[Noachian]

...and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, ...

"Dubious assertions"?

Are these people so ignorant of history that they think the Framers were multiculturalists?

Just what basis for the Constitution do these so called "critics" think was the basis for that document? What is the "basis" of the Constitution if not the religious outlook of the men who wrote it?

[E Rocc]

Just what basis for the Constitution do these so called "critics" think was the basis for that document? What is the "basis" of the Constitution if not the religious outlook of the men who wrote it?

If it had a religious basis, why wasn't God, Jesus, or the Bible mentioned even once?

Actually, this class is quite constitutional if it's an elective and does not claim that the Bible is the revealed word of God. If it was a "not for credit" class paid for privately, it wouldn't even matter, Constitutionally speaking, if it did teach that the Bible was divinely inspired...as long as dissenters were allowed to set up, conduct, and pay for their own class.

-Eric

[Mylo]

"Just what basis for the Constitution do these so called "critics" think was the basis for that document? What is the "basis" of the Constitution if not the religious outlook of the men who wrote it?"


DEISM?

[Junior]

Just what basis for the Constitution do these so called "critics" think was the basis for that document? What is the "basis" of the Constitution if not the religious outlook of the men who wrote it?

The Bible does not describe a government in any way remotely similar to that created in the Constitution. Nothing listed in the Bill of Rights could be squared with the Bible, either. There is no "Freedom of Religion or Speech" in the Bible. Indeed, much of the OT preaches against such concepts.

Methinks you really didn't put a lot of effort into your response, but simply reacted in a knee-jerk fashion.