Uzi Nissan (nissan.com) died of covid July 2020 and the website is now down

Using a social media platform specifically built as a harbor for racists, xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, and fascists is simply a data point supporting an assertion about your beliefs.

> If my understanding is inaccurate, I welcome correction

You're similarly free to redirect that welcoming attitude toward doing your own due diligence about the topics on which you speak publicly. The US was not founded upon Christian morals [0]; further, Christian morals are objectively shit - any religion with a deity that advocates for slavery has no place in civilized society.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." -John Adams

0. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/founding-fathers-we-are-n_b_6...

That is not the right way to look at things. You should not be harassed legally because someone with more resources wants what is rightfully yours. They can offer to buy, you can decline.

Please don’t do a whataboutism. This is about America and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, not Russia.

Thank you for both sidestepping the claims related to Gab and then directly misquoting the article!

To clear up the reading comprehension bit, the article states: "Not one time is the word "god" mentioned in our founding document." I don't know where that 'f' snuck in, but that statement is referencing the Constitution.

Further, the First Amendment - particularly the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses - perfectly counters your notion of Christianity being embedded into this nation's founding.

If your intent is to ever convince someone with whom you disagree, I also recommend more consistent scholarship. You're certainly right that it can be difficult, especially when even reading an article causes significant confusion.

This world has no place for fascists, period. Good luck with things.

Ah, better...

> Thank you for both sidestepping the claims related to Gab

I need not reply to generalizations and libel about my character.

> Further, the First Amendment - particularly the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses - perfectly counters your notion of Christianity being embedded into this nation's founding.

No, it doesn't. It clearly enunciates an individual's right to choose. The ability to choose is, in itself, a Christian idea. According to the Bible, faith in God is not coerced, rather it is a choice to be freely made by everyone. Christ Himself said He came to help those who need Him, literally "When Jesus heard this, he told them, “Healthy people don’t need a doctor—sick people do. I have come to call not those who think they are righteous, but those who know they are sinners.""

> If your intent is to ever convince someone with whom you disagree, I also recommend more consistent scholarship.

You provided the article as some kind of proof. There are glaring problems with that article.

> This world has no place for fascists, period. Good luck with things.

I argue for self-sovereignty in the form of the first and second amendments. First the rights to free speech, practice of religion, association; and second, the right to protect yourself if someone comes for you or your loved ones.

I want you to have your speech, your religion, and your guns. To speak your mind freely, and to be able to protect yourself and the ones you love when the real fascists come for you. I swore an oath to protect the Constitution and the citizens of this country. I will stand by that til I die.

How is that fascism? I'm deeply confused now.

As for misquoting the article:

> The facts of our history are easy enough to verify. Anybody who ignorantly insists that our nation is founded on Christian ideals need only look at the four most important documents from our early history -- the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers and the Constitution -- to disprove that ridiculous religious bias. All four documents unambiguously prove our secular origins.

Emphasis mine.

In the very next section on the Declaration of Independence the article clearly states:

> Only four times is there any reference at all to higher powers -- "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," "Supreme Judge of the world," "their Creator," and "divine Providence" -- and in all four cases the references to a higher power appeal to the idea of inherent human dignity, never implying a role for a god in government.

Now, the Declaration of Independence is not a long document. About 1300 words. For the clarion cry of freedom to appeal the Almighty four times in 1300 words -- over half of which is an enumeration of crimes against human decency -- appears to be (to me at least) to be a lot. A lot more than I would expect an atheistic, godless group of men to do.

All that to say, I didn't misquote the article. Perhaps I paraphrased poorly? My claim that the author is inconsistent stands.