You’ve probably never heard of them, but you know their work.
We're referring to the National Association of Christian Lawmakers – or NACL for short.
From efforts to overturn same-sex marriage, to various anti-abortion “heartbeat bills,” to legislation blocking transgender youth from receiving gender-affirming care, the NACL is at the forefront of some of the biggest cultural issues shaping American society today.
Founded in 2019 by former Arkansas State Senator Jason Rapert, the group aims to advance its “biblical worldview” by “[electing] more godly leaders in our nation at every level.”
And with an uncompromising political agenda, a shrewd state-by-state approach, and a growing army of legislators counted amongst their members… they may just be winning.
Biblical Agenda
Just how much does NACL lean into biblical themes? Quite a lot, it turns out.
The group's stated agenda reads like a "greatest hits" of current hot button cultural issues: “The NACL is committed to abolishing abortion in our nation, restoring marriage between one man and one woman, standing up for religious liberty in every venue, promoting universal school choice, and championing the right to introduce our young people to the importance of God in their lives.”
The group is also unapologetic about their views. “We believe that America would be better off if more Christians would run for elected office at the local, state, and federal levels,” says the NACL website.
Even the acronym has biblical roots. "NACL" is the chemical symbol for salt, meant to evoke a passage from Matthew 5 – the group likens themselves to the “salt and the light” that will purge the world of sin.
And since incorporating just four years ago, it has experienced a meteoric rise in status.
Fast-Growing Influence
In that short span, the NACL has hosted yearly conferences, mobilized a strong nationwide support system (33 states have elected officials serving as chairs advancing the NACL agenda), and recruited powerful nationwide figures, like former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick to serve on their advisory board.
Late last month, the group announced that the new Speaker of the House Mike Johnson would be their keynote speaker at their December 5th gala – a move that has cemented their rise onto the national stage.
Interestingly, Johnson himself has been in the spotlight recently for endorsing a Christian porn monitoring app, as well as for comments in a resurfaced interview in which he claimed that homosexuality caused the fall of Rome.
God On Their Side?
The group’s political outlook seems to revolve around a belief that they are acting upon the will of God.
"We invite Christians everywhere in our nation to unite and stand together for the cause of God and Country," their website reads.
In practice, their aims range from enforcing abortion restrictions (it was a NACL member that led the charge on Texas's extremely controversial “bounty-hunter bill,” which allows private citizens to sue women who have abortions six weeks or more after conception), to overturning same-sex marriage.
On the latter front, advances have been a bit slower – but not for a lack of conviction.
“For far too long,” founder Jason Rapert says, “we have allowed one political party in our nation to hold up Sodom and Gomorrah as a goal to be achieved rather than a sin to be shunned.”
Will They Succeed?
Critics, for their part, say the group is using religion as a bludgeon for their political aims and is trampling on the separation of church and state by explicitly endorsing laws inspired by biblical teachings.
Whether the NACL will achieve their goals is very much in doubt, for in many respects, their views do not align with the rest of America.
According to a 2022 Gallup poll, for example, 71% of Americans think same-sex marriage should be legal.
In a different 2022 survey, 61% of Americans said they believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Those numbers represent a significant challenge to implementing such strict biblical policies across the United States.
And yet, with so much success so far, the group no doubt hopes to further advance its views over time.
What do you make of the NACL and its aims?
311 comments
-
Shirley Jean Davis
It is crucial that religion be kept out of politics. History speaks for itself. When a nation adopts a religion it uses that religion to control the masses. It destroys democracy as we know it.
-
Daniel Gray
and how does this effect the US? It does not as we are not and never have been a democracy we are and always have been a republic for over 245+ years
re·pub·lic /rəˈpəblik/ noun noun: republic; plural noun: republics
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
That sounds exactly like what we have in the form of a government
-
Michael Hunt
Saying the US is a republic, not a democracy, is kinda like saying this wine is a Merlot, not a red which is to say that a republic is a form of democracy. It's not like we haven't explained this to you before, Daniel.
-
Daniel Gray
No its stating fact, sorry that you refuse to see that especially with all the information the founding fathers left saying the same thing
-
J. David Kiefner
Rofl…the ‘founding fathers’ seldom agreed on anything 🥱
-
Daniel Gray
ROTFL, then I guess you have not read the founding fathers papers on the US Government as ALL of them say we are a Republic and not a Democracy
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Hey! And SCOTUS probably said the US is a republic and not a democracy. And whatever the SCOTUS says applies worldwide, right?
Greh @ children: SCOTUS says you can’t have any dessert if you don’t eat your cauliflower!
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
The USA is a democratic republic, which is a type of democracy.
-
Daniel Gray
Never was and never will be. get used to it
-
Daniel Gray
Nope but it DOES apply hear. How desperate you must be to try this gobble-de-gook
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
It applies hear? Wunnerful, Greh, wunnerful.
-
Daniel Gray
Nice how you try to interject yourself into something you have no knowledge of
-
-
-
-
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
The United States of America is a DEMOCRACY. Do you know what a Democracy is? A Democracy is a nation where ALL individuals living there have the chance to vote for their leadership. Or you could place it as a democratic republic. There are OTHER republics. Like the Republic of Congo which is a dictatorship for example. They're still a republic, however.
Also the 1st amendment makes it VERY clear the USA is forbidden to make ANY laws that raise one religion over any other, or enforce any religious rule.
The Treaty of Tripoli - written and signed by our founding fathers - Article 11, make it VERY clear the USA is a secular nation, not a Christian / Catholic one.
-
James Bullard
A republic is a government that is run by representatives of the ruling group. The ruling cgroup can be one party as it is in communist China or it can be the entire citizenship of the country as it is in the US in which case it is a democratic republic. The founders included a House of representatives with equal legislative power to the Senate in a deliberate move to "represent" everyone. Unfortunately at that time, despite their high words of equality, they did not see women, Native Americans and slaves as full citizens. It took many years for us to reach the point of recognizing a much broader conception of human equality which is arguably still imperfect.
As for religion, the founders were gravely concerned about mixing religion in government as the result of the disruptive wars in England and Europe between Protestants & Catholics, also the conflicts with Muslims in Southern Europe. Their objective was to create a stable government that would treat everyone equally without regard to their religion and in which no religion held sway. Jefferson, in particular, was so opposed to religious influence on public forums that he would not even allow a religious group to use meeting space at the University of Virginia. Based on their statements, writiings, and actions, none of the founding fathers favored mixing religion and government. They saw religion, as I do, as a guide to one's own daily life and treatment of those we encounter, not as something to be imposed on society as a whole by those who self-righteously believe themselves to be morally superior. Imposed religion is no religion at all. It is tyranny.
-
Douglas Robert Spindler
Don’t wast your time with Daniel Gray he’s either a troll, very poorly educated about American or on drugs. His reality is not the same as everyone else…. It is very unique.
-
Rev Mark D
Except that Daniel is correct, absolutely, about the us being a representative republic, from 1789, and Maynard is correct that prior to 1789 what we had was a confederation, and prior to 1775 what we had was a group of Crown colonies by royal charter.
-
Daniel Gray
No Spindler you are just mad because I proved you wrong and there is no way you can refute it. Right now you can probably fry and egg on your head. So you should stop using names that clearly apply to you
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
As earlier stated, the USA is a Democratic Republic which is a type of democracy.
-
Daniel Gray
Never was and never will be. Deal with it
-
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Fry an egg on his head? What’s next, the rubber-glue ditty?
-
Daniel Gray
No it just shows how desperate you must be to try and lie to people.
-
-
-
-
Russel A. Kester
Bridget, we are clearly a republic as stated by Benjamin Franklin when asked about the results of the secret meeting of the states to establish a federal government. The federal government did not establish or endorse a particular Christian practice or faith (Islam wasn't even a thought nor was any other faith than Judaism) because several states had already established their own state religions. We derived our founding values on Judeo-Christian sources. So, yes, we were founded as a de facto Christian nation. That was our founding. That is history. We just didn't fight over which Christian denomination would be number one.
-
Danny D. Maynard
ROFLMGAO! That comment and a dime will not buy you a cup of coffee.
-
Russel A. Kester
Danny, your response is typical of a liberal who knows he lost the discussion and can only fall back on ridicule or ad hominem attacks. Sad.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Sorry, but you're wrong. And you're the one ridiculing and using attacks, calling people "LIBZ". Do you know the US Constitution or the Treaty of Tripoli?
No they did NOT found the United States on any religious foundation. Hence why they stated, clearly, in the 1st amendment that the nation is FORBIDDEN to make laws imposing any religion. And why they wrote, in the Treaty of Tripoli, 11th section, that the USA is a SECULAR nation not a religious one. Read your history and get your legal facts straight, because it's obvious you're sorely lacking in knowledge of both.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry but its not. The Constitution specifically mentions Under God and when they signed it it clearly states "Year of our Lord" which was a religious greeting that was placed on most if not all official government documents.
And a Treaty does NOT and is NOT and WILL NOT be considered law in the US. So why you try and insist that it is is known only to you so it seems you dont know about the Constitution as much as you would like people to think you do
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
No it doesn't mention "Under God". You're thinking of our money where Under God was placed onto it in the 1900's, and the Pledge of Allegiance, where "under God" was ALSO added in the 1900's.
Our money, and the pledge, in their original form, did NOT have "Under God" in any way. Nor does the United States Constitution.
Just like the 1st Amendment states as well. Of course you dislike that first part so I'm sure you're trying to pretend it doesn't exist. Just like the treaties our founding fathers created.
-
Daniel Gray
No I am not, look at the signatures of the papers and it CLEARLY states "In the year of our Lord" which ia a religious greeting and was on EVERY federal document up to 1898. Just goes to show how ignorant you actually are in US History as this can clearly be shown in the US Library of Congress. So hows about if you dont know what you are talking about you just shut up and let people think you are an idiot then to open your mouth and remove all doubt
-
Rev Mark D
Sorry Daniel old boy but Bridget is correct on this one. It's not that way today but what she says about those treaties and documents and the Constitution is correct and the truth.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry Rev but she isnt correct and never has been. She keeps insisting on a treaty and trying to imply that its part of our founding documents and it never was or will be as per Article 2 Section 2 US Constitution https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a2_sec2 ALL treaties MUST be passed by the US Senate. And even now as per the Senate Archives AND as per the US Library of Congress, this treaty of Tripoli has never been ratified by the Senate as is REQUIRED for it to be.
And The Constitution DOES in fact mention God in the Preamble of same.
What does NOT appear and never has is The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution anywhere
And EVERY state constitution does in fact specifically mention God And for the final destruction of her argument, A.D. Ostensibly starts from the year of Christs conception. Its the abbreviated form of 'Anno Domini' which is the abbreviated form of 'Anno domini nostri Iesu Christi' which translated from latin is 'In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ'. Which is sometimes shortened to: 'Year of the Lord' by people too pretentious to use the common A.D., but too lazy to get it right. And this is according to Merriam Webster
Case closed.
-
Russel A. Kester
No, Bridget, you are not understanding society at the time these things all took place. As I stated above, society was steeped in the Judae-Christian ethos. When it used the term secular it meant it in the way Thomas Aquinas and others of the time meant it. It did NOT mean atheistic secular humanism as so many do today. The kings, who were Christians, were the secular as opposed to government by the church. Clearly you need a deeper understanding of history and what the words at the time meant. As for saying that liberals, actually activists liberals not classical liberals - I should have been clearer, name calling when they fail an argument it is a clear pattern - especially those in college who think they know everything. Funny that you mentioned my response to his insult but not his. Solomon you are not.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
No, I'm not solomon, and as for insults, it is not uncommon for someone, esp people who are strongly religious / conservative to scream "you're nothing but a lib you don't know" as if that immediately shuts down any argument. As if the one they are shouting "You're a lib!" at will immediately back down and go silent in fear and shame.
Now, as for Thomas Aquinas, he was not one of this nation's founding fathers. While the kings were christians and protestants, depending on the king who was sitting at the time, were mainly religious, one of the reasons the USA was founded was to get away from religious persecution as well as have "breathing space".
I'm aware of our history, thank you. In addition to having actual history courses, before the whole "We need to alter it to fit our narrative" mindset that many of these politicians and talking heads now have.
The fact is the USA is a Secular nation, not a religious one by any stretch. And I've pointed out two prime examples. I could point out multiple examples through out our declaration of independence, the bill of rights, the US constitution, treaties we've signed, etc., that all say the same thing. If our own constitution and our earliest documents say such, how is it so hard to believe what they outright stated?
-
Russel A. Kester
Bridget, thank you for the clarification on the whole liberal or libs thing. Yes I agree calling someone a by a label such as a lib or conservative or saying someone is red pill or blue pill is a strategy some people use to stop further conversation on the topic. I acknowledge that point. I hope it is clear that wasn't my intention. In fact my comment was to the very exact opposite that the person was using a tactic to stop the conversation instead of actually engaging further to have a meaningful conversation. I apologize if that didn't come through as clearly as I wished it would have. I will think about what you said on the use of words and terms throughout history as we have progressed through the ages. I still hold to the fact that our founding fathers most likely did intense secular to mean it in the same sense that Thomas Aquinas would have and not in the sense of an atheistic secular humanism that we use today however, I will look into this further.
-
Daniel Gray
Still trying to prove your myths I see.
-
Daniel Gray
Comment has been removed.
-
-
-
-
Rev Mark D
Bridget, I have never had a chance to vote for my leadership, I've only had a choice to vote for two alternatives controlled by an organized party. That's not the people. Democracy is like what the city-states had in Greece there were no private corporations called parties with soul legal authority to place their own choices before voters well those voters had no say except to say yes to one or yes to the other, chosen by some self-controlled group that had total authority to determine what limited choice would be allowed to those voters. Those parties are referred to formally as Representatives who hold the actual power, and that is what a republic is. You don't actually have a say that you determine you have only a small right, and that right is to choose among alternatives given to you by others who decide who those alternatives shall be. Representative Republic. You are not a representative. In a democracy there are as many representatives as there are citizens each makes his own choice and nobody makes choices for another and no group forces limits on those choices available to each individual citizen... That is also the case for decisions made about what government will do and will not do, issue by issue. In a republic all the decision making, including who makes the decisions, is made by representative groups called representatives, who will all the power for, or forced upon, each individual citizen, rather than that citizen having any actual say... If each individual citizen had his own actual say in determining what the state does and what the laws are and how those laws are enforced, now that would be a democracy. Persons are not "the people," the "people" is actually an empowered select group of elites. So saying in a democracy the people decide is a bit of a misnomer and unfortunately in it's actual inaccuracy is rather misleading, encourages you to make assumptions that reflect your own individual preferences, but really do not have power in reality.
-
Pastor Xal
You refute your own logic.
-
Rev Mark D
Gee Xavier, I'm so sorry. :)
Oh wait, you didn't say anything.
How? Somehow I'm pretty confident that you intentionally left out just how I refute my logic.
So I guess I and everybody else will just take what you said for what it's actually worth.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
I read this and laughed out loud. Rev Mark made an obvious effort to make a point, did not insult, demean or verbally attack, and you manage to drag out 5 words.
-
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Your intro is the exact reason that I went almost 50 years without exercising my ‘right to vote’. I did vote once in the NC senatorial race. But I didn’t vote FOR anyone, just made an effort to keep that racist, religiously bigoted Jesse Helms from winning. It didn’t work. And neither did my effort to keep Trump out in 2016, though it did so in 2020.I have never voted FOR a candidate other than the primaries of the same two elections when I wholeheartedly voted for Sanders.
-
-
Daniel Gray
It ISNT a Democracy Fecyk. It is and always has been a REPUBLIC and you would know that IF you had bothered to stay awake during grade school US Histiry
-
Danny D. Maynard
Factually, the United States was a failed Confederacy between 1776 and 1789 before it was a Republic beginning in 1789.
-
Rev Mark D
Correct! Everybody needs to take a look at your post.
-
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
It's a democratic republic. It always has been, always will be. People on the Ultra-Far-Right just HATE that fact because, and I quite from the MAGA senators "Too much democracy is bad for a country." I.e. they fully believe allowing the citizenry to choose their government is bad. Hence why they want to impose a Theocracy as well as Dictatorship rather than have our nation as a FREE nation.
Read the 1st amendment again, and read the 11th article of the Treaty of Tripoli. Both are written by our founding fathers.
-
Daniel Gray
never has been and never will be. You should go back to school and stay awake during history this time Bridget.
-
Rev. Rory
"Even among his contemporaries, Madison’s refusal to apply the term democracy to representative governments, even those based on broad electorates, was aberrant. In November 1787, only two months after the convention had adjourned, James Wilson, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, proposed a new classification. “[T]he three species of governments,” he wrote, “are the monarchical, aristocratical and democratical. In a monarchy, the supreme power is vested in a single person; in an aristocracy…by a body not formed upon the principle of representation, but enjoying their station by descent, or election among themselves, or in right of some personal or territorial qualifications; and lastly, in a democracy, it is inherent in a people, and is exercised by themselves or their representatives.” Applying this understanding of democracy to the newly adopted constitution, Wilson asserted that “in its principles,…it is purely democratical: varying indeed in its form in order to admit all the advantages, and to exclude all the disadvantages which are incidental to the known and established constitutions of government. But when we take an extensive and accurate view of the streams of power that appear through this great and comprehensive plan…we shall be able to trace them to one great and noble source, THE PEOPLE.” At the Virginia ratifying convention some months later, John Marshall, the future chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, declared that the “Constitution provided for ‘a well regulated democracy’ where no king, or president, could undermine representative government.”
-
Daniel Gray
Nice try but the founding fathers documents all say we are a REPUBLIC
-
Michael Hunt
A republic is a form of democracy. How is that so hard for you to comprehend?
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
He's trolling to have something to argue about at this point. I think his point is that he doesn't want the USA to be a democracy, he wants it to be a strict theocracy but doesn't want to outright say it.
-
Daniel Gray
No bridget, its just too easy to prove you have no knowledge of what you are talking about, especially when you try and use a treaty that was never ratified by the US Senate to even be considered legal as is REQUIRED by Article 1 of the US Constitution.
-
Daniel Gray
No its not, so enlighten yourself
de·moc·ra·cy /dəˈmäkrəsē/ noun noun: democracy
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives
re·pub·lic /rəˈpəblik/ noun noun: republic; plural noun: republics
a government in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
We are a REPUBLIC form of Government so why is that so hard for you to understand especially when you have what each stands for staring you right in the face?
-
-
-
-
Rev Mark D
What you may need to consider is something like, what if there was a democracy, or republic, or whatever it was that were talking about, but it was composed of horses. What were the laws look like, how would they be phrased, what sort of things would take prominence and what sort of values would they reflect first, then maybe later with some experience, and then maybe finally latest with a little bit of afterthought, all in the sort of declining priorities you would expect?
-
-
Rev. Rory
"Is democracy the most appropriate name for a large-scale representative system such as that of the early United States? At the end of the 18th century, the history of the terms whose literal meaning is “rule by the people”—democracy and republic—left the answer unclear. Both terms had been applied to the assembly-based systems of Greece and Rome, though neither system assigned legislative powers to representatives elected by members of the dēmos. As noted above, even after Roman citizenship was expanded beyond the city itself and increasing numbers of citizens were prevented from participating in government by the time, expense, and hardship of travel to the city, the complex Roman system of assemblies was never replaced by a government of representatives—a parliament—elected by all Roman citizens. Venetians also called the government of their famous city a republic, though it was certainly not democratic.
When the members of the United States Constitutional Convention met in 1787, terminology was still unsettled. Not only were democracy and republic used more or less interchangeably in the colonies, but no established term existed for a representative government “by the people.” At the same time, the British system was moving swiftly toward full-fledged parliamentary government. Had the framers of the United States Constitution met two generations later, when their understanding of the constitution of Britain would have been radically different, they might have concluded that the British system required only an expansion of the electorate to realize its full democratic potential. Thus, they might well have adopted a parliamentary form of government.
Embarked as they were on a wholly unprecedented effort to construct a constitutional government for an already large and continuously expanding country, the framers could have had no clear idea of how their experiment would work in practice. Fearful of the destructive power of “factions,” for example, they did not foresee that in a country where laws are enacted by representatives chosen by the people in regular and competitive elections, political parties inevitably become fundamentally important institutions."
-
Daniel Gray
But they DID and thats what they gave us, a republic
-
Rev Mark D
I don't think so rory, because the Southern colonies acted en bloc and was able to dictate that the government decomposed of Representative elites, not just everybody, and their entire economy was based on exactly that same thing, the threat of removal of which was the basis for seceding from the union and fighting the civil war. They were not about to learn better and adopt parliamentary government, by this time they had departed quite a bit from English common law and it's more democratic parliamentary principles, all that was started with the magna Carta and the South in the US took a distinctly different direction and was able to enforce it which is why the Constitution allows for slavery, only votes by property individuals, no votes by women, overrepresentation by the south to add the representative voting power of slaves even though slaves did not actually wield those votes, the southern elites did by law, and no representation for indigenous peoples or unpropertied whites. All these things are in theConstitution... As a fixed condition of the South joining at all.
-
Daniel Gray
So if you dont think so then build a time machine and go back and complain to them. I wont hold my breath waiting.
-
-
-
-
Catherine
I agree on the assumption we have a democracy, though it seems we've been short on that and have less control than ever over how our country's money is spent, therefore how its laws are made.
The UK's embassy website view:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
And other countries view us as a federal constitutional republic.
What are we really?
-
Danny D. Maynard
With Trump** trying to stay out of jail by becoming President again means we are in a world of bad hurt!
-
Douglas Robert Spindler
Don’t wast your time with Daniel Gray he’s either a troll, very poorly educated about American or on drugs. His reality is not the same as everyone else…. It is very unique.
-
Daniel Gray
using names that apply to you specifically Douglas?
-
-
Douglas Robert Spindler
Don’t wast your time with Daniel Gray he’s either a troll, very poorly educated about American or on drugs. His reality is not the same as everyone else…. It is very unique.
-
Daniel Gray
no you are just upset that you have been proved wrong more times then Carter has liver spots.
-
-
Rev Mark D
Yes danny, bed heard, Big hurt, hurt locker hurt.
-
-
Rev Mark D
A combined federal/decentralized constitutional representative republic. But that's just a label because the terms are always subject to interpretation, which is a matter of time and place within the ark of history...Actual functions defy absolute static labels...just the starting point. Gradual transformation or quick transformation to something else is always possible, hidden under an unchanging label... Also multiple, simultaneously disparate functions are capable within the overall rubric, and are quite common within all but the more absolute government forms...meanwhile, static labels are frequently used to mask true structure and function through the informed and intentional use of political rhetoric, social functions, competing interests, which very according to the degree of power and a particular interest holds and it's willingness to use it within the extremes of complete absolutism and complete relativity, as they occur in real time... just as in oceans and rivers, large and small, are composed of a multiplicity of simultaneous blows, streams, eddie's, and relative quantities.
Oh sorry, were you thinking our form of government is the 5-year-old's first-grader's version?
-
Catherine
@Rev Mark D
The intended point of those questionis - not personal views or statements - is the varied understandings. That being Americans simultaneously think we have various forms of government. The reality is most of us don't know, though us knowing is unlikely to change much. I think any form of government can become corrupt dependent on the people enforcing it.
What's happening is a historic manifestation of the worst of humans.
And IF we had a democracy, it's doubtful much would be much improved because... extremely unhealthy, runaway capitalism. A different discussion, however I think capitalism works best in smaller numbers, as might other strategies for a government managing its people. As things are, the world's governments are scrambling to herd cats.
Labels for moving targets. Yep. And that keeps people confused same as changing currencies and names of cities and countries so even maps can be hard to follow. All forms of exploiting vulnerabilities and insuring people are less informed. I don't think keeping abreast of constant changes around us 24 hours a day would help much though.
This country has been long overcome by greed and short term goals. Yet, said elsewhere, we look to politicans and religions to save us when both are foxes in henhouses the rest of us live in.
Supposedly Benjamin Franklin was quoted as saying, "trust that truth would prevail through inquiry." In a different context, perhaps instead of thinking we know what is constantly changing, asking questions every day is likely a more productive means to adapting and surviving coming chaos.
-
Rev Mark D
Catherine,
Out of control capitalism, capitalism not appropriately managed and regulated, is exactly the problem. You know, you have some political scientist, historian and philosopher in you.
However, there is a saying: capitalism is the worst system ever invented... Except for all the others.
-
Catherine
@Rev Mark D
Even before capitalism was formally defined, it seems to naturally form between haves and have nots. I think what brought it skidding out of control is the haves learning to keep the upper hand, which creates imbalances.
That's why I think capitalism could work more purposefully and naturally with smaller numbers of people. Except the world's population is growing and the haves with the upper hand managed to keep us pooled together, living on top of each other so daily spats and celebrity gossip take precedent over choosing what we can do for ourselves given even current circumstances.
We really do each have choice - choices - more than we realize. If collectively, we could see that just long enough to step back to see the big picture and how that could change if people would focus on what's best within us? Then they might more easily imagine that people who seem so different from us, are not at all.
Maslow's hierarchy... people most need safety, shelter, security of a sort with life-sustaining needs. With those things in place, most people can find gratitude and satisfaction. Yet somehow, people who have those basics, act is if they are suffering with lack of.
That is learned behavior, I think. After suffering loss, a lot of us seem stuck in "I'm suffering' mode, and unable to move forward.
As for "political scientist, historian and philosopher ", I think it takes one to know one :) And that said, I'm fully aware the surface has barely been scratched.
The catch though, is learning how things became as they are, helps less than simply acting to mainfest the best of ourselves. Both might be done side-by-side, as long as staying in the present is given more attention.
That is what I find most interesting about these discussions. Some of us seem hell bent on staying in the past no matter the benefit if we focused more on the present.
-
-
Rev Mark D
Actually something Ben Franklin really did say was "madam, you have a republic, if you can keep it."
-
Catherine
And some say that republic was lost the next day. It could have been a good plan, though mostly rested on wishful thinking. Lurking beneath the surface were debtors vs creditors.
Here, I get a visual image of a black and white movie with a cartoonish pop gun that goes off, knocking the republic to the ground.
-
-
Russel A. Kester
Catherine, nicely said. I benefited from your comments. Thank you.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
Thank you for saying so.
-
-
-
-
Daniel Gray
Nobody cares what the other countries think of us or view us. We are what we are and thats a Republic.
-
-
Keith Allen Steele Eash
Religion does belong in politics as a force to guard immoral and unethical practices in the politicians lives and in our policies. Like protecting our borders. It is a moral issue and all presidents should be concerned about the life of our country's survival. We won't be a United States in the next year with the present political situation. With whites being the minority this country will fall.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
You want to live in a theocracy? Then look toward what's happening in the Middle East as to what theocracies do to their countries.
-
Dawn
So which religion? How about 'christian' (whatever that means anymore) sharia law, yes? Those pastors who demand total, complete & unquestioning loyalty.I will never live in a theocracy - and the ones who want that clearly do not know what they are wanting. Religion - which is MAN made - does not belong in government at all. Your statement indicates that people who are not religious cannot and will not be moral or ethical and I 100% reject that opinion.
-
-
Thomas P. Davis
It will happen sooner or later; they tried in the past and it got knocked down. But scripture does say that the lamb like beast will speak as a dragon.
-
Danny D. Maynard
For that matter, the Book of Revelation, in chapters 21 and 22 describe the spaceship in which Jesus is supposed to return. Sound like a reel of Somnambulistic SciFi to me!
-
-
Rev Mark D
We were a republic.
-
Michael Hunt
... which is a form of democracy...
-
Rev Mark D
Every Republic is a democracy, but every democracy is not a republic. You make no choices in the ruling of your government, only a few do. That's the difference between Republic and democracy, Republic is a form of democracy in which individual citizens do not have an actual franchise that is not given to them, granted to them, and be taken away from them, by the representatives. You as an individual citizen make virtually none of the actual decisions, and the only choice you are given is a choice already chosen from those who decide how big or small each individual shall have. That's a republic, a form of democracy that does not allow individuals their own choices in who and how the government will be. A particular class of people, were there artificially created for practically created, makes the decisions.
There is one exception that I know of, but it is within the same context I am talking about: in a sufficiently small setting that the scale of individual write-ins are allowed and can have an actual deciding impact in electing the write-in... And perhaps, perhaps, by 5he same mechanism, a choice to effectively deny one of the two leading candidates by writing in, not a person you want, but someone who number will in effect deny one of the two (or three or four when it is affices where more than one place is being filled such as three judgeships or city council members or school hoard members when as example you cast vote for thee or four out of a larger field...and in the case of someone running unopposed.
-
-
-
-
Dawn
IRS SECTION 501(c) specifically states that a religion is tax free because it is not supposed to engage in government. Given what these people do, not one of them should be tax free. Ban them all or tax them up to their eyeballs!
-
Catherine
So the question is begged, how is Johnson and NACL doing what they are without much pause?
-
Rev Mark D
All right sorry, the answer is: Johnson (and company) is using a strategy that amounts to determining whether he can do it by actually doing it and then finding out by actual events if anybody will stop him (them). This is called "possession is 9/10 of the law." In other words, not waiting for anybody's permission or invitation or initial leave. It's determining whether you can do something by the results that follow you actually doing it.
-
Catherine
@Rev Mark D
Don't ask, just do. Yes.
What is gained by making an entire country christian?
-
Russel A. Kester
Unity, cohesion, good laws, peace, a working government, good social values, physically and emotionally healthy children, actual law enforcement, real immigration policies, a safe society, a high standard of living, educated people who can read and write, a society that cares about children, a society that knows a boy from a girl and so much more Catherine.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
Buzzwords and catch phrases. Have not yet decided if you are trolling.
If 60-ish percent of Americans are christian, how did corruption grow to new heights and depths? Why does that continue?
Oh wait. Is it because 30-ish percent of non-christians are unable to make the other 60ish percent self-enforce a lifestyle aligned with judeo-christion morals?
The course of destruction the United States is following has nothing at all do to with corrupt politicians, christian and non-christian alike?
-
Russel A. Kester
Catherine, you asked what a society could gain by making itself a Christian nation and I listed off a number of things that a society would gain by being a Christian society. That said, today America is not a Christian society and so it would not be fair to blame the woes we see currently as the fault of Christianity. It is instead the fault of the decrease in judeo Christian values. So, no not trolling. I actually answered your question. And I won't blame Christians for a society in which their values are not being practiced. Our current society is practicing atheistic secular humanism. So if someone wants to blame anyone for the wills of our current society it would be atheistic secular humanism.
-
-
Catherine
Will you fault the 3-ish million muslims - many brought here as refugees - in the United States for the corruption of many, MANY more millions of christians, judeo or otherwise?
Where is the logic?
If christians altogether are such a good influence, why isn't everyone willing to switch to the dark side of religion without hesitation?
Is it perhaps because history shows how much violence organized religions cause? How organized religions support and perpetuate disparities between poor and and wealthiest?
I think christians need to get their act together and self-police vigilantly before they can put themselves on a pedestal and rigtfully expect to be respected.
-
-
-
-
Rev Mark D
Catherine, do you know much about politics?
-
Catherine
@Rev Mark D
Judging by intelligent commentaries, may I assume you are familiar with socratic discussion? If no one responds, I leave it. If there is a response, I continue.
Asking questions seems more useful. Certainly less tiresome than me attempting to hold two sides of a conversation in a rant few are likely interested in.
As for knowing much about politics. Not really. However I learned enough by working for some politicians to understand politics is stuffed with convoluted shell games.
Most likely none of us writing our opinions in this blog are those players. Therefore none of us really knows much, do we? Seems like we're kind of feeing our way through it all with these discussions.
Dependent on your response, should you be inclined, other questions are:
What might be done with a christian nation, other than more brazen kleptocracy than currently exists?
Might the United States be intended to become a holy empire?
If so, who will the next pope-like figure be?
Referencing statistics for practicing and non-practicing christians, I think none of that will occur.
So, what is the goal of the players?
For now I will guess restructuring of our government invited christians to fight like a room full of hungry cats to not be excluded. Probably for naught. Imagine the trade and power deals that could be lost or impacted through religious infighting between countries.
Obviously whether my thoughts are correct or not is less the point of your question, than my effort to avoid ranting which I just did. Again.
-
Russel A. Kester
Catherine, the last paragraph of your response to Mark made me chuckle in the best way possible. To me, it seemed rather humble. And the last word used as a single sentence was truly good writing. I believe our communications here are important. We exchanged ideas and feelings which can cause us to reexamine our views or even some of our beliefs. In turn we might pass on this reflections to family and friends and in this way an entire society can be changed. So, please, continue to rant again and again. Your perspective is important.
-
-
-
William Waugh
Apparently, that mind set that presided in the desert, permitted how many generations?, I think 40, thats forty, one more than 39 GENERATIONS, to die in the desert because "leadership" decided they were unworthy of the promised land.
Is it incomprehensible?, unbelievable? that these church/political folks think like this?
Vote away these eh "ultraconservatives" now. Because by the time they are done, your great, great, etc grandchildren might remember you as the last of the humanists.
-
Russel A. Kester
William, I believe you will find that the Old testament says that the Israelis wandered in the desert for 40 years not 40 generations.
-
-
Danny D. Maynard
*** Note: The anti-republicans can and do use the time between making a law and adjudicating a decision which gives them time to install their kind of government and laws without court interference. That is why there are emergency court orders to stop implementation of a bad law before it can wrought its damage. *** The Congress and/or Legislatures of the States proceed with their lawmaking and implementing those laws via the the Administrative Chiefs (President, Governor, etc.). Once the law causes someone some harm, either physically, mentally or monetarily, that person has a grievance with the Government, and has standing to bring a lawsuit against the Government. The Courts are the prescribed method to resolve those grievances. In some cases, the Government must pay for the harm, and possibly some penalties. As a way to guide a large set of governments with sometimes conflicting views, some lawsuits are chosen to be elevated to the Courts of Appeals and the appropriate Supreme Courts of the States and also the US Supreme Court, which set policy and direction to the Legislatures and the Administrators via a court decision (called an opinion.) One must abide by the rules for this form of Republic to work. Those who will not follow the law become criminals, having been punished via the Due Process as set forth in the US Constitution.
-
Dawn
Neither political group cares about the masses-it’s pretend. But in this case, NACL is not a religion, correct? So 501(c) doesn’t apply to THEM, just all the criminal religions who are doing the bidding and brainwashing the populace.
-
-
Rev Mark D
Dawn, do you think banning them is likely to happen?
-
Dawn
What’s right is not necessarily likely. That doesn’t mean it’s not right. Are you intimating we should only support what’s likely? Cuz in that case, women would still be property & have no voting rights in this country.
-
-
Keith Allen Steele Eash
BS. The faiths are tax free for a reason. Wait until the woke take full control and see how they'll tax you to death. You have no common sense. The Church was strongly involved in our Revolution. Without the moral guidance our revolution would have failed.
-
Rev Mark D
Dawn, it looks as if your idea is the most popular and reasonable. Therefore, it has no hope of ever coming to pass.
-
Daniel Gray
Would you say the same thing about Baptist Churches who 99.9% of the Time have Democrats come in and talk politics? lets see how far you get with that.
-
Daniel-David
This 99% number, you know this how? NBA,SBA, two worlds apart.
-
Daniel Gray
Nope the NAACP, and I suppose that there will be some people trying to refute that, but they cant
-
-
Dawn
I’m not political so yes-they should all be in prison for what they’ve all done to this country.
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Dawn,
To clarify, 501c3 means the organization can not speak disparagingly against the government. If they do so they can revoke the tax exempt status. I strongly believe no Christian church should willingly become a 591c3 establishment. That's puting dollars and government over the word of God.
Certain religions do enter government to the joy of its preachers and followers. The Woke Hive Mind is certainly entrenched in the government with fanatics in high positions.
-
Dawn
From IRS.gov section 501(c): To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
-
Russel A. Kester
Dawn, in your quote above about a non-profit organization under 501c3, you mentioned that "it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities" which means that it can engage in some legislative activities. Our Constitution never intended to keep the churches from influencing our government one way or the other on issues important to the public at large but rather to keep the government out of the church business. I've noticed that people only talk about this 501c3 status not getting involved in our government when it's a Christian church but are silent as church mice when it comes to other non-profit organizations trying to influence our government. That is hypocritical. Christians in this country have a right to address their government about the issues that are important to them.
-
-
Dawn
I don’t believe that’s correct-I believe they are not to have an opinion or tell their congregations what to think or how to vote on any issues….y’know like women’s body autonomy rights/ healthcare.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Essentially we agree Dawn. 501c3 can be revoked if they get into government issues.
No Christian church should willingly become a 501c3 organization in my opinion. It's contradictory to what the Bible teaches to do so.
-
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
Pull-eeeeeze! The Woke Hive Mind. Are you mad?? Doesn't sound very Christ-like to me.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Lol, who ever said I was christ like!? As depicted in the bible, Jesus use more offensive and biting language than me lumping organic robots into a collective mind cage. I'm not mad but those in the Hive Mind are quite mad.
-
-
-
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Just the name of their group violates the separation of State and church*. Eventually there will be a sufficient number of secular citizens that actively vote against such ludicrous politicians and making such ‘efforts’ as NACL will result in being voted out of a job. Hey! Much like it is now for atheistic candidates. The table is turning.
- Yeah, we usually say ‘church and State’, huh? Well, screw alphabetical order, let’s put them in order of importance.
-
Catherine
@Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
I have a feeling this is more about throwing sand in our eyes while worse things are being carried out.
Statistics are necessary for appearances, and I think available statistics are sketchy. An example is how many non-christians there are in the United States. From numerous sources, I'm finding about 30% of Americans are non-Christians. An operative word would be 'practicing', though I don't find that mentioned as of today.
I've crossed paths with so few who practice their religion. That makes taking the NACL and Johnson seriously, difficult. Except, local laws can be more strict than state and federal. Eventually local laws could become deeply crippling.
What is their long game? Their end game?
Wish I could think simply disengaging and not supporting their tripe would halt their efforts. Instead, if they pull it off, eventually that could lead to forcing people to attend christian churches to establish a christian nation.
Which religion would be king of the hill? Unintended pun, though it works.
Denominational infighting and money grubbing would have to be settleted by christian leaders and lobbyists.
I find it very hard to imagine enough of them will ever be on the same page so as to make the United States a 100% christian nation. So I'm thinking what Johnson and NACL is doing is like a knife to the knee while a spear is aimed at the heart. What is the spear we're not seeing?
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
These "Christians" are afraid. They fear change of any sort and scurry toward their perception of yesterday's alleged beliefs. I don't get it. Anyone who lived through the 1950s and glamorizes them is delusional. I was a child then and in the course of my lifetime I've had plenty of opportunity to reflect on that period as well as earlier ones (my grandmother was born in 1875, so we heard about log cabin living, wolves literally at the door, women marching for the vote, the WCTU, spinning and weaving by human dynamo great-grandma [born around 1840], etc., etc.) The 1950s were in a different way hard on women, who were pretty much universally expected to be stay-at-home housewives raising children. Oh, yeah, and they were supposed to be more or less glamorous to boot after scrubbing floors and polishing furniture all day. That had not been the case during WWII. And it did not work well for my poor mother, who had a career during the war.
-
Keith Allen Steele Eash
Wolves at the door. Rotfflmfao. Seriously, wolves usually have a tendency to stay away from humans. So please stop the disinformation and stupid story telling.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
So sorry you think my comments are stupid. You know nothing about me. Dunno how old you are, but I think you must have a bug lurking somewhere on your person. Or is this just your opportunity to be rude, crude & unattractive? Do you have problems with women, especially if they appear uppity in your eyes? Do you consider yourself a Christian, hence feel insulted? Tell more.
-
-
-
-
Catherine
Did just find a Pew report:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
"... surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019, 65% of American adults describe themselves as Christians when asked about their religion, down 12 percentage points over the past decade. Meanwhile, the religiously unaffiliated share of the population, consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular,” now stands at 26%, up from 17% in 2009."
"Today, 62% of Christians say they attend religious services at least once or twice a month, which is identical to the share who said the same in 2009. In other words, the nation’s overall rate of religious attendance is declining not because Christians are attending church less often, but rather because there are now fewer Christians as a share of the population."
So again, what does Johnson and NACL expect to realistically accomplish? What is the bigger thing we're not giving attention?
-
Torre Huffines
Catherine,
Much to your point, the PEW reporting also shows that nature faith and aboriginal beliefs are higher than identified Presbyterian practices.
I dont think these groups have it in mind that they are the dominant group or hold a heavy enough position to truly accomplish their goals by a numbers game. instead its about direct control through selected candidates and by warping the narrative surrounding modern humanist politics.
It is because they are becoming a minority after so many millennia of power that they fear the changing tide and are compelled to reverse time. it really feels more about reverting social structures to a point of the mandate of heaven and days of an ecclesiastical empire that at very least held sway over the livelihood and philosophy of the every day person.
-
Catherine
Comment removed by user.
-
-
Dawn
They've already done it: they don't need the numbers - they just need to get people 1) elected to offices at all levels and 2) appointed to judgeships. They have done just that - they've been working on it for decades and we can see what happened during the Trump administration with SCOTUS. They don't care about 'christian' beliefs or decency - just who they can control to do what they want done and they now have two sexual assaulters on the Supreme Court and they're ok with that because they're 'christian'. Again, christian sharia law is just around the corner.
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Z
I've been wondering, with the absence of a creator/so-called truth, do you consider right/wrong or good/evil social constructs? Do most atheists think the same general way? I'm being serious, I want to understand what you think on that sort of thing. Is morality variable?
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
@SOJ Part 1 (Response exceeded allowable character count) Your inquiry caught me by surprise, but I’m going to assume you are indeed serious and will therefore put some effort into an answer. And I’ll do that because these issues are something I have pondered and read about for the past 50 years, and not having ‘A book’, answering a question is akin to pulling on a thread of entangled threads. They’re attached at many points, and one thing leads to another. And this thread is complicated. All I ask is for you to ‘attentively read’ this.
So we have right/wrong, good/evil and morality. Good/evil is somewhat redundant, with right/wrong drawing a line and good/evil with numerical values on its x-y axis. Are they variable? In short, absolutely. Each religion has its own rules that define morality and right/wrong. And individuals practice/follow the rules/instructions to varying degrees, sometimes differing so much that you get Southern Baptists and Methodists.Buddhism started out as a practical, philosophical way of living your life and now has an incredible number of different sects. The Buddha addressed this issue of so many religions claiming to have the ‘answers to life’. If each one proves itself to have ‘lore and brains and wit’ (I think I have that right, you can feel the idea) then all are even with each other. What he didn’t count as Truth was any religion that claimed to have the sole and complete Truth.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
@SOJ Part 2 You can look past religion and look at the different cultures. It used to be customary to open the door for a women. But has changed though, hasn’t it? And in some cultures women are/were expected t walk a couple of steps behind their husband. Giving up your seat to a elderly person. Not required, but it’s ‘good’. In Japan, it is not ‘right’ to walk into someone’s house with your shoes on. It’s a big deal. But I do it when my wife isn’t looking. Forget a plastic bag for the dog walk, need one from the hall closet, it’s only 4-5 steps down the hall, WE HAVE A DOG, so I walk quietly and snag one. I WILL go to hell if I get caught. But that’s not what you mean is it? To me, it is. We’re socially conditioned. Read Rousseau’s ‘The Social Contract’ or most any of B.F. Skinner’s work. As a member of society we are ‘obligated’ to follow these social mores and to secretly break them is a form of ‘lying’ perhaps? There’s probably one about peeing in the shower but people don’t talk a out that. And not talking about that is one of those social mores that vary from culture to culture. These things show that morality IS variable.
But these probably aren’t what you meant, are they? How about murder? Are there any cultures that say murder is okay? Pretty much a worldwide ban on that little ditty. Not stealing is probably another. Lying is on the list. How about only worshipping Yahweh? Nope, not a big deal in many cultures. How about sex. Oh, my!
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
@SOJ Part 3 I’m reading a book right now titled ‘Sex at Dawn’ and it isn’t as suggestive as you would think. Not a morning quickie (probably a morally wrong statement/jest for some people) but instead it is a book by a social anthropologist that suggests that, prior to the switch from nomadic hunter gathers to an agricultural lifestyle, early hominids lived in groups that mirrors that of bonobos (pygmy chimps) today. Which is to say that the group practiced a sharing-based lifestyle where those that found food shared it with others. And they also shared sexual partners. And that there were tremendous advantages to such. The proposal is that this explains the high degree of infidelity among modern cultures with their ‘unnatural’ practice of monogamy. My guess is that most christians would view a group of individuals practicing this lifestyle as ‘immoral’. Would I consider it so? No. And doubly so due to this book I mentioned.
So, in summary, I avoid lying, and have thus far in my life not personally killed anyone (my tax dollars have supported such though). I give up my seat on crowded trains to the elderly. Although I perhaps qualify to sit in the reserved seats for the pregnant/disabled/elderly I immediately give up that seat to anyone that qualifies.
Other atheists? I can’t be sure but I expect that other than not believing in gods they are pretty much like everyone else. The church used to actively root them out and murder them, and society still shuns them at times. This results in some of them being rather pissy whenever they encounter religious individuals. Me? There are two ways of dealing with religious people. One is to follow the words of Genesis. Not the bible thing, the band. From a tune called Heathhaze.
“ Beware the fisherman who's casting out his line Into a dried up river bed But don't try to tell him 'cos he won't believe you Throw some bread to the ducks instead, it's easier that way Feel like an alien, a stranger in an alien place.”
That’s one way of dealing with it and it’s my usual strategy. The other way is to whistle and toss rocks in ‘the water’ to scare all the fish away.
I made the effort, there you go. Morals aren’t absolute. They vary depending on cultures and they change over time. We’re really just another animal and we are like them in many ways. Animals exhibit morals too.
Batteries not included, actual mileage may vary.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Thank you Z, I read your response three times to make sure I got your angle. Much appreciated.
You think like I think in many ways it seems. I've noticed lots of people that argue often have more in common than they have in difference but we all still fight anyway as if we need to. I get the opportunity to travel quite a bit and do see the fragility of the different cultural norms like shaking hands or what have you. The things you said about that make good sense. I've seen it. My siblings and myself are somewhat out of place in this regard. Our father was born in 1921 and his father in 1885. We were raised with some cultural norms that can't be easily found nowadays, good or bad, right or wrong we're generally odd ducks Polite, social, generous, helpful, fun with a long fuse but odd. Were lone wolves that do well in a crowd you might say. I've noticed my children are this way but not from instruction, rather observation.Anyway, thanks for taking the time to lay your thoughts out like that. Was definitely an interesting read. You've got decent thought transmission skills.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
@SOJ “ Our father was born in 1921 and his father in 1885. We were raised with some cultural norms that can't be easily found nowadays, good or bad, right or wrong we're generally odd ducks Polite, social, generous, helpful, fun with a long fuse but odd.”
My dad was born in 1927. All my grandparents were born in rural areas, but my dad up in the small, 60K pop. city where I was born. My mom grew up in a rural environment. I have some ‘strongly religious’ relatives. My grandfather used to walk to church every Sunday, but I never heard him mention a thing about religion to anyone. So my situation sounds similar to yours.
Thanks for noticing my ‘thought transmission skills’ but that 3-part mini-series was really stream of thought as I pulled on some strings. I’ve spent the last 50 years of my life collecting those strings. I think the difference in theists and atheists is often that atheists have truly given religion a try. I think of my religious relatives and can’t think of a one that has really investigated evolution, cosmic origins, biogenesis, psychology, sociology, philosophy or even other religions. They believe in their religion because of the geographical area they were born and the relatives that provided them with their sociological conditioning. The same as the great majority of all other people on the planet. They all think they’ve cornered the market on ‘truth’ when all they’re doing is drinking their local brand of Kool-Aid. They’re not bad people. And most of them only get really excited about god/religion when someone says something that disputes their beliefs. We all have our socially conditioned responses.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
@SOJ Oh, actually forgot to make my intended point in my response above….
Your response shows that discussion can take place between theists and non stamp collectors. I’ve said before that although it is my opinion that although all religious individuals are delusional by the very definition of the word and that it is only a matter of degree, that these same people can be very ‘normal’ otherwise.
Also, although it is mere coincidence that our exchange took place in the thread it did, the effort by religious people to bring religion into politics, specifically to legislate their beliefs onto others, such efforts are what caused me to become militantly atheistic. Without such efforts theists would be downgraded to the group containing people into horoscopes, crystal power, ouija boards, homeopathy and palm reading…quaint little idiosyncrasies that are somewhat easy enough to overlook, nod while hoping whatever is their conclusion and if not the conclusion formulate an exit plan.
-
ServantOfJudgement
Z,
I think that's the light, that differing opinions can have a dialogue. Sadly the ones willing to talk are busy making a living and will never be in the position to make a difference outside their own life. I've made enough mistakes to always doubt what I think I know as truth. Maybe you or the next guy have points I've never considered. Might help me get closer to truth.
I thought I was an atheist until I met one at the pub, we had a long discussion. It was very nice to speak to someone about this sort of thing without anger. He later gave me a book printed in the early 1800's that was given to him. Not long after that he split town back to England after he'd learned he'd knocked up one of the locals. All the English dudes get lucky in Ohio.
I have no doubt if atheists did not present a counterforce to religion in general we'd end up hanging, most of us anyway. Pick a religion, it wouldn't matter. In this same way the inflexible form of truth or perceived truth Christianity brings is a needed counterforce against "woke" type mass movements. If unchecked, wokeness could easily slide into rounding people up or worse. Almost a guarantee as it has the earmarks of religion, it would become a mobocracy, then anarchy then dictatorship.
The last thing I want is a theocracy or unless Jesus Actual is behind the wheel. Like walk on water and transmutate lost souls Jesus. Otherwise I'll take my chances with the government we've got, it's a mighty good one at its core.
It's not chance that I asked you this question now. I've been wanting to get your opinion on morality and law for a while, this thread seemed appropriate. All things happen for a reason even if it's not apparent to us yet.
Take care of yourself over there, I hear Krazy Kim is lobbing missiles in your direction every now and again. An unwise move, I bet the Japanese could whip up a nuke by lunchtime if push came to shove.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
@SOJ My open conversations with xtians have gone well. I have one cousin that I get along with. She knows I’m an atheist through my interactions with our cousins. I assume she’s xtian. I say ‘assume’ bc she hasn’t brought up her ‘beliefs’. And that’s the way it should be. But she is a liberal. And we share a mutual distaste for one cousin that wears his religion on his sleeve, is a convinced the wall was a great idea, and blames the immigrants for all the problems in the US. We share common beliefs politically and we both feel that such things need to be discussed. Religion doesn’t need to be discussed bc it is irrelevant to anybody other than oneself. Keep it totally and completely to yourself and things will go smoothly.
You said that at one time you thought you might be an atheist until you chatted with this guy that was an atheist. And he gave you a book. And apparently his deciding to bugger off when he got a girl pregnant made an impression upon you.
Questions three I have for thee…. 1- Why did you think you were atheist and how did this guy change your mind? (Yeah, that’s double dipping but I wanted to focus that little essay question. 2- What was the book? 3- Kinda’ forgot the third question. Maybe it was how did the pregnant girl come into play?
-
ServantOfJudgement
Z
The pregnant girl added body to the story, attached to one of my memory threads if you will, nothing to do with his atheism. He was a really nice guy with cold feet.
The book is on Scottish Chiefs printed around 1830ish. My ancestral land consists of 17k square acres in Scotland, now hunting grounds for the elite. Upon England defeating Scotland in 1746ish, we(Servants of Judgment) were sold to the colonies and our land taken, as mankind will do to each other when we're feeling itchy.
I thought I was an atheist for the obvious reasons. An entity speaking some words and the cosmos appears. I read the bible a little and was very disappointed with what I found out about it. The bible was written by men who can lie or are delusional enough to convince others of their delusion. All the reasons we know of, they're all valid points atheists have. We see that today with suicidal cults and such. I could argue against Christianity just as effectively as I could for it today.
At the point I'd met Nigel at the bar I'd read many books on the theoretical origins of the cosmos less creation. There are many theories but no answers, not definitive answers. I'd also studied the occult but not in practice, seemed dangerous if true. The workings of the solar system, earths ecosystem, how we believe these things happened and so on. I did my due diligence on the matter. Nigel and I had one glaring difference in thought. I was open to the possibility that a self spawning universe, it's life and mankind. Also it could have been instead created only because we still didn't have the absolute proof of either possibility. Both options to me were insanely outrageous and they still are today. Nigel possessed the belief required for his version of the universe to be definitive even though we lack proof enough for conclusion. He was and is a true believer in self spawning life in the same way a Christian is with his view of the cosmos. I was neither at the end of the night.
Everything is inconclusive, everything requires some form of belief. All opinions are impossible or all opinions are possible. I realize I could be delusional in believing there is a creator. I get the same feeling if I believe everything including us created itself over billions of years. We are marvelous beyond anything in nature and we are good or evil beyond anything we've ever encountered. Nothing compares to mankind, absolutely nothing.
When I've completed my initial study of the bible, I'm going to test it against itself as it says we can. The old testament presents several opportunities for deep testing with today's technology.
I'm terrified I will no longer believe in Jesus, it would be heartbreaking. I'm also excited to find God indeed created mankind for something wonderful something that will change the universe. Something only a creator of a cosmos could envision.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
I’ve copied the above message and pasted it into a Note.
1- I’ll go onto my desktop to respond. Typing on this iPad cumbersome and results in efforts toward brevity rather than clarity.
2- The response won’t be on this thread. This website has an ackbassward design for a comment section that does not lend itself to interactive discussions. Look at this!! One word per line? And click on the link in the email notifying that a new comment had bern made and it doesn’t take you to the comment but just the topic, leaving you to scroll through looking for that post? Not even checking the ‘Notify me’ box on this post.
Nope, you’ll comment somewhere and I’ll post the response.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Daniel-David
If you want to look for evil actions and intentions, look up,
THE CATHOLIC CONFERENCE POLICY GROUP, they are paid lobbyists who are trying to legislate restrictions on the time that those who were abused by priests can come forward and lodge a complaint. They want to shorten that timeframe down to less than 10 years. That’s evil.
-
Dawn
Why limit it to Catholics? They’re just the ones who were caught-they’re likely in all religions-look at that Duggard (sp?) son-they are ‘christian’(whatever that means amymore). I saw reports of rabbis’ sexual assault & in muslim countries it’s rampant.
-
Rev Mark D
Because, Dawn, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
-
-
-
Merlin
Lack of tolerance is the “secret sauce” to persecution. It’s been the directive of the “church” for centuries. Remember the terms heretic and heresy. Many were persecuted including torcher and death to persuade. It worked. It’s an old play book before the creation of the United States.
-
Rev Mark D
"...It’s an old play book before the creation of the United States."
And DURING. And now. It still works.
-
-
Edward Hamilton Calhoun
As I follow a religion (philosophy) with No deity I very much object to religion in politics and fine it rather Evil.
-
Catherine
@Edward Hamilton Calhoun
Philosphy as a religion is a dichotomy, I think. The relentless questioning of critical thinking could undo religion.
-
-
Catherine
Being that more strict laws can be made at local levels, Johnson and NACL are using religion to rape lawmaking at the local level where our best defense used to be.
I think with so many millionaire and billionaire lawmakers, that voting with how we spend our money and time is being made less efficacious by the day.
"Critics, for their part, say the group is using religion as a bludgeon for their political aims and is trampling on the separation of church and state by explicitly endorsing laws inspired by biblical teachings. " from the article sums it up.
As does: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/christian-nationalists-national-association-christian-lawmakers-1234684542/
"With a national agenda and a state-by-state focus, NACL is emulating the American Legislative Exchange Council. An infamous corporate front group, ALEC pioneered the strategy of pushing for national political goals by advancing carbon-copy bills through state legislatures. But where ALEC serves far-right billionaire masters and polluting special interests, NACL sees itself as serving the Lord on high. Rapert has touted NACL as “basically ALEC from a biblical worldview.”
-
Rev Mark D
Well that sounds nice catherine, but what is really happening is you're about to lose the rights and privileges that you have (by leaving it to others) neglected to protect. It's a common theme and result in history.
-
Catherine
Afterthought. Years ago I asked a congressional aide about the status of something local. He said, "by the time legislation is discussed in the media, it's almost a done deal". Sometimes things don't go as intended though, so maybe common sense will prevail.
If not and the NACL is successful, how will non-religious citizens cope in a christian nation?
-
Catherine
@Rev Mark D
I think we lost 'rights' a long time ago.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section10102&num=0&edition=prelim
https://hbr.org/2023/09/reskilling-in-the-age-of-ai
Think tanks describe the United States as sovereign because 'the people rule'. Outside ourselves, what do people really rule here that's otherwise important?
Black's Law Dictionary definition of 'individual' and 'citizen':
"INDIVIDUAL Definition & Legal Meaning As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association ; but it is said that this restrictive signi- fication is not necessarily inherent in tbe word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. See Bank of U. S. v. State, 12 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 400; State v. Bell Telephone Co.. 30 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am. Rep. 583; Pennsylvania it. Co. v. Canal Com’rs, 21 Pa. 20. As an adjective, “individual” means pertaining or belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto."
"CITIZEN Definition & Legal Meaning In general, A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas.) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties."
May be all that officially began in America with Swift v. Tyson and Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the New Deal, birth certificates, and Social Security numbers.
Not that nothing should have been done. Rather the bone of contention is what was done has been mostly for the gain of a few against the many, no matter which party is acting. Acting... keyword there, I think. That playing nice is a no-win game for anyone not manipulating masses of people, yes?
Doesn't matter how much I learn about how things became how they are though. Without a solution all this is so much mental masturbation, isn't it?
Even so, I participate in discussions like these because as long as I keep talking, hope lurks :)
-
Catherine
@Rev Mark D
Given available statistics, I am wondering what Johnson and the NACL are really trying to accomplish. I think there is more than meets the eye. That they are doing something more than trying to permanently integrate religion into lawmaking.
-
-
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
You say “god has been taken out of schools” but do you mean “prayer?” That’s a lie the right loves to push. I guarantee that on any given day in schools around the world students and staff are praying. Especially on test days. What did change is that staff is not permitted to lead prayer.
It’s quite prideful and arrogant of you and your ilk to think that your “prayer” or “religion” are the one and only or the best. They’re not.
-
Lionheart
The question is: Does God belong in Government?
As no one has yet proved any God is real, how can any mythical being belong in Government?
Does Alice In Wonderland belong in Government?
Does Harry Potter belong in Government?
Does Santa Claus belong in Government?
Does the Tooth Fairy belong in Government?🤷🏼
🦁❤️
-
Daniel Gray
And you have yet to prove Lion that God isnt real. so its a draw,
-
Lionheart
Of course I can’t prove your God isn’t real. Even he doesn’t seem able to do that, Sir Daniel, so what chance do I have? 🤭
Likewise, neither of us can prove Vishnu, Krishna, Ganesha, Thor, or Zeus aren’t real, or even Fairies, or the Loch Ness Monster.
I wonder if any of them are? 🤔
Out of all of them, Fairies would be nice. They don’t sound as they are bloodthirsty, and I doubt they are into infanticide, or genocide. What do you think? 🤷🏼
🦁❤️
-
Daniel Gray
And the whole part that you constantly seem to ignore or forget lion is that you can no more prove that God does not exist then I can prove that he does, therefor its all considered FAITH.
-
Lionheart
I know, it’s laughable, right? Hamas have their faith, Mormons have their faith, Hindu’s have theirs. Doesn’t really count for much does it, and even less so if their faith brings misery, as has happened with pretty much all faiths on the face of the earth from time to time.
🦁❤️
-
Daniel Gray
Might be laughable to you but the fact still remains you cant prove that God does not exist and I cant prove that God does exist, thats why its called faith.
-
-
-
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Russell’s Teapot addresses the ludicrous nature of trying to prove a negative. It’s laughable. And the same goes for your belief in some finger-snapping, sky-dwelling Mr. Magic. Silliness. Prove it.
-
-
-
The Gray Minister
All I can say Church and State are supposed to be separate why do we let church run our states and our government?
Bogus. I tell you bogus.
-
Daniel Gray
Um show where Separation of Church and State is located in the Constitution. I wont hold my breath waiting as it isnt and never was
-
-
Tom Herman
There's a reason the US Constitution separates church and state. It's to allow all Americans to exercise their faith or lack thereof as they deem fit without government intervention. To impose a religious standard in government violates the Constitution. I would further assert that the so called Christian Nationalist's are a group seeking to overthrow the US Constitution and therefore our form of government seeking to impose their will on all others. I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. As far as I'm concerned these zealots are domestic terrorists and traitors to the very ideals they pretend to support. They are attempting to manipulate the masses. While we should be tolerant of all beliefs, these are un-American. We should ignore them, isolate them in their fanaticism and let them die off through evolution.
-
Daniel Gray
The term "Separation of church and state" appears NOWHERE in any federal document, let alone the constitution
-
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
For those screaming "We're not a democracy we're a republic!!!!"
Right and Wrong.
We are a Democratic Republic We ARE a republic, but also a democracy. Our citizenry chooses our government. We are NOT a theocracy, nor are we to be a dictatorship.
It's a democratic republic. It always has been, always will be. People on the Ultra-Far-Right just HATE that fact because, and I quite from the MAGA senators "Too much democracy is bad for a country." I.e. they fully believe allowing the citizenry to choose their government is bad. Hence why they want to impose a Theocracy as well as Dictatorship rather than have our nation as a FREE nation.
Read the 1st amendment again, and read the 11th article of the Treaty of Tripoli. Both are written by our founding fathers.
People REALLY needs to learn some basic history, as well as understand the very basics of our Constitution. But, of course, outside the 2nd amendment and "Muh freedumz to speak and protest!"
Many individuals, not ALL, just to be clear, don't know, nor do they want to know, anything about our history or the US constitution because it's "Not fair / makes me uncomfortable!"
Their words, not mine.
-
Daniel Gray
You should take your own advice.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
I know our history and our constitution, you, obviously, do not. We are a democratic republic and the 1st Amendment and the Treaty of Tripoli BOTH state outright "The United States is a SECULAR nation, not a Christian One"
-
Daniel Gray
Since you have been proved so wrong , what makes you think anyone should listen to you now?
-
Daniel Gray
And it clearly shows that you have no knowledge of history or Government as the Treaty of Tripoli was never ratified in the US Senate meaning that its not worth the paper its printed on...yet you keep insisting on using it.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Treaty of Tripoli WAS, in fact, Ratified by the USA. The Senate, as we know it, did NOT exist back then, so that doesn't matter. It made it QUITE clear that the USA is a Secular nation, not a Christian / Catholic one.
Also, 1st amendment, paragraph 1 - No Religion shall be officially recognized by the USA, no laws shall be made to enforce one religion over any others. You know NOTHING about the United States Constitution, or the US government.
Absolutely nothing has proved me wrong at all. LOL Except you screaming "You're wrong!" over and over again.
And, to put the nail on your Zealot coffin.
Treaty of Tripoli - Article 11
Article 11 of the treaty stated: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
1st Amendment - US Constitution - First Sentance.
The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.
So your arguments mean nothing kiddo. You know absolutely nothing about our government, or our history. And your religious shrieking means nothing because I have proof of my words. I dare you to look them up.
USA is a Secular nation, period. The Church and the State are Separate. Period, by Law - end of story.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry but no. You are obtaining your information from wikipedia and its been posted more times then I care to count that wikipedia is NOT a valid source.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
One first - the United States of America is a Democratic Republic. Yes we are a DEMOCRACY. Despite what talking heads are trying to now push, being a full democracy is NOT a bad thing. Being a dictatorship, THAT is a bad thing. But allowing everyone born to this nation, or naturalized, the right to vote is NOT a bad thing either. No matter their religious beliefs, gender, who they live, what their skin color is, where they were born, etc.
Second - According to the FIRST AMENDMENT - which yes also handles freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to PEACEFULLY assemble to redress grievances, it also makes it clear that our nation is FORBIDDEN to make any laws that enforce any one religion on any other, to force anyone to worship any religion they do not wish to worship, or make laws that enforce religious doctrines.
Also, the Treaty of Tripoli - also written and signed by our founding fathers, states in Article 11 that the United States of America is a SECULAR nation, not a Christian one, not a Catholic one, not a Jewish one, in fact not a religious one at all. That this nation follows NO religions. It's Secular in law and in nature.
-
Rev Mark D
Well that's nice bridget. But impossibly naive as to the reality and the actual function as it moves through time. And those functions swing back and forth from one far end of a pendulum all the way to the other far end of a pendulum, and not only that, they can also do so in smaller amounts or smaller locations and vastly different and opposing forms occur in the very same time frame in different regions or locations. In fact that is what occurs now and has been occurring pretty much since the founding of America. Then there is the phenomenon of politics. We could do a book here about that. Have you ever heard of such a thing as a totalitarian authoritarian society that refers to itself as a democracy? Have you ever heard of prison referred to as freedom? Have you ever seen it in action (I can answer that last one for you, yes you have, though you might not have known it even while you were looking at it and being in it.) And have you ever seen a scale dividing two weights of a million pounds equally and exactly, and the addition of 1 mg switches that to a teeter totter that is one end all the way in the sky and the other end crashing with its full force of gravity and weight into the ground? Because we do have those here and now and have had through the centuries.
Have you ever heard the phrase People's Republic? It is anything but. Have you ever heard the phrase DDR (I like that one because it is just so representative, it's a great example what I'm saying about names and definitions and rhetoric) "German Democratic Republic"... Which was the formal name and declaration and claimed format of the state-owned, military and single party control totalitarian communist puppet of the Soviet Union. It was anything but democratic, it was anything but a republic, it was an entire slave state in which all assets were owned by a central government which used military force and terror on its own people as a preferred method of governing... But it sure as heck had a great name didn't it? We have many of those such examples right today and many simultaneous all along the range within our country here today.
-
Thomas P. Davis
United States was founded as a republic not a democracy democracy would be where nine wolves and a sheep would decide what they want for dinner that wouldn't happen in a republic and I repeat what I said earlier the Bible says that this country that was founded on religious freedom will speak as a dragon as the Constitution is done away with
-
Danny D. Maynard
Which 9 sheep of the 330 million Americans frighten you?
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
Pishtosh. That republic vs. democracy thing is beating a dead horse.
-
-
Rev Mark D
Bridget Bridget how silly. The nation is what it is... Not what tantrums or juvenile wishes would like it to be. A label is a label.
-
Daniel Gray
No bridget we are NOT a democracy and never have been so no matter how many times you want to claim it it still is not historically nor factually correct.
-
-
Gary James Thomas Garrett
So, the Taliban then?
-
Rev. Dr. Robert Allan Roush
This type of religious-belief imposition on all people as somehow an "expression of their religious freedom" is as repugnant as it is abusrd. We must be vigilant to counter-act this type of activism with even more effective counter-activism.
-
Linda L Capps
is the United States a democracy or a republic? Here’s the answer: The United States is both a democracy and a republic. https://act.represent.us/sign/democracy-republic
‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/yes-constitution-democracy/616949/
-
Daniel Gray
And bothy of them are clearly wrong according to the US Library of Congress
-
-
Gary Don Reiber
The history of Religion welding political power is not one I wish to experience. Christianity is to be proselytize not politicized.
-
Kelley Paige Strausbaugh
Why so much hate? “My side”, “Your side” what the hell? I thought it was OUR side! Why so much hate? Are all Christians wrong? Or Jews or Muslims? What about Pagans? Are they all bad because they observe the earths gifts and seasons? Can someone tell me how we’re so different than Israel and Palestine, other than not having all out war? Isn’t that how I war starts? HATE!
Anyone????
Blessings to all! May you meet the most interesting people today!
-
Pastor Xal
The very small group of Elite white men known as The Founding Fathers were traditional Protestants, Christian and Pure Deists and a "Howling Atheist" Thomas Jefferson. Such a group is not an overwhelming decree for Christian Nationalism. Presently, The Heritage Foundation has already influenced SCOTUS Justices and has published The Mandate for Leadership 2025. https://www.project2025.org/policy/
A relatively small number of Christian Zealots imposing their belief system on millions of Americans who don't want it and consistently vote to reject anti-choice laws. Whether it be a Woman's right to choose or what books children have in school libraries, I do not want a "Christian" (or Any other religion) lurking in the shadows and deciding for me.
-
Daniel Gray
Um no. There were 2 Deists and Jefferson was never an Atheist, in fact he lead bible studies in the WH and created his own version of the Bible
-
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Some of the darkest times in human history were caused by religious fanatics who believed they were the only people who knew the truth, who believed they were the only people who could save the world. They were wrong.
Mike Johnson recently gave a speech where he told the audience God told him he was the knew Moses, and the nation was heading towards another parting of the red seas moment. That’s religious fanaticism. He believes he is the only one that can guide us and save our country from God’s wrath. He also claims homosexuals will end our way of life. That everything is falling apart because of them. He fails to see that it’s actually the war against homosexuality that’s causing the chaos. It is the war against everything the far-right, Christian conservatives think is ungodly that’s destroying it all. It’s the reason church attendance is down.
Can we just let people live how they want to as long as they are not harming others. Nobody is teaching children to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans. You are either born that way or not. It’s not something you can be convinced of. Just like conversion therapy cannot cure you of homosexuality.
And as for trans people… we are talking about a small portion of the population. They would have you believe schools are flooded with children who think they are trans. That millions of children are trying to use puberty blockers. There are only about 1.6 million trans people in the entire country. Sexual reassignment surgery isn’t being performed on children. In extremely rare circumstances a person under 18 might have breast reduction surgery, but as I said, that’s extremely rare, and the reasons are not due to the kid saying, “lob them off.”
STOP TRYING TO MAKE OTHERS LIVE BY YOUR BELIEFS. I believe in God, but I don’t think God wrote or even inspired the bible. If God wanted to write down a set of laws, God could do it without human intervention. Our politicians are not representing their constituents, they are only representing their own ideas. All of this talk about parental rights, are only for those parents who agree with them.
-
Sarah Rohr
Separation of church and state = NO religion in politics from any politicians, especially those holding government positions. They can worship as they please, in their homes, at their churches, but what's going on during political work is WRONG. They have zero right to push any religion onto the entire Country. PERIOD.
This has to be stopped immediately. Bad enough we have a mentally ill schizophrenic as the speaker of the House. Dude actually believes his god told him to be the Moses of the country and lead the flock. He is a very very dangerous person to hold any govt seat much less Speaker of the House.
The Evangelical Extremists are not safe at all. They're vile.
-
Daniel Gray
Nope its YOU who is vile for trying to lie. All the 1st said is that there cannot be a national religion like in England, nothing more
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
@ Greh Nope, it does not sat ‘like in England’. You stretch the truth to the breaking point. And if it doesn’t snap, you stretch until it breaks.
-
-
-
Mark Gilgen
The fact that GOD and the Values have been taken out of Schools and a WAR on Christian beliefs is EXCACTLY What is WRONG with the world today. Every religious belief can be followed except Christians belief in shools and in public stateing thier rights at the demise of everyone elses is ridiculous. I commend the NACL. I dont agree with all of it but mostly do.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Wrong. First, there is no "War on Christian beliefs" at all in this nation. Christians, Catholics, Jewish individuals, Muslim individuals, Pagan individuals, etc., can all worship as they wish, or they can be atheists and not worship anything. And no, atheism is not a religion, in fact it's right in the name "A-Theist, i.e. not a theist, aka not of any religion."
Kids can worship in schools as they wish, but teachers CANNOT teach religion in any schools and that's a GOOD thing. The problem in this country are people trying to RAM religion down people's throats, and have begun to use violence, and threats of violence, as well as intimidation and harassment to try to enforce it. If people want their kids taught about some "God", then they can send their kids to Christian / Catholic schools, there are plenty of those as public schools out there. or they can home-school.
But people can follow their religion all they want. But they do NOT have the right to enforce it on others. It sounds like you, Mark Gilgen, are stating that if people can't force their religion on others and use violence and intimidation to do so, that they're not being allowed to follow their religion. If you worship in such a way, I feel badly for you.
-
Russel A. Kester
Bridget, I think you misunderstand Mark. He is correct that Christians are pointed out for ridicule and jokes in bad taste while other religions, like Islam, are praised. It's part of the Marxist ideologies that condemn anything from our past as remnants of colonialism from a supposed patriarchy and a hatred of white men to Christianity and capitalism. You simply might not see it from your chosen perspective, but that doesn't negate its reality.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
Could you be more condescending, or confused?
-
Russel A. Kester
Comment removed by user.
-
Russel A. Kester
Catherine, my comment was not condescending and I am not confused. However, I found your comment to be quite condescending.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
If you read your comment above as an objective third party, you will see how your words are less than objective. How your words cherry pick, pigieon hole, and assume ignorance of readers. Hence condescension and confused writing if not thinking.
-
Russel A. Kester
Catherine, at this point we will just have to agree to disagree because I do not see my comments as you described them. I think I simply stated what is very obvious and that is that those who hold to a more traditional Christian faith have been summarily criticized and dismissed by the woke activists. I also think that I was being rather kind to acknowledge that they simply do not see themselves as being as bad as I believe they are. I believe they have been indoctrinated by very terrible ideologies that have left them unable to see life from someone else's perspective because they are constantly told to see life through the " lens" that the indoctrinators have told them to use.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
Believing in biblilcal stories told by moneygrubbing control freaks that Jesus would likely call out as blasphemers and violators of everything God stands for, is not being a victim of indoctrination?
You jest? :)
What do you consider traditional? The KJV bible is cherry picked from the Hebrew bible. Add Greek translations.
Then there's the Septuagint, used by Coptics. And though that has also been tinkered with, so far I most appreciate Coptic views.
I've never met a christian face-to-face who knew where the KJV bible came from. I didn't learn about it until maybe 30ish years ago. Or the Geneva bible.
Certainly it was not taught when I was a child, that the KJV bible came from an older Hebrew bible that was previously influenced by multiple cultures and language translations. Certainly not taught that 'current' christian religions deviated from that older bible - courtesy of Martin Luther - and had origins from even older religious beliefs of people who at one time worshipped multiple Gods.
Though not a Jewish site, this is the most succinct explanation of what that refers to:
https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/docs/support/world_religions/judaism/change-evolution.pdf
"The Jewish religion at that point was initially a monolatrous religion (a belief in the existence of many gods but with the consistent worship of only one deity). While the Hebrews were asked to worship no deity but Yahweh, there is no evidence that the existence of other gods was denied. The account of the migration contains numerous references, by the historical characters, to other gods. Also, the first law of the Decalogue is that no gods be put before Yahweh, not that no other gods exist. Consequently, while still controversial, most scholars have reached the conclusion that, for about two hundred years, the initial Mosaic religion was a monolatrous religion."
Specific to current times, all that becomes unuseful noise. So back to square one.
If the United States were to become a judeo-christian nation, who would be excluded? You did mention muslims. Who else? Or do those people not matter because there are fewer of them? Will they be expected to become judeo-christian, though they are U.S. citizens and however unconstitutional such enforcement would be?
-
Russel A. Kester
Catherine, first let me applaud you on your research and understanding of the history of both the Jewish people and the development of both Hebrew and Christian scriptures. However, the point of this particular thread was that Christians today who do hold to more traditional values of Christianity are selected out to be ridiculed and mistreated by a larger group of persons within our society today this larger group of persons having been influenced by far left activists, woke ideologies. Which is quite different from the history and development of the idea of God within the Hebrew people and the development of Scripture within Christianity. But once again, kudos on your research and learning on the Jewish people as well as the development of Christian scriptures. It is encouraging to see such scholarly activities by a fellow ULC minister.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
I have no illusion that quoting scholars makes me one.
The question you have repeatedly not directly answered:
"Should non-christians be expected to become judeo-christian, though they are U.S. citizens and however unconstitutional such enforcement would be?"
It's a yes or no question.
-
Russel A. Kester
Catherine, to answer your question directly, should anyone be forced to convert to a Christian denomination? No. Should they be encouraged, probably so. Should they uphold the judeo Christian values regardless of what faith they have at any particular time? Yes.
-
Catherine
Clarification: old testament. New testament did not come from the Hebrew bible.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
If non-christians should uphold judeo-christian values, should judeo-christians reciprocate? If not, why?
-
Russel A. Kester
Catherine, if the goal is to uphold Judeo-Christian values in our society, then it would make no sense to follow any other religious values. So, no, those who follow judeo Christian values should not necessarily reciprocate. Personally, I have no interest in animal sacrifices which is now being practiced by some Muslims in one of our northern states.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
So do as I say, not as I do. Cherry picking again, typically hypocritcal, and entirely self-serving. What would Jesus and God say about that?
Sacrifices? Are you referring to halal? If so, prepaparing halal meat is barely different than kosher preparation and it's far kinder to animals than any other butchery. And kosher - specific to meat - dictates wasting an immense amount of food.
There is also this:
"Qurbani means sacrifice. Every year during the Islamic month of Dhul Hijjah, Muslims around the world slaughter an animal – a goat, sheep, cow or camel – to reflect the Prophet Ibrahim's willingness to sacrifice his son Ismail, for the sake of God."
and this:
"When sacrifices were offered in ancient times, they were offered as a fulfillment of Biblical commandments. Since there is no longer a Temple, modern religious Jews instead pray or give tzedakah to atone for their sins as the korban would have accomplished."
I think an occasional animal sacrifice to respect any God or gods is likely more understandable than for self-serving purposes? And a lacto-ovo diet serves humans well enough. We rationalize justification of our druthers, don't we?
I was taught judeo-christians were tolerant of other peoples and religions. Why shouldn't that tolerance and respect be reciprocated?
Because it's not what you believe. And that is the soapbox pedestal the shortsighted and narrowminded stand on and refuse to budge from.
Why expect others to do what you would not?
Why intolerance over acceptance?
-
Russel A. Kester
Catherine, as I said, I have no interest in engaging in an animal sacrifice. I prefer to buy my meats from the supermarket. As for sacrifice in the Old testament or Torah I understand there was a group The priestly cast that was very much in favor of this and there was another group that followed the prophets and the Psalms which believed that our sins were forgiven simply by having a truly repentant heart and confessing our sins to God. No priest was needed to perform any sacrifice of an animal. My understanding is coming from a book I am currently reading on Jewish theology which was written by an interesting gentleman back in about 1920. As for Christians being labeled as intolerant for not following another's beliefs I disagree. You also use the term to tolerate or be tolerant of another religion. That is a different issue. We can be tolerant of a religion other than the Judeo-Christian religions and yet not be required to follow their values. Again, for our country I believe we need to return to judeo Christian values as specifically opposed to atheistic humanistic values which we are practicing today. The idea being that in order to be one nation which our motto says as e pluribus unum then we need to have a common set of values that will serve us well. I believe those values are the Judeo-Christian values.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
This is key: "tolerant of a religion other than the Judeo-Christian religions and yet not be required to follow their values."
I don't recall suggesting tolerance of a different religion requires practicing that religion.
In a previoius round-a-bout response you suggest that IF upholding judeo-christian values... there's the catch for non-christians.
Why are non-christians, non-christian? Either they have a different religion, or none at all. And that is an individual and very personal choice.
How is the constitution served by judeo-christians mowing over non-christians' preferences? Because that is the essense of what would occur if the United States became a judeo-christian nation.
What RIGHT has any religion to dominate such that it rules over all other religions?
Referencing a much earlier comment about lawmakers not practicing judeo-christian values, I think those values don't serve lawmakers well or they would in deed adhere to those. And if lawmakers don't adhere to judeo-christian values, why should anyone else?
A judeo-christian nation is a house of cards in the making. And unlikely an improvement on what currently exists.
The real power lies within each of us as individuals. How we go about our personal life and at work. How we treat ourselves and others.
-
-
-
-
Torre Huffines
Russel,
The reason Christianity and white men are put under the water with colonialism.. is because they drove the motives behind it. unilaterally. It is in fact due to Spain and England's beliefs and regard for other territories and for aboriginals that led to the age of exploration, manifest destiny, and missionary work quite completely designed to limit the power of those different from the euro-centric status quo.
Even after the age of colonialism came to a distinct decline, white men and Christians haven't stopped their control rhetoric. its unbelievable to the extensively aware members of your society that white men or Christians could even come up with a dialogue for being or feeling oppressed. they aren't being kept from the table, they're being asked to share it.
The only world takeover that has ever deterred us from progress stems from the origins of white pride and Christian nationalism. Hence why the church of the Latter day saints owns more land then the wealthiest people in our country, the Catholics have their very own territory ( Vatican city) , and both white men and Christians ( or at least Abrahamic faith) are rampantly included in almost every single political action in the western world... did you notice the white man that swore on a catholic bible during the last presidential inauguration?
we all did.
-
Russel A. Kester
Torre, that's quite a selective and revisionist view of history. A more comprehensive view shows that all people of every ethnicity on every continent went to war for power, resources, and territory. That was reality and white men got better at it than their adversaries. That 'white man pride', as you call it, did shape and continues to shape our history. And that is something of which one can be proud as well as achievements.in the arts, literature, science, and technology. We live in an amazing world thanks to all of that. I won't play into people's efforts to use the shame game. I'm proud of my heritage as you should be of yours.
-
Torre Huffines
Its hardly selective when its the clear facts of denoting the age of exploration. Its pretty well known to the average 8th grader where colonialism starts, who it benefited, and the tactics used to win that game.
There is nothing wrong in any pride of anyone's culture. The problem is the distinct identity of American white that inserts supremacy over anyone non-christian, white, straight, and male.
No one Caucasian person in this country is simply white. Yet, they no longer live by the heretical rules and traditions of their original culture and instead have replaced their German, Italian, roman, English cultures with white pride.
I am also a "White man" by the same standard, I just feel a deeper connection to my Irish roots. that's my American way of life also since I am encouraged to be the most diverse version of myself as possible in the U.S. . I don't require a dogma crafted in western extremism to know myself or feel bigger than other nations and their people.
I have no issue recognizing the accomplishments of the western world or the 'white' people in it. Its other white people who have an insane problem understanding what Black, Islamic, gay, and aboriginal people are also allowed to express and receive in our world.
-
-
Catherine
@Torre Huffines
Having northern European and Norman ancestors, I hear you. And you are correct.
To:
"its unbelievable to the extensively aware members of your society that white men or Christians could even come up with a dialogue for being or feeling oppressed. they aren't being kept from the table, they're being asked to share it."
... I will add there is anthropological evidence that humans enslaved each other since the earliest humans.
'White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America' is a sad and disturbing, though excellent, read about white slavery established in America by Britain.
Also, Americans who never left the United States have no concept of how UN-white the rest of the world is.
Likewise, the rest of the world nails Americans properly with its opinions about our 'white pride' and highly questionable supremacy.
Somehow, we all must find or make a middle ground. And be willing to meet there. The alternative is more senseless killing for the crime of believing differently, or simply being born different.
In one way, none of us matters as much as we think we do. In another, each of us matters a great deal because nature doesn't make mistakes and we all have take part in what happens or does not.
Being the best possible representation of ourselves requires thoughtful action from humans, where nature does so without thought at all.
-
-
-
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
You say “god has been taken out of schools” but do you mean “prayer?” That’s a lie the right loves to push. I guarantee that on any given day in schools around the world students and staff are praying. Especially on test days. What did change is that staff is not permitted to lead prayer.
It’s quite prideful and arrogant of you and your ilk to think that your “prayer” or “religion” are the one and only or the best. They’re not.
-
Danny D. Maynard
Why do you feel persecuted when you cannot persecute with abandon those you do not like and probably will never meet? Why is that true?
-
Rev Mark D
Well really, the ones making war are the religious factions, that's been the history of this country and it's well proven. But none of that matters, what matters is where we are today.
-
Alan Meunier
You are confusing lack of "special treatment" for persecution.
-
-
John T. Watson
God is and has been in the government since society was organized. Laws today are based mainly on Biblical teachings. Laws against murder, man slaughter, assault, rape, stealing, and a myriad of other laws are based on religious writings and teachings. Those that are pushing for total separation of Church and state do not know what they are asking for. To totally separate Church and State will result in total Anarchy and bring in The Law of The Jungle where only the strong and well armed would survive. Therefore these men that want to bring in God-Fearing men and Women into the government will be doing ALL of society a favor by stabilizing what is becoming an un-stabilized society.
-
Lionheart
Not true, Sir John, it doesn’t take religion to determine what is right or wrong. We all have an inbuilt moral compass that determines what is right and wrong.
If we relied on the Bible to determine how we should treat our fellow man, we’d still have slavery, and we’d still be stoning people to death, all condoned by the mythical Christian god. Thank goodness there’s no demonstrable evidence that particular god is real.
🦁❤️
-
-
Wilberta M. Berry
Well these Christian zealots all seem to forget or never read the Biblical passage where Jesus said " Give Caesar what is Cesar's (government) and give God what is God's prayer, faith, love. Caring for orphans and widows and having compassion for people who have less than you. Obviously these things were skipped over in the Right Wing's version of preaching the words of Jesus. Which is understandable since they veiw the Monster as the "Orange Jesus". 🤣🤣
-
Monique Proulx
It is pretty simple. That organization is unconstitutional. It should be dissolved along with all bills passed under its influence. This is the land of the free, that means everyone is free of religious oppression of any kind. Separation of church and state was established in the first ammendment.
-
Russel A. Kester
Maybe not.
-
Daniel Gray
Nope sorry, separation of church and state is not and never was established in the constitution nor in the first amendment and can be found nowhere in any federal document. Now if you think so then show us exactly where that phase is located. All the 1st said was that there cant be a national religion like England has, nothing more.
-
-
Stephen B Pettway
Certainly, political leaders should have a solid faith in a Greater Spiritual Power (GSP)! They should remember that their faith is theirs and not everyone else's. One's faith should be a private matter with that GSP. I would abbreviate that to "GOD" but I'm sure that would offend someone, even in this forum. Leaders of all types should recognize that if their religious beliefs are indeed the GOD's enlightenment, then those governed will, perhaps, find what ever their True Path is. The secular/political leader must provide Leadership for those of all beliefs and NOT try to force their own beliefs on others. Having to force one's beliefs on others is a strong indicator that your belief system has some serious flaws. History demonstrates that whenever the Government combines with Religion, the results are disastrous! Even during this American Political Experiment, the combination, however well intentioned, has been Evil for many. Our peculiar culture has developed a sense that there should be a Separation between Church and State. Unfortunately, many seem to forget that it is supposed to work both ways. A common thread I have seen is that Humans are Imperfect, and that those seeking the truth manage to find unique paths to the Truth. To maintain a secular environment wherein all are appreciated and allowed to grow towards enlightenment, we absolutely must do the best we can to ensure the Separation of Church and State - in both directions. Instead of trying to enforce our own flawed (remember, we're humans?) beliefs on our flocks, we should encourage them to study the issues and the candidates; try to find the good and bad points to both sides; balance them and make the best choice they can for all. THEY are the ones that will have to answer to their Greater Spiritual Power. Maintain an open and civil discourse, encouraging all to exchange their thoughts in a free and impartial manner. A religion that must utilize the Government to spread their "righteous" beliefs is effectively demonstrating the invalidity of their beliefs. A religion that must use intimidation, force and torture is a false religion designed for the benefit of those in power.
-
Alexander Arends
People who profess Christianity have just as much right to express their opinion or influence morality as you and I have. None of us have the right to demand how others should worship, but that should not mean we have to be silenced. Thank God we all have to freedom to think and live as we choose. And thus the NACL has just as much right to try influence society as secular organizations such as atheist, humanist, gay rights or anti-Christian groups.
-
Rolando Couce
It seems they want to clean the filth of this world you give homosexuals a inch they take a mile look at what is going on first of all there was a time when homosexuality was illegal now when it was made legal all hell is breaking lose in this country
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Rolando, it is the far-right, Christian conservatives that are creating the chaos. They want gay people to be invisible. Don’t hold hands, don’t raise children, and DON’T TELL US YOUR TRANS. They are making people believe there are droves of trans children everywhere trying to play sports. There are less than 20,000 trans children in the entire country. The right wants us to believe there are hundreds in every school across the natation. It isn’t true.
They freak out that rainbow merchandise is being sold. They call that pushing it in their faces. They are the ones creating a problem that doesn’t exist with one goal in mind. Get rid of all LGBTQ people and put them back in the closet. And some want the laws back that would criminalize being gay. They compare us to animals, and you say homosexuals are causing chaos. It isn’t true.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
No, it isn't.
-
-
Rev Ned
Not the Evangelical God of hatred and condemnation.
-
Keith D
"NACL" ... NaCl, chemical formula for table salt. 'Haha. Salt of the Earth, you ain't.' That's my opinion. Why?
I fight the urge to do a dissertation on natural law and how respect for the life, liberty and property (Locke) makes for a sustainable civil society.
The highest Spiritual principle I can hark to is unity consciousness, aka Christ consciousness, "The Christ." Rudolf Steiner wrote an excellent book on that subject, how "The Philosophy of Freedom" (this is the title of the book) serves unity consciousness and that no other socio-economic or socio-political concept serves it. Therefore, individual freedom, perhaps exactly because it doesn't coerce, is the way to the Kingdom of God. We don't get to rule one another individually, either: you aren't allowed to take life, liberty or property from me by force without truly due cause, and I am entitled to defend mine.
Rule is the enemy. Rule sets up 'elites and commoners,' separation. Entitlements for some, subjugation for others, even if it's "only" 'the whole vs the one.' It undermines any hope of manifesting unity on Earth as it is 'in Heaven.' Thus it is ESSENTIALLY anti-christ in its nature.
You can't undo or defeat anti-christ by doing anti-christ.
Outlaw rule. And with that, you outlaw this kind of effort and the perceived need of it. Their effort is a fool's errand, not seeking out and repairing the roots of the problem. It just throws another crescent wrench on top of the already bearings-challenged machine that we call civil living.
All this talk of republic vs democracy is moot. Outlaw all coercive rule. That includes NaCl's nonsense.
-
Russel A. Kester
Keith, what you advocate leads not to a peaceful society but to complete anarchy. As long as we live in earth and not in some blissful heaven, there will always be those who will use violence and subjugate others. Our best defense is to participate in the social contract wherein we pledge to defend one another from such evil persons and in exchange we relinquish some of our freedoms and rights in order to for societies that can form such coalitions for our protection. Once you return to the spirit world, you can practice all of those nice thoughts there, but this is the school of life and hard knocks. Buckle up, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
-
Keith D
Comment removed by user.
-
Keith D
Rule (as I was using it) = subjugation. That this is what I was on about is fairly clear from the context.
Rights are NOT something that need to be forfeit in order to have a social contract; in fact, any 'social contract' that calls for that is a bad one. The POINT of a social contract is to protect rights.
I didn't advocate for anarchy, nor for the chaos that you call 'anarchy.'
Ruling another, or demanding to be ruled by another, is an abdication of everything human or godly.
Mostly, you've missed my point and are arguing semantics.
-
-
-
Paul Wallace
For those fighting over the Bible in United States politics; I have to ask "Why?" If one claims to be a Christian, then they claim to be a follower of Christ, by definition. So, What do we know of Christ? We can look at the Bible and see what it says about Him, and how he navigated the politics of His day. Christians are admonished to love God, and treat others the way you would want to be treated. (Matt 22:40) Christ told his followers to give Caesar the things that belong to him. Christ didn't advocate the overthrow of Roman rule to favor a theocracy. He simply said to live in peace with others, obey to laws, and treat others in a manor that you would want to be treated. (Romans 12:18). Our government is representative; and, we elect those who represent us. But, when they are in offices of power, it is a Christian obligation to follow the law. The Constitution lays out a separation of Church and State. If, for some reason, we the people don't like that separation, then we need to elect folks who would amend the Constitution to reflect the joining of Church and State. I doubt many would enjoy such and amendment for long, but that's how you do it. Meanwhile, an argument over whether or not we live in a Republic or a Democracy seems to me to be a bit silly; especially in the light of New Testament scripture.
-
Aric Willis Patrick Derhousoff
Religion does not belong in politics whatsoever. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. Not everyone is Christian and nobody who be forced into following laws they do not believe in
-
Laurie Kreger
This country was founded on- and largely because of- the right of religious freedom. Not just Christian religions, but ALL religion. You cannot represent all faiths in one Union, so therefore, we (government of the people) must represent no religion.
-
William McMillian
Our nation is founded on the separation of church and state. Every individual may have any religious they want. Will Christian Nationalism be Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Later Day Saints, Orthodox, or any evangelical spin-off. I do not believe that any of these see eye to eye as to what is Christian. America is under attack by reptilian forces wanting to subvert our democracy. History of many Christian faiths killing unbelievers, persecuting “unbelievers”, killing witches, killing Jews and Moslems, and denying basic rights from many. A totalitarian form of government also caused many abuses in the name of Christ. We are ALL God’s children even members of Islam, Judaism, Vedun, Voodoos, indigenous and native beliefs. God is love not hate, bigotry, misogyny, racism, or a hater of LGBTQ+. All of the different varieties of religion have a need to be grateful that despite negative actions or their part they have been able to flourish because of the separation of church and state in America.
-
Daniel Gray
Never was, sorry. Separation of church and state phrase is not and never has been mentioned in any of the founding documents. Now if you say it has then show us where and when as its clearly not in the 1st Amendment else why would they then say you cant pass any laws requiring someone to violate their religion?
-
-
Richard G Brockschmidt
Forcing a religion on a nation is what is starting most wars. I don’t believe that any god wants that. I believe that any god wants to teach why there way will bring you peace and happiness. Not everyone learns in the same way. I may not agree with someone’s ways but if there way teaches peace and happiness I am all for it.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Sadly, there are tons of zealots, even here, that think that the USA should be like the Middle East. Where religion is rammed down the throats of everyone, and those that don't "live the right way" or "believe the right way" should be imprisoned or even killed.
-
-
Russel A. Kester
Considering the state of our nation today, having Christianity reassert itself with gusto is probably a good thing. There will be issues and some will be serious, but it will be better than what we have today or any of the potential alternatives. We must return to our Judeo-Christian heritage post haste.
-
Danny D. Maynard
Considering we are a nation of immigrants, huge swaths that are not white anglo-saxons, I'd say you are wrong.
Thomas Jefferson and I agree:
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
-
Russel A. Kester
Well, Danny, I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree. To your interesting points: One does not have to be Anglo-Saxon to be a Christian. Also, while we should all respect Thomas Jefferson for the good he did for our country, we should be mindful that he was imperfect. He had slaves and died penniless because he became obsessed with things other than his finances which wasn't good for his survivors. And his imperfections included his views on church and state. A view that can change as the conditions of church and state do through time. It is because of those very changes that we must reassess our current situation and return to the Judeo-Christian values that made us what we once were and jettison these multitudinous strains of postmodern and Marxist ideologies that are strangling our society. Good conversation. Thank you.
-
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
Which christian denomination should rule the United States?
Which christian leaders and lobbyists follow the 10 commandments, the golden rule, and serve by example, top to bottom?
Which is least money grubbing?
Which serves monopolies least?
Which does not cry for blood to be spilled in God's name to serve business interests? If you're unfamiliar with 'War is a Racket' by Darlington Smedley Butler, his speech (nearly a century ago) sheds a bright light on the details of how wars make the wealthiest more wealthy and the rest of us more disposable with every passing day.
-
Russel A. Kester
Okay, Catherine, some thoughtful statements to say the least. How should I respond? I suppose my first step should be to highlight that I advocated Christianity in general to reassert itself back into our social, and hence political, fabric. No specific denomination required just traditional Judeo-Christian values. As to the rest of your comments which rightly lambast how corrupt many of our religious and political leaders have become. I share your distaste as did the prophets in the Torah (Old Testament) when Israel experienced the same problems. Those prophets spoke truth to power in their day and those words can help us do the same today by helping us see, understand, and correct ours. Whew, that got a bit long winded. Just because our current batch of religious leaders and politicians don't follow the 10 commandments or the golden rule doesn't mean that they shouldn't. They should. And with your help, maybe we can get them to see the error of their ways. Let's help return Western societies to their Judeo-Christian values and leave a better world for the next generations.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
I appreciate your response. However, who does Judeo-Christianity exclude? How many of those excluded are U.S. citizens who would then be without representation?
-
Russel A. Kester
Catherine, I don't forsee anyone being excluded per se because other faith expressions like Buddhism share those basic values as well. However those who would prefer to abuse others, kidnap children, kill people, steal, and so much more would be unhappy. Okay, a little over the top, but it gets the point across. I am stressing the values advocated by our Judeo-Christian heritage not that every person must profess their alliegence (sp?) to the Catholic Church. It would be good if persons chose to follow any faith belief (other than Islam as it is a theocracy not just a religion). So I favor those faiths following the Judeo-Christian religion to express them and take their place in our country. Of those I know I think Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca, and New Thought are all quite good. But atheistic secular humanism has shown that it is not up to the challenge of proving a moral compass within society. It has failed miserably.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
Why do you think a non-religious individual has no morals?
When supposedly 60-ish percent of Americans are judeo-christians, then who bears more responsibility for the state of crime and corruption in the United States? Do you think 30-ish percent of non-religious individuals deserve so much credit?
-
Russel A. Kester
Catherine, I think you just put words in my mouth. I did not say that non-religious people had no morals. I did say that the secular humanism of the day has been unable to prove effective in providing a moral compass to society at large. As for the crime rate that you speak of, the last I remember seeing over 50% of murders were committed by less than 7% of the population. So yes, it is possible for a very small percentage of the population to commit the vast majority of the crimes they're in. Thank you, for these wonderful conversations and thoughtful responses. And I mean that in all sincerity.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
Why respond with non-sequiturs or talk around direct questions without actually responding?
Are you saying that 30-ish percent of non-christian Americans are unable to make 100% of everyone 'more moral'? Isn't it each individual's responsibility to be societally moral?
I haven't noticed religious folk being more moral than anyone else. Perhaps less because God forgives?
Also, do your crime numbers include white collar and other crimes committed by lawmakers? Asking because you specified murders. Think DUIs, hit and runs, etcetera. I'm a statistic of one of those, so it's something of a peeve.
How can anyone be sure of the number of crimes committed by practicing christians versus non-practicing christians and non-christians? Self-reported statistics are barely anecdotal.
Having nearly grown up in churches, I noticed what most people would consider an unreasonable amount of non-reported crime amongst church goers. God's will and all that, I suppose? Morality and slippery slopes... stuff happens... that's just life?
So far nothing you've said directly responds to the original questions you responded to.
That kind of points to not having a viable point of contention.
-
Russel A. Kester
Catherine, I think we are not having a meetings of the mind here. Or perhaps we're simply talking across each other. My initial comment was that Christianity reasserting its traditional judeo Christian values into society with more gusto would be good for society. That was my entire thought. However, others, and I assume you were one of them, then wanted to criticize Christianity reasserting its traditional values into our society. Well, if my statement is correct then those values are not currently be practiced by society instead society is practicing secular humanist atheistic values. So if the crime rate is out of control as far as you're concerned, and Christian values are not dominant in our society, then it must be that the values currently in control of society are not working. Those values would be the humanistic atheist values of which I spoke. Hence, my statement that we return to the traditional Judeo-Christian values. But it makes no sense to argue against returning to judeo Christian values and simultaneously say that the current state of society is terrible and blame those very values of which you do not want reinserted it into society.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
You did not once respond directly, and consistently soliloquize. Ta ta.
-
Russel A. Kester
Catherine, I reviewed our comments above and believe that I have responded to the vast majority if not all of your questions. So I don't know why you think I didn't.
-
Catherine
@Russel A. Kester
Eventually you did elsewhere, though that discussion seems unfinished.
-
Russel A. Kester
Understood. Thank you. I look forward to future conversations.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Katelynne Shouse
The days of you and your kind pushing your bigoted, and IMHO fairytale, Christofascist beliefs are numbered. The United States is a Secular Nation and will continue to be such until it no longer exists!
-
Russel A. Kester
Katelynne, manners please. 😉 'Bigoted', 'Christofascist', and 'fairytale'? The Judeo-Christian values whereof I speak are love, compassion, not killing, not stealing, and treating others as you would be treated. If those values are considered by secularists to be bigoted, Christofascist, and fairytale then so be it. I'm in favor. Give me that old time religion.
-
Katelynne Shouse
Pfffffft.....There's No Hate Like "Christian Love"!
-
-
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
Hmpfh.
-
Russel A. Kester
Tecla, I don't know what you meant by hmpfh. Assuming it meant my thoughts were honorable, magnificent, profound, fabulous, and humble, I thank you.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
I don't think I was responding to you. These threads are very hard to follow. I don't particularly espouse your views but I do notice that you're being quite polite--a real departure.
-
Russel A. Kester
Thank you, Tecla.
-
-
-
-
-
Stephen Michael Foster
And to the Republic for which it stands , sounds like it.
-
Tomas M Bagdas
Check your bible! It is our moral compass!
-
Katelynne Shouse
Nooooooooo!
-
Lionheart
No it’s not, Sir Tomas. If it was, we’d still be stoning people to death, and we’d still have slavery, all condoned by that mythical Christian god. Thank goodness there’s no demonstrable evidence that particular god is real.
🦁❤️
-
Sarah Rohr
Sure. In the privacy of your own home and in your church. Bringing it to the public is wrong. And given how xtians (esp the extremist Evangelicals) lately, I've learned the is no hate quite like Christian 'love'.
Separation of Church and State. No religion has any right to be mixed in with politics - especially those holding any and all political offices.
-
-
Daniel L Crowley
I pray that they are successful in turning our nation back to a God loving Hod fearing nation.
-
Lionheart
I sure hope not, Sir Daniel. I’ve never been an advocate for slavery, or stoning people to death, have you?
🦁❤️
-
Torre Huffines
This nation has, of course, never been ordained under the Christian god. Our country was and will always be a land of diverse perspectives
One nation under god was added to the pledge in 1954, under Eisenhower. before then it was never referenced in the pledge of allegiance, Let alone, found in our schools.
The original slogan of our nation's founding is E pluribus Unum. Out of many, one.
Ya know, to represent that out of diversity, we are one people.
-
-
Timothy Newell
"From efforts to overturn same-sex marriage, to various anti-abortion “heartbeat bills,” to legislation blocking transgender youth from receiving gender-affirming care, the NACL is at the forefront of some of the biggest cultural issues shaping American society today." Let me just take a look at this statement and say, "Halleluiah!" I wish I had known about them sooner! I don't really care about the opposing voices against all this. In fact, the same ol' same ol' anti-Christian remarks tend to be repeated over and over again on these postings. I don't care about the opposition. I thank the Lord for the New Speaker of the House and I hope the Christians in our government will stand up for godly righteousness! The rest of you naysayers we'll pray for, but when the Rapture comes, it'll be too late to change your minds and your positions. Pfffft! Maybe you'll be glad to see all the Christians gone the first hour. I pray for your souls after that.
-
Katelynne Shouse
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GO NOW, WHY WAIT, "THE LORD HELPS THOSE WHO HELP THEMSELVES" it's said.....so give the big guy a hand and don't let the door hit ya where he split ya!
-
Russel A. Kester
Timothy, just a tad bit bitter? I favor a return to basic Judeo-Christian values, but your brand is a little over the top. If persons of your brand of Christianity push for fundamentalist values, then you are doomed to failure already. Far too many Americans will rightly reject such a harsh form of Christianity. But the values of love, kindness, compassion, and individual responsibility are agreeable to just about everyone.
-
-
Scott Henning
Our Country started out as a Republic as our Pledge of allegiance plainly states. Rule by the people. Now we are a Democracy ruled by a few people. We will be a dictatorship soon as evidence of verifiable Presidential Executive Orders. However because we are still a democracy we can form any organization we like and move the political climate any way we like. If you are a animal lover an feel like male cats should mate with other males you can start a organization recruiting others that feel the same way get them elected and and support bills that may create laws making it legal for your male cats to mate with or marry other male cats! It is free country!
-
Russel A. Kester
Scott, sometimes countering a point of view with an absurd counter example can be effective. But in this case I think it failed. However, I think you do rightly see the very real possibility that our current oligarchical government may in time devolve (or evolve depending on ones views) into a monarchy (dictatorship). Aside from your affinity to male cats, you're right that we can form political coalitions (at least for now), but what good would they be able to do when the current oligarchy holds all of the power? Are the American people even capable of forming successful coalitions in the age of identity politics and postmodern deconstruction?
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
I don't see that our country lived up to its stated ideals, even at/near the beginning. How about, e.g., Shays' Rebellion? One of my collateral ancestors was involved in that. His brother, my direct ancestor, had already made good his "escape" to Vermont.
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
Without Christianity there is no counterforce to the madness that Congress lives and breathes. Most don't actually know what a woman is yet Christians seem to know.
Is it wise to have leadership create laws that don't know what a woman is? I don't think so. We NEED people in office that know the basics of humanity and place the individual above the hive.
We need Christians behind the wheel, they know the difference between up and down. They value life.
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Everyone knows what a man and what a woman are. You are talking about 1.4% of the population who identify as trans. Just leave them alone. You make it sound like billions of people are coming out as trans. No one is teaching people to be trans. Stop telling people how to live their life if they are not harming anyone else.
-
ServantOfJudgement
James,
There's one on the supreme court right now that doesn't know what a woman is. Citing that she's not a biologist so she's not qualified to answer that question. I'll repeat, a female Supreme Court Justice sets on the bench right who says she's not qualified to to pick out a woman in a crowd. That should alarm any thinking person.
Who cares if a dude wants to wear a dress? If he's not a Christian then nobody should care. What he does while in the dress might cause concern if there are women and girls involved or their respective rights. If he's posing as a chick in a bar that's a problem too. If not, who cares? Let the dude be a chick.
-
Michael Hunt
It alarms me that you fail to understand why a Supreme Court Justice is ceding to experts on biology when asked to answer a question that is being discussed and debated by biologists now. I would argue that a Justice who sticks to their beliefs and biases instead of listening to experts is unqualified to hear arguments in court.
As our understanding of humanity and gender change through decades of study, so do our definitions of once settled debates. It was once the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe and now we understand our place in the solar system.
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Servant, of course, she knows what a woman is… she simply refused to be drawn into a debate that has nothing to do with the law. Deciding what a trans person’s rights will be on the docket one day, and they wanted to know how she’d vote. They should have asked that.
FYI, only heterosexual man would put on a dress to go harass a woman. Trans women have no desire to do that. Besides, after sex reassignment surgery they no longer have the equipment to harass a woman in that fashion. Look it up.
-
-
-
Torre Huffines
Christians, like any religious body, should never be allowed to have a say in government.
Not only am I a proud minister and pagan,
I go out do the work of feeding and clothing, teaching and educating, and working with the environment to repair damaged ecosystems. I can assure I do more for "life" than most churches even find valuable.
ya know, it doesn't win money for elections to feed the poor or help people where they actually need the help.
-
ServantOfJudgement
On the contrary Torre, The Bible is mans first recorded statement instructing man to keep the planet in good shape. Apparently God was green before it was cool to be green. He's prolly not down with the carbon offset scheme the money folk are scamming everyone with though. He frowns on foolery and the like. It's up to the Christian to follow his God's command to keep the planet clean. Many fail as do non Christians.
I don't want to disparage your good work, don't misunderstand me. Our planet has become a cesspool, a reflection of ourselves if you will.
You do your pagan part and I'll do my Christian part, we'll make what we can cleaner together.
-
Catherine
@ServantOfJudgement
"Bible is mans first recorded statement instructing man to keep the planet in good shape"
Are you familiar with the Nilotic Calendar created by Egyptians because they recognized the need live harmoniously with the Nile River's rhythms? That also meant not trashing the Nile River, though that has occurred since.
https://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2020/11/astronomical-ceiling-diagrams.html
"Plato wrote that Nilotic scribes had been keeping astronomical records for 10,000 years." (keyword: Nilotic)
I've read where indigenous people of the Americas understood differences between flowing water ways and underground water flow, so where to not to allow dead bodies of humans or animals to pollute those. Amazonian peoples learned to make and use biochars to remediate land drained of nutrients by the Amazon river when it floods.
It seems apparent that land and water stewardship was a concern of other ancient cultures as well.
-
-
-
-
J. David Kiefner
Oh I wondered what StanJay Rapert had been up to since he lost his legislative seat….still makin’ slaw it seems 🙃
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
How come none of these fanatics are promoting the Jefferson Bible? After all, TJ was a pretty prominent founding father.
-
Daniel Gray
More then likely you are going to have people stomping their foot and crying we are a democracy...and then try and use some idiotic treaty as proof when a treaty is NOT law of the US. Here directly from the US State Department is the final word on this issue no matter if the ones opposed want to listen or not:
"Is the US considered a republic or a democracy?
While often falsely categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? “Constitutional” refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States."
And here it is directly from the US Senate
"Is the United States a republic but not a democracy?
Our system of government is best described as a constitutional republic. Power is not found in mere majorities, but in carefully balanced power. Under our Constitution, passing a bill in the House of Representatives—the body most reflective of current majority views—isn't enough for it to become law."
Want even more proof? Ok Nowhere is the word "democracy" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. How could that be? Our government isnt a democracy! Well, for one, as we'll discuss later, the Founders actually feared democratic rule. James Madison expressed this attitude in Federalist #10: "...instability, injustice, and confusion ...have in truth been the mortal disease under which popular governments everywhere perished. The Founders preferred the term "republic" because it described a system they generally preferred: the interests of the peopled were represented by more knowledgeable citizens who were responsible to those that elected them. Today we tend to wrongly use the terms "republic" and "democracy" interchangeably when democratic should never be used at all.
Even ben franklin, who actually attended the first Congress, stated that we are not a Democracy. Now for the ones who are claiming we are...ask yourself this. WHY should anyone believe you when they have it direct from a persons mouth who actually was there and you were not? https://blogs.loc.gov/manuscripts/2022/01/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it-elizabeth-willing-powel-benjamin-franklin-and-the-james-mchenry-journal/
So just deal with it, we are not and never have been a democracy and nothing you whine and complain about is going to change that
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Sorry I don't go for BLOGS that anyone can have. Nor do I read "The Federalist" because I don't go for Alt-Right BS.
We are a Democratic Republic and no, the founders did NOT fear democratic rule. They feared some person coming in and forcing their will on the nation and erasing free votes and becoming a new kingdom. Just because the Alt-right wants us to be a kingdom, a dictatorship, does NOT mean what our founding fathers wanted for us, nor what the majority of this nation wants. I never denied we're a republic, but we are a Democratic Republic. I.e. a republic where people have the free right to vote for their leadership.
Now for religion? Let me show you something.
1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Read esp. the VERY FIRST SENTANCE OF IT. If you dare.
The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Treaty of Tripoli - Article 11
Article 11 of the treaty stated: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Treaty of Tripoli - readable from Yale Law School.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp
United States Constitution, in its entirety, from the US National Archives.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
I dare you to actually read these. Though I know you won't. They contain information you hate that you don't WANT to exist because it goes against your rhetoric. But too bad. They are the laws of this nation. And the historical FACTS about this nation. What you dislike doesn't mean it's not true.
-
Daniel Gray
And yet you constantly refer to blogs, the same things you said you dont read. And then you refuse to accept the US Library of Congress and what it says. And whats worse is you keep trying to use the Treaty of Tripoli, the same document that was NEVER ratified by the US Senate as is required to be done by the US Constitution before it can be used or claimed to be part of US law or history. And then you wonder why you constantly get corrected/
-
-
Pastor Xal
The 2023 House of Representatives does not reflect current majority views. There would be no need to gerrymander district maps if the HoR was truly representative.
-
Daniel Gray
Oh really? Tell that to Ill/Washington State/Oregon/NY/Mass/NJ/California and a host of others who have their districts set up and so gerrymandered that unless you have the claim of Democrat behind your name you wont get elected dog catcher, let alone to a state or federal office.
-
Michael Hunt
Yeah none of those states are the most gerrymandered in the country. The most gerrymandered states are North Carolina, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Louisiana, Utah, Texas, Arkansas, Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin and only Maryland is in favor of the Democrats.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-gerrymandered-states
-
Daniel Gray
Really? California and NY are the worst gerrymandered states, with Ill, NJ, Mass. Oregon, Washington State, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota and what makes it worse is they are using the courts to try and fix it so they have control in the elections.
Now as for your world population review....I would have a whole lot more belief in it if it wasnt located close to LA. And it wold have a much better reputation if it was located in a middle state like The Dakotas or Oklahoma. But since its located in California and in LA County, its naturally going to have a left wing spin on it and anything they say. Sorry but its a bust.
-
Michael Hunt
So post alternative sources that support your claims. I won't wait since you can't.
-
Daniel Gray
I can and have
-
-
Michael Hunt
In that case, here's Princeton's Gerrymandering Project instead. https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/
They also disagree with your assertion that CA and NY are the worst gerrymandered states. They appear to disagree with some of World Population Review's list as well to be fair, but unless you have another source to support your claims that CA, NY, MI, WA, MN, NJ, or Mass. are gerrymandered, we have to go with the multiple sources that show that those states are not gerrymandered.
You are correct that Illinois is gerrymandered as well as Oregon, according to Princeton, in favor of Democrats, but there are still more Republican favored gerrymanders in states such as North and South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Florida, and Ohio.
I think we can both agree though that neither party should be gerrymandering even if we disagree about the extent to which each party is culpable.
-
Daniel Gray
yet again using a biased source. How sad
-
-
-
-
-
-
Michael Hunt
A constitutional republic is a form of democracy...
-
-
Michael Dean Pickard
I do believe the salt movement is using common sense towards most of their agenda. Science says we are born male or female.(Those born with both a penis and vagina still only have one set of reproductive organs, testicals ovaries). How you feel doesn’t make you one or the other. Your DNA does. The drugs given to children, who shouldn’t even be thinking about sex The drugs are not affirming their sexuality but stopping them from puberty. If a boy decides later, which most do, that he is a boy, his penis will always be the size of a little boy. Again, common sense legislation. Even the Secretary of Health said she was glad that she was a grown ma before having any transformation, hormonal changes done. Abortion. Again, science proves that after the first trimester, this is an independent living baby. It’s own heart beat, different blood type, working nervous system (meaning it she feels the pain of forceps ripping her apart. Again common sense science. Christians surveyed. If we research these polls, we find that 50% of those who say they are christian, never go to service. Never read a bible or could even recite a single verse of the bible. Yet they feel God gave them some superpowers to understand God’s feelings on marriage, abortion, money, pornography, science. When shown scripture, they claim that is a man’s opinion. They know better. We see where this has gotten them. After born abortion being perposed. Children and young adults confused on sexuality. Hatred running rampant. The God of the bible is a God of love, but He gave us His word (the bible) to help direct us.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Yeah, "God is love". The same "God" that "Good Christians" are using as an excuse to brutally murder individuals, to HATE, to burn people's homes down, to throw their LGBTQ+ teens into the streets, or beat them bloody, or TORTURE them in "conversion therapy?"
If your "God" is love, I sure as heck would hate to see what your "hate" is.
And yeah, I've read a lot of bibles, from multiple religions. A lot of the people claiming to "follow the bible" has barely read more than three sentences from most of their bibles.
-
Michael Hunt
Your common sense is lacking critical thinking. Biological sex is independent of gender. Gender is a social construct while sex has to do with the physical characteristics of a person. Gender is mental while sex is physical.
Hormone blockers are not being given out to children willy-nilly as you seem to be suggesting. They are only given after years of work with doctors and therapists after other techniques to address gender dysphoria have been exhausted. This isn't an instance of children thinking about sex (which I promise you children are much more aware of instinctively that you would like to admit) but an instance of children affirming their identity and speaking their truth.
If you are claiming that a fetus is an independent living baby after the first trimester, why is it still wholly dependent on the mother carrying it for it's continued development? If it was truly independent, it would be capable of developing on it's own or through the care of another being. By denying a woman access to an abortion, you are denying her autonomy over her own body and putting the fetus' right to life over the woman's right to life.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
I agree with you 100% on this Michael Hunt.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Btw, my common sense includes a great deal of critical thinking. Including being able to see things realistically rather than using my own prejudices and trying to justify them by hiding behind an ancient book written by humans, not a deity.
-
-
-
Rolando Couce
These guys are not too bad it is better them pushing gay legiy
-
Bishop William Dusenberry, DD
ULC ministers, who really, sincerely, incredibly, actually, believe that the BIBLE, was dictated by the Hebrew God, who converted to Christianity, because he fathered a son, with a virgin, and used a surrogate sperm donor ( called the Holy Ghost) to impregnate said Virgin Mary, — as a ULC Bishop Emeritus, with two DD’s, and whose been sainted twice — we collectively request, that if there’s going to be any Bible reading in Congress (that is, if the Supreme Court permits it) it should be the Thomas Jefferson’s Bible ( for patriotic reasons) rather than the King James Bible, written by those opposed to democracy, were clearly authoritarian-dictatorial admirers, who, if they had their way, would refuse to acknowledge that the Christian concept, of the Christian Heaven, is that it is a communistic dictatorship, with no bill of rights — ergo, if a Bible is somehow able to be used, that it be the Thomas Jefferson Bible, available from the monastery.com. ,
-
Tammy S Gardner
Well if someone were to read the American Creed it states " I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people and for the people: who's just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States, a perfect union, one and inseparable established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therfore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support it's Constitution, to obey it's laws, to respect the flag, and to defend it against all enemies."
It was written in 1817 and accepted by the US house orf representatives on April 3 1819 as per William Tyler Page. It does not state we are to dismantle the Constitution but to support it. It also staes we are a democracy within a republic meaning we are "both". Secondly God made man with free will. He did not want robots but people who would worhip him in spirit and in truth. John 18:36 states "Jesus answered " My kingdom is not of this world if my kingdom were of this world my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." If he anted to force his rules upon us he could have done it then. Instead he stated "choose ye this day whom you will serve." He wants people who obey willingly and lovingly not antagonized and grudgingly. I myself would rather have someone request I do something because I want to and am willing to do it rather than forcefully compel me to do so. That would also portray Jesus nd God in a false light to the masses. Doing so would definitely NOT persuade them to want to follow Christ but to run away from his oppression. It would be counter productive. However everyone has their own beliefs and some may believe that forcing others to grudgingly follow is the answer to toay's problems.
-
Tammy S Gardner
God does say in the Bible "choose you this day whom you will serve" which does show freedom of choice. Our Constitution is a republic. Now I will add The American Creed by Wiliam Tyler Page and Acceped by the US House of representatives on April 3rd 1819. (note the year in the date) I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people and for the people: whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States: a perfect union, one and inseparable: established upon these principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support it's Constitution, to obey it's laws, to repect it's flag and to defend it against all enemies.
That is The American Creed So in 1819 it was established as a democracy within a republic. This was not just yesterday by any means. It has been a democracy within a republic for 205 years. It seems ludicrous to go back 205 years into the past and I am not sure that is an America anyone living today knew. I do know we want to be under a good ruler. So we must step back and look at what the for fathers intended as well as our own views and make the best decision for the good of all involved. Our for fathers were trying to stamp out tyranny in the new Nation. We must seek for ourselves what America stands for and what we want it to stand for in the decades to come. Our for fathers were wise to put it in the hands of providence alone.
Christofascist Nationalism at its finest!
No this is your version of fascism at its finest.
It's religious nutters trying to forcefully turn this nation into a fascist theocracy/.
see above the person doing the complaining is the fascist nutter.
@ Greh “ see above the person doing the complaining is the fascist nutter.”
I KNEW you would get around to the rubber glue thing! Your ‘arguments’ are nothing more than a 1st grader saying..’Uh uh. YOU are!”
You're 100% correct. Daniel Gray is basically screaming that they want the nation's constitution to state that this is a christian nation, and that they want that religion forced, and enforced, over everyone else. They've made it clear that they want it where people are forced to either conform to their religion, or be considered Traitors to our nation.
But our nation is a secular one. This is by both the United States Constitution, and the Treaty of Tripoli which we still honor to this day. But the fact is, this individual HATES our constitution as it was written and, as such, they, and individuals like them, have a much more twisted version of it in their minds. Where the 1st amendment says "we're a christian nation" instead of "No religion will be enforced by law", and "They are allowed to shoot whomever they want it's their 2nd amendment right", instead of acknowledging the first part of the 2nd amendment "Well Regulated".
@Bridget K-F Greh et al simply have fail to read the constitution as it is written and i stead try to misuse rulings by various courts to support how THEY INTERPRET the constitution. They either are ignorant of, or fail to acknowledge the statements by Jefferson and others that the US was NOT founded upon Xtianity and even ridicule the xtian religion.
As for your comment of ‘well regulated’ that adjective actually applies to the noun ‘militia’. And the intent was to allow that militia to assist in uprisings against the government, NOT for personal protection. I think the ‘uprisings’ it was addressing were such as the Jan 6th situation. The Constitution seems to indicate that deadly force should have been used. Maybe a Blackhawk copter strafing the crowd with a mini-gun?
In that era, which is well known to all lawmakers who know history, anyone who carried a weapon was considered a part of the nation's militia.
And while I'm fully in the belief the national guard SHOULD have been called out to stop the Jan 6 terrorists who were attacking our nation's capital, your thing of the blackhawk chopper is facetious since we both know that it would never happen. Ony a nation like N. Korea, IF they had that kind of tech., would do something of that regard.
As far as the 2nd amendment, there is a difference between allowing for personal protection, and allowing a complete free-for-all withall weaponry. Weaponry MUST be regulated to protect the citizenry as well as a fine edge walked to ensure freedom as well.
But the 1st amendment makes it very, very clear, as you should be aware, that no laws were ever meant to be made that would create, or enforce, any religious law on this nation.
And when have I ever said I wanted the Constitution to say anything like this bridget? you really need to stop lying.
And we do NOT honor the Treaty of Tripoli was not ratified by the Senate as is required by the Constitution. Nice try
Fascism is, in a nutshell, deliberately stripping away the rights and freedoms of individuals and forcefully, usually through means of brutality and murder, enforcing religious or otherwise authoritarian rule.
In this case, you, and others like yourself, are trying to rip away the democratic rule of this nation, for we are a democratic republic, and forcefully make it into an autocratic theocracy where those who do not worship as you do are brutalized and killed for "disobedience to the bible".
In other words, you're trying to turn the USA into a second Afghanistan, which is ruled with an iron grip by the Taliban and their allies Al'Quida.
and you are living proof of that
which is EXACTLY what some people are doing in trying to force others to their viewpoint no matter if it violates the Constitution or not. So tell us child, how do you conform your beliefs when they violate the US Constitution?
My beliefs do not violate the United States Constitution. And my religious views as entirely my own. A person having a religion doesn't violate the constitution. FORCING one religion over another is what violates the US Constitution.
Tell me, kid, how is the idea that ALL religions are allowed, and that no one is allowed to make laws that enforce one religion over another "Theocratic" Hm? Or Fascist?
You look at the Middle East, where you are forced to worship the Muslim religion by law, and if you do not, you're imprisoned, that is Theocracy.
What the Alt-Right, and individuals like yourself, are trying to basically state is that people's religions views, if they don't conform to YOUR views, should be made illegal. And that is what a lot of Alt-Right individuals in the Congress have been trying to force through. They scream how, because people are fighting them and trying to make it so that they can't use their religion to oppress, abuse, and kill, others, that their religion is "Being oppressed" and how there's some sort of "secret war against their religion".
This is a Secular nation by both the United States Constitution. Which MEANS that my religious views do NOT go against the US Constitution because they are my personal beliefs, but they are not forced, or enforced, over the entire nation. Do you know what the words "A Secular Nation" means?
And, btw, have you read the entirely of the 1st Amendment?
I have but considering all the fake claims you have made, we can clearly see you have not
Notice Greh’s response to your comment, just a little one-liner, once again like a grade schooler’s ‘No, YOU are.’ If you feel the need to respond to his drivel it’s best to have the intention of speaking to others, not him. Not saying I always succeed with that strategy, but I do make the effort.
I respond in a way that people like you and her can understand
" ...democracy uniquely possesses a number of features that most people, whatever their basic political beliefs, would consider desirable: (1) democracy helps to prevent rule by cruel and vicious autocrats; (2) modern representative democracies do not fight wars with one another; (3) countries with democratic governments tend to be more prosperous than countries with nondemocratic governments; and (4) democracy tends to foster human development—as measured by health, education, personal income, and other indicators—more fully than other forms of government do."
Agreed, 100%. Unfortunately, there are individuals here who are trying to holler that they want this nation to be a strict theocracy and that the democracy should be made illegal.
Nope they are just stopping you from forcing your beliefs onto others