Magellan, I think you misunderstood what iiandyiiii was saying. It was clear to me that he wasn’t asking you to give examples where there were documents that had another format of writing the date. That would be silly as it’s obvious anyone would probably be able to do that. He was asking for you to prove that the format “in the year of Our Lord” was something that was never used for secular documents, since you’re claiming that use of that format is evidence that the U.S. was founded on Judeo-Chritian principles.
So, should buildings with cornerstones that use “ad” qualify for religious tax exemptions?
Yep, this is it. Thank you 
[Quote=Jesus]
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…
[/quote]
That’s a Christian principle we routinely follow or ignore depending on who’s building it is.
The initials A.D. and B.C., and the use of 1 A.D. as the datum for the calendar year, are in general use worldwide, although other calendars obviously exist. Does that mean the world is Judeo-Christian?
Or do the uses of Roman gods’ names for the months mean the world is Roman-goddist?
This is utter bullshit. You were trying to build the impression that no credence should be given to the fact that “in the Year of Our Lord” was the common way it was done. I asked if you would concede the point if I could show that the date, in official documents, was often referred to with an expression other than that. You agreed. And then you try to say that "Oh, you meant that I’d have to show that it was NEVER used. Like I said, that’s bullshit. That is no way to debate.
We are done.
Jesus never said that. He has posted twice. Once to say he wanted to be in a gerbil’s ass and once to introduce himself and say that Judas wanted his nuts.
I didn’t agree to this. You seem to have misunderstood me. I’m trying to help you understand it.
That’s what I said from the beginning.
You’re wrong, and x-ray vision gets what I was saying in post #21. Maybe that will help.
Don’t take it personally – it’s no big deal.
Can we skip the question for a second and assume we agree that the country was founded on Christian principles? If so, what is the implication? Do we now only have free exercise for Christians? Does the Establishment Clause now merely mean that the government can’t pick between Christian sects, but can promote Christianity?
mags, for me to concede on that point, I said “If you can show me that the phrase “in the year of Our Lord” was not used in secular documents, then yes I would.”
You didn’t show me that it was not used in secular documents. You showed me a few secular documents that it was not on – obviously, a trivially easy assignment. For me to concede, you would have to show me that it wasn’t used on any secular documents, or at least that it wasn’t used commonly.
I assume your estimation of my intelligence is not so low that you really think I believed that you wouldn’t be able to find any documents at all from the time period that didn’t use that phrase 
Can not agree when even the early congress did not see it that way.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp
That was signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, when looked at it in congress no one batted an eye at that language back then.
I’m not saying I see it that way. I’m asking what it would mean if I did.
More bullshit. Show me where you used the word “never”. Go ahead. I’d love to see it.
Nope.
The way people debate is a big deal to me. I care less about someone’s position than how they debate, which is why there are quite a few people who I rarely, if ever, agree with on this board, yet can be happy debating.
I did that. I showed you 4 official documents that did not use that construction. I was even so careful as to find images of the original documents, so we could be certain. The documents you provided after the fact, while evidence of MY position, are not as clear cut.
Oh, so now your story is that you were just intentionally just wasting my fucking time? Sorry, I call this BULLSHIT, revisionist style.
I don’t know what the fuck you assume. Nor care. and I don’t care two shits about how intelligent you are or are not. On a debate board I simply I care about how one debates. I care about one’s honesty. It goes to character. While I’ve had many heated debates with many people here, there is only one that is on my Ignore List. And that is due to his low character, not his position.
I’d argue that American secularism is itself a Christian principle, with some roots in pre-Christian European thought. It is part of an intellectual history that includes the Peace of Westphalia, the Two Swords Theory and many other developments.
More generally, the way Americans, both culturally and in policy, conceive of religion and religious practice is extremely (Protestant) Christian. In my experience this holds true on both the left and the right, and even among non-Christians, especially those born and raised in the US.
I have a hard time seeing the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution as Christian documents. They’re clearly much more heavily based on the traditions of classical Greece and Rome.
Why are you posting as if you’re pissed? Is it that outlandish that you might really have misunderstood me?
I didn’t say “never”. I also didn’t say “always”. You thought I meant “always”, but you were wrong. I said “If you can show me that the phrase “in the year of Our Lord” was not used in secular documents, then yes I would.” I should have added the word “commonly” – so it should have been “If you can show me that the phrase “in the year of Our Lord” was not commonly used in secular documents, then yes I would.”
I’m happy debating you. You’re wrong about what I said – I didn’t say I would concede if you showed me a few secular docs that didn’t use “In the year of Our Lord”. I did not say this. You might have thought I did, or thought I meant it, but I did not.
This did not meet the word-for-word meaning of my statement. Showing a few documents that do not use that phrase is not the same as showing that the phrase is not used in secular documents.
This makes no sense. My position is (and was from the beginning) that “In the Year of Our Lord” is a commonly used phrase in secular documents, and has nothing to do with whether the document is inspired by Christian principles. Then, I showed some other secular documents (treaties with Native American tribes) from the time period that use the phrase “In the Year of Our Lord”. This supports my position, not yours. If I found ten more treaties that used that phrase, there would be even more support for my position – which, again, is that the phrase was commonly used in secular documents at the time. That doesn’t mean it was always used – obviously, as you showed, it was not. But it was used frequently, on treaties, and on the US Constitution, and my contention is that this has no religious significance.
I didn’t make you do anything! You asked what it would take for me to concede the point – and I told you: (again) “If you can show me that the phrase “in the year of Our Lord” was not used in secular documents, then yes I would.”
That phrase is used in secular documents. I was right. You failed to show that the phrase was not used in secular documents. You showed 4 secular documents with a different phrase. This did not meet the requirement for me to concede. And then I found examples that negated the possibility of me conceding – because that phrase, as was my point, really was used in secular documents.
You’re getting heated for no reason. This really is a misunderstanding.
If you have more heat and anger, then PM me.
Crud… wrong thread. Disregard!
Not that this will prove anything or convince anybody, but if they had founded the US on Christian principles, why wouldn’t they have explicitly spelled that out in the Constitution?
If you founded a country or state or whatever on your religion, wouldn’t you find a way to mention said religion in your Constitution?
… and not to explicitly separate the government from religion?
Compare and contrast the US Constitution with the clip I gave from the MA State Constitution, above. The difference is quite clear.