You wanted to pin it down to the man at a point in time. I choose that point in time as the signing of the Constitution. What more relevant point in time than that, and why?
OK
What about the Thomas Paine “of 1789”? What does that mean? How does that relate to your accusation of Cott that he possesses “an ignorance of the disparity of religious beliefs among the Founders, and an ignorance of political significance they placed on those beliefs”? During your dispute with Cott, you raised Paine’s The Age of Reason, which was predictable, since Age is nothing more than a bitter attack on The Bible and Judeo-Christian faith. But, you then went on to unaccountably reference “the Founders.” What’s up with that? Are you suggesting that the Paine of 1793 somehow had an influence on the American Revolutionary Act of 1776, in an indefinable time warp of quirky retroactivity?
Now you introduce a third “point in time”; “the Paine of 1789,” claiming my desire was to “pin it down” to the man at a point in time. You’re not that dense. But, you clearly are that devious. The issue was the stark contrast of the religious philosophy of Paine in 1776 and of that same Paine of 1793 (don’t try to deny it – people were watching when you introduced the two conflicting themes). The “points in time” are irrelevant, other than as reference points highlighting the two contrasting philosophies of Paine. You can’t deal with the contradictions of Paine or the reason for their existence. So, all you’re left with is:
Babble.
Flickering thought fragments, searching desperately for cohesiveness.
But, if that’s the best you can do, then that’s the best you can do.