Replies

You have already shown that you have no handle on history, so you should just quit while you are ahead. Your knowledge of history has been found wanting so many times, it's pathetic. Don't you ever get embarrassed?

You embarass yourself with the 'history' ploy.
Case in point, CodeMonkey said:
"The question still remains, if the information presented by the other poster in this case are correct then would you not call John Jay a religious bigot?"

It is radical to offer office only to Christians and to allow only Christians as U.S. citizens, but the context of the times must be considered.

The "context of the times", clearly stated that no religious test could be required for office. - "Don't you ever get embarrassed?"

The U.S. at that time was 99% Christian. There were hardly any other religions to speak of in America at that time (smattering of catholics and jewish citizens). It was a Christian nation - that's a simple historical fact.

Many americans of that era were non-belivers, just as today. By in any event your 'history' is belied by your own bigoted aside about a "smattering of catholics"..
Catholics are non-Christian?? --- Don't you ever get embarrassed with your own historical ignorance ?

Many americans of that era were non-belivers, just as today. By in any event your 'history' is belied by your own bigoted aside about a "smattering of catholics".. Catholics are non-Christian?? --- Don't you ever get embarrassed with your own historical ignorance ?

So, once again you post what you want to be true rather than what is true. No surprise coming from a career anti-Christian bigot (just like your ostracized namesake! hahaha) and a secular humanist.

Catholics are non-Christian?? --- Don't you ever get embarrassed with your own historical ignorance ?

You don't even know what makes a Christian a Christian, so your comment is bizarre. Please leave this to the Christians - a Christian hater should not concern himself with this issue.