Not even close. The religious author was shown to be obviously biased for religious instruction. For example, wanting to emphasize one word in a much larger document because of bias, especially when in the larger context that word deserves no emphasis.
Meanwhile I have supported the teaching of the two documents even though they contained religious language. They should be taught because they are important founding documents, not because they have or don't have religious content. This is religion-neutral. An anti-religious bias, or "godless" approach, would have me saying those documents shouldn't be taught, or that the religious content should be removed.
All the poster did was avoid exposing his hypocrisy. His bias still clearly remains.
It is difficult to debate with someone who thinks neutrality on a subject equals being against that subject. It's a level of fanatacism reminiscent of Muslims.
Do you mean George Mason or Thomas Jefferson, since they both wrote the same thing and emphasized the same thing as the very founding principle of our nation.
We didn't write it, they wrote it. we *are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.*
How could you call it extremist to want to emphasize where our rights come from? You don't mind the document, you just want to prevent any clear authorative teaching of an important idea it was meaning to convey. Admit it!
That is why you keep tap dancing and taking several winding sentences to avoid what you could have said in five words.
You are the extremist. Your spin is the same as the liberals on all those far left web sites, same far left bias on this topic.