections and splintered during and after the 1824 presidential election; one faction of the Democratic-Republicans eventually coalesced into the Democratic Party.”


BS, of course.


You just cannot admit when you’re wrong, can you…lol


LOL. If you’re getting your information from Wikipedia (which I strongly suspect) you should know that they get a LOT of their “historical facts” wrong. Nobody (except Wiki, apparently) referred to the Anti-Federalists as “Republicans,” a term that wasn’t in use until the GOP was formed in 1854 around Abraham Lincoln. Wiki also says that Jefferson “chose as his running mate…” There were no “running mates” in those days. The candidate who garnered the most electoral votes was named President and whoever garnered the SECOND most votes became Vice President–even if from a different party. That was how Jefferson became Adams’ VP, by the way. Adams was a Federalist and Jefferson was an Anti-Federalist, believing in slavery and opposed to the establishment of a “National Bank.” The Anti-Federalists eventually became the Democrat[ic] Party (which, by the way, was ANYTHING but “democratic,” which, also by the way, is why I refuse to refer to today’s iteration as the “Democratic Party.”). They are “Democrats,”…period…and becoming the personification of political evil.


You’re trying to distract from your claim that Jefferson wrote a private note to the Baptists of Danbury. You’ve ignored most of what I’ve responded with and you’ve decided to hang your hat on a discrepancy of a title.

It makes no difference what party Granger belong to. Jefferson did confer with others and even if he hadn’t, and you are right about the letter being unknown until it was passed to the Baptists, it would have been known after and a rebuke in public or in private would have been forthcoming.

It wasn’t because the Founders or anyone else of significance of the time didn’t sufficiently object to it. The US was not “founded as a Christian nation”. That’s exactly what the founders were fighting against. Even within the Christian religion people understood that if the US had been founded as a “Christian nation” that would have begun a debate about exactly which sect of Christianity was “the right one”. Thus they avoided proclamations like that.

Show me some documents from history that proclaim the US as a “Christian Nation” rather than just a nation founded by (mostly) Christians. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that says anything other than people have freedom of religion. That’s it. It does not say, Freedom to practice Christianity, which, you’d think it would, if the US was a “Christian Nation”.


Nonsense, of course. The entire establishment of this country was done based on Judeo-Christian principles. NOT on the principles of “Mohammadism” and not “Hinduism” and not Paganism. It was founded on CHRISTIAN principles. I fail to understand why you people refuse to acknowledge that simple fact. Remember that this was AFTER the Reformation and there were various denominations–ALL Christian–vying for recognition as “the” true version of Christianity. To avoid one denomination becoming a “state religion,” the Founders came up with the 1st Amendment. Jefferson was merely reassuring a bunch of Baptists that Anglicanism or Catholicism wouldn’t become the pre-eminent national religion if HE had anything to say about it. There is NOTHING in the 1st Amendment that mentions “a wall of separation between the church and the state.” That was an opinion of one man.


I’d argue that this country was founded on ideals that were popularized as part of the enlightenment of which some who were Christian adopted these ideas…But again, so what?


So what? Have you been asleep since 1963?


Uh, John Locke was no deist. Christianity directly influenced his thought, it was not incidental.

Christianity matters, because Christianity was the only game in town still preaching Natural Law in any form at the time. Pagan and Islamic narratives had long since perished.

We don’t cut off someone’s hand when they steal, because we’re based in Christian metaphysical assumptions which tell us that’s wrong. We still act these assumptions out, even if we’ve forgotten the origin.


I have no problem with local governments honoring whatever their constituencies want to honor, my issue has always been when the Left decide to PROHIBIT local honorings that they despise while MANDATING things be honored that only they embrace.

The people of San Francisco should be able to honor pedophilia, public defacation and taxpayer funded drug abuse while making public displays of Christianity a death penalty offense; that is who they are and they should not have to hide it.

But places where decent humans live should likewise be free to honor decency and timeless principles.

Crosswalks for the queer mafia don’t bother me a bit, I like knowing what the people in any given area embrace as priorities and I have no issue with others knowing my priorities; when people don’t have to hide what they love you instantly know who you can and cannot trust.

The Lefts hypocrisy is not in gay crosswalks, their hypocrisy is when they force gay crosswalks on everyone else while outlawing all crosswalks that do not honor the queer mafia (or one of their other crybaby, entitlement groups)


“Christian metaphysical assumptions”?

That is why you think Christians embrace the idea that the punishment should fit the crime?

We are “assuming” that?

There is no, let’s say, BOOK that declares in both great detail and in summary that the harm done between citizens should be adjudicated in such a way as to restore the victim and appropriately chastise the guilty after carefully considering any and all evidence that might justify leniency?

I guess I just dreamed there was a book called Leviticus.

We don’t cut off a hand for stealing because an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” demands a limit on punishment, a bodily appendage is far more valuable than what is stolen in the material world.


And yet, you just proved me right? “Let the Punishment fit the crime” as you say, is a metaphysical assumption.

You can just as easily say it’s better if the punishment deters the crime by being heavy handed.

I didn’t say where the assumptions came from, and I didn’t need to. The origin wasn’t the point. The Muslims get theirs from the Koran, did anyone need me to say that?