Yes you compared the faith of our Founders and beliefs held by the overwhelming majority of the country to burning witches and the sun, etc.
Belief is belief. The people that burned "witches" believed they were doing the right thing. They did so despite having no rational evidence to support their position; they had only their belief and their faith. Whether an "overwhelming majority" believe something is irrelevant. It's not a popularity contest.
Like "bland" or "milquetoast" believers, I'm not sure what a "nominal" Christian is.
A Christian that says "I'm a Christian" while not bothering to do any of the things Christians are directed to do.
I've read their writings. They believed in God. Not blandly or nominally (whatever that actually means in this context). They believed. There is no reasonable dispute about that.
It's completely crazy to suggest "there is no reasonable dispute about that." It defies objective reality. Books have been written about the faith of the Founding Fathers.
I said laws prohibiting stealing have a Christian "origin or influence." That's just a fact.
Are you joking? Laws against stealing predate Christianity by
millenia. The
Code of Ur-Nammu,
which existed over 4,000 years ago,
explicitly imposed the death penalty for murder or
robbery.
And I'm sure you know, as a Bible reading atheist, that prohibitions on stealing are contained in the Bible; the same Bible that predates the founding of the U.S.
Allow me to introduce you to a new logical fallacy:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
And note you didn't mention adultery, another law that has a Christian origin or influence.
BULLSHIT. Again, the Code of Ur-Nammu defined adultery and imposed penalties for adulterers. This is a full
2,000 years before Jesus, and at least
1,000 years before YHWH gave Moses the 10 Commandments.
I obviously disagree with your characterization of faith based beliefs.
You're allowed to disagree.
We all have them, but not all of us are intellectually honest enough to admit them.
I obviously disagree with you that "we all have [faith based beliefs]." I'd tell you that I don't have beliefs based on faith, but I'm sure you'll just assert that I'm lying or that I'm intellectually dishonest for not admitting the truth that is, to you anyways, so blatantly obvious.
I didn't say Christian morality should inform policy making. I said there is nothing wrong with it and that if people like you or anyone else don't like it, then don't vote for it.
There's
everything wrong with imposing your moral code on others, even if you have a plurality of votes. We live in a republic, not a democracy. What the majority can do is limited by the document which established this country: our Constitution. And rightly so.
Yes divorced women should be able to marry whomever the heck they want. I don't think that is an appropriate law, because it doesn't make any sense and would be bad public policy. I would never vote for or support that kind of law. That's how the whole voting and public policy thing works.
You just finished telling us that "there is nothing wrong with [Christian morality informing policy making] and that if people like you or anyone else don't like it, then don't vote for it."
And
objective,
observable facts suggest that this is
exactly how it works. We could talk about gay marriage, a textbook example of this. Do you
really want me to list comments by U.S. politicians explaining why their religious beliefs mean that they can prohibit what consenting adults can do?