Does America Need Be Saved From Theocracy?

[PoliticalChic]

Did you find 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution yet???


OK>......keep lookin'.....

 

[JoeB131]

[

So if someone believes an inter-racial couple is against God's will, do they have the "right" to refuse them service?

]

No one says "an inter-racial couple is against God's will" except you.

Moses' wife was black.

Um, maybe you should read up on history... This is the initial ruling of the Judge in Loving v. Virginia...

On October 28, 1964, after waiting almost a year for a response to their motion, the ACLU attorneys brought a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This prompted the county court judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile (1890–1967), to issue a ruling on the long-pending motion to vacate. Echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, Bazile wrote:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[24]


]

[

Moses' wife was black.

Zipporah - Wikipedia

Zipporah or Tzipora ( is mentioned in the Book of Exodus as the wife of Moses, and the daughter of Reuel/Jethro, the priest or prince of Midian. In the Book of Chronicles, two of her descendants are mentioned: Shebuel, son of Gershom, and Rehabiah, son of Eliezer.[7]

Now where was Midian...

Midian ( is a geographical place mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and Quran. William G. Dever states that biblical Midian was in the "northwest Arabian Peninsula, on the east shore of the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea", an area which he notes was "never extensively settled until the 8th–7th century B.C."[1]

According to the Book of Genesis, the Midianites were the descendants of Midian, who was a son of Abraham and his wife Keturah: "Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah" (Genesis 25:1–2, King James Version).[2]

Now, Josephus mentions a Cushite woman that Moses was married to, although this does not appear in the bible.

 

[Billy000]

Um the threat from theocracy isn’t from the actual teachings in the Bible. It comes from faux Christian righty-tighties who cherry pick what Biblical values to live by and which to ignore

And that affects you.....how?

Up it affects because these same faux Christians have no concept of separation of church and state.

So other individuals have the power to re-write the Constitution?

I see you prefer not to think before posting....so as to be just as surprised as everyone else by what comes out.


Seems you didn't know that there is no such separation in the Constitution.

Uh of course that exists in the constitution. Republicans just pretend that it doesn’t.

Perhaps you could quote where it says that.



And when you can't....if you ask nicely....I'll explain why you are confused in the matter.

That term was paraphrased by Jefferson In regards to the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

 

[Seawytch]

So if someone believes an inter-racial couple is against God's will, do they have the "right" to refuse them service?

View attachment 285387

If you say, "No", then how can you say they should be able to deny gay couples service.

View attachment 285388

No one says "an inter-racial couple is against God's will" except you.

Moses' wife was black.

You do realize that the racists have just as many bible verses to back them up as you homophobes do, right? Why do homophobic bigots get more rights than racist ones do?

Where is your support of states rights when it comes to Public Accommodation laws?

Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You sure do like dodging the question a whole lot and come up with long cut and paste non answers. Simple yes or no question...do you support the repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act so that racists no longer have to serve black people or bakers won't have to bake cakes for interracial couples? No cut and paste needed, just yes or no.

You brought up 'racism.'

I checked to see if you understood what it is you are objecting to....and you haven't passed the test.

Are you asking for another opportunity???

Sure thing....



Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You just can't do it can you? Just copy and paste either "yes" or "no" to the question. What are you so afraid of? You have no problem sacrificing your "states rights" god, why can't you say whether or not you support repealing the federal law so that people don't have to serve black or interracial couples if they don't want to? Why do anti gay bigots deserve rights not afforded racist bigots?

 

[skews13]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.



There are ‘religion’ groups that do demand control of the society…but the Judeo-Christian view on which this nation was founded is not one. But this nation was created with Judeo-Christian principles in mind:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams



2. Now about that ‘ramming down disproving throats’ fable.

“Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.



3. Assume arguendo that there is as much reason to have a religious citizenry as there is to have an non-religious one. The solution is that you don’t have to believe, ....but it is in your interest to have others believe.

The most succinct argument in favor of a religious citizenry comes from a famous atheist, Voltaire: "I don't believe in God, but I hope my valet does so he won't steal my spoons."
How Voltaire's Atheism Overthrew Deism

And, Voltaire also famously said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance. "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented."

For the same reason as above....it is society's interest to have more religious folks, than non-religious


BTW…when about to die, Voltaire recanted: “He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ The Tragic Death of Voltaire the Atheist | Paw Creek Ministries





Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.


4. The less educated also claim that the Constitution somehow inveighs against religion and mandates it be separated from government. Another falsity.
The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.




Sooooo......where is the 'threat' of a theocracy?????

The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.

Wrong.

I. Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was his Almighty power to do . . .

II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

III. And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the act of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such as would be an infringement of natural right.

Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom | Virginia Museum of History & Culture Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

 

[Cellblock2429]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.



There are ‘religion’ groups that do demand control of the society…but the Judeo-Christian view on which this nation was founded is not one. But this nation was created with Judeo-Christian principles in mind:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams



2. Now about that ‘ramming down disproving throats’ fable.

“Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.



3. Assume arguendo that there is as much reason to have a religious citizenry as there is to have an non-religious one. The solution is that you don’t have to believe, ....but it is in your interest to have others believe.

The most succinct argument in favor of a religious citizenry comes from a famous atheist, Voltaire: "I don't believe in God, but I hope my valet does so he won't steal my spoons."
How Voltaire's Atheism Overthrew Deism

And, Voltaire also famously said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance. "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented."

For the same reason as above....it is society's interest to have more religious folks, than non-religious


BTW…when about to die, Voltaire recanted: “He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ The Tragic Death of Voltaire the Atheist | Paw Creek Ministries





Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.


4. The less educated also claim that the Constitution somehow inveighs against religion and mandates it be separated from government. Another falsity.
The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.




Sooooo......where is the 'threat' of a theocracy?????

Um the threat from theocracy isn’t from the actual teachings in the Bible. It comes from faux Christian righty-tighties who cherry pick what Biblical values to live by and which to ignore

And that affects you.....how?

Up it affects because these same faux Christians have no concept of separation of church and state.

/—-/ We know what the founders intended and have posted it here several times.

 

[whitehall]

Here we are about 250 years since the American revolution where the Founding Fathers guaranteed freedom of religion in the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights and the crazy left is worried about a "theocracy". Go figure.

 

[Billy000]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.



There are ‘religion’ groups that do demand control of the society…but the Judeo-Christian view on which this nation was founded is not one. But this nation was created with Judeo-Christian principles in mind:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams



2. Now about that ‘ramming down disproving throats’ fable.

“Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.



3. Assume arguendo that there is as much reason to have a religious citizenry as there is to have an non-religious one. The solution is that you don’t have to believe, ....but it is in your interest to have others believe.

The most succinct argument in favor of a religious citizenry comes from a famous atheist, Voltaire: "I don't believe in God, but I hope my valet does so he won't steal my spoons."
How Voltaire's Atheism Overthrew Deism

And, Voltaire also famously said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance. "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented."

For the same reason as above....it is society's interest to have more religious folks, than non-religious


BTW…when about to die, Voltaire recanted: “He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ The Tragic Death of Voltaire the Atheist | Paw Creek Ministries





Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.


4. The less educated also claim that the Constitution somehow inveighs against religion and mandates it be separated from government. Another falsity.
The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.




Sooooo......where is the 'threat' of a theocracy?????

Um the threat from theocracy isn’t from the actual teachings in the Bible. It comes from faux Christian righty-tighties who cherry pick what Biblical values to live by and which to ignore

And that affects you.....how?

Up it affects because these same faux Christians have no concept of separation of church and state.

/—-/ We know what the founders intended and have posted it here several times.

Lol you jackasses did not. It’s not like you can even explain it.

 

[MaryL]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.



There are ‘religion’ groups that do demand control of the society…but the Judeo-Christian view on which this nation was founded is not one. But this nation was created with Judeo-Christian principles in mind:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams



2. Now about that ‘ramming down disproving throats’ fable.

“Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.



3. Assume arguendo that there is as much reason to have a religious citizenry as there is to have an non-religious one. The solution is that you don’t have to believe, ....but it is in your interest to have others believe.

The most succinct argument in favor of a religious citizenry comes from a famous atheist, Voltaire: "I don't believe in God, but I hope my valet does so he won't steal my spoons."
How Voltaire's Atheism Overthrew Deism

And, Voltaire also famously said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance. "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented."

For the same reason as above....it is society's interest to have more religious folks, than non-religious


BTW…when about to die, Voltaire recanted: “He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ The Tragic Death of Voltaire the Atheist | Paw Creek Ministries





Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.


4. The less educated also claim that the Constitution somehow inveighs against religion and mandates it be separated from government. Another falsity.
The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.




Sooooo......where is the 'threat' of a theocracy?????

I remember somebody remarking that Muslim culture never had the freedoms that western cultures did. So they aren't so introspective. No Hegels, no de Tocquevilles. From a muslim, no less.

 

[RealDave]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.

Um. I went to Catholic Schools for 12 years.

You Bible thumpers ARE trying to ram your superstitions down our throats.

Knock it off.

If you think Gay marriage or Abortion are bad... don't have one. This isn't that complicated.

"If you think Gay marriage or Abortion are bad... don't have one."

I feel the same way about murder and bank robbery.....your approach appears to fall short....as does your intellect.

murder & theft have victims.

How does is two guys getting married make you a victim.

Another example of your complete lack of logic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And that affects you.....how?

Up it affects because these same faux Christians have no concept of separation of church and state.

So other individuals have the power to re-write the Constitution?

I see you prefer not to think before posting....so as to be just as surprised as everyone else by what comes out.


Seems you didn't know that there is no such separation in the Constitution.

Uh of course that exists in the constitution. Republicans just pretend that it doesn’t.

Perhaps you could quote where it says that.



And when you can't....if you ask nicely....I'll explain why you are confused in the matter.

That term was paraphrased by Jefferson In regards to the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

Soooo....you're no longer mouthing that 'separation of church and state is in the Constitution'?

Excellent.

See....you learned something.


Jefferson never applied that to any separation of religion from government, only of government from religion. It is explained in the establishment clause. Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticutt, who were worried that a new federal government would force them to alter their religion.
The separation he referenced was one way: government out of person's beliefs.


The phrase entered jurisprudence when Democrat FDR had a KKKer put on the Supreme Court, and he hated Catholicism...Hugo Black.
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..." Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"]





See....now you've learned two things.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one says "an inter-racial couple is against God's will" except you.

Moses' wife was black.

You do realize that the racists have just as many bible verses to back them up as you homophobes do, right? Why do homophobic bigots get more rights than racist ones do?

Where is your support of states rights when it comes to Public Accommodation laws?

Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You sure do like dodging the question a whole lot and come up with long cut and paste non answers. Simple yes or no question...do you support the repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act so that racists no longer have to serve black people or bakers won't have to bake cakes for interracial couples? No cut and paste needed, just yes or no.

You brought up 'racism.'

I checked to see if you understood what it is you are objecting to....and you haven't passed the test.

Are you asking for another opportunity???

Sure thing....



Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You just can't do it can you? Just copy and paste either "yes" or "no" to the question. What are you so afraid of? You have no problem sacrificing your "states rights" god, why can't you say whether or not you support repealing the federal law so that people don't have to serve black or interracial couples if they don't want to? Why do anti gay bigots deserve rights not afforded racist bigots?

Did you find anything to disagree with here?
Here is what ‘rights’ are.
A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.

1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.

2. Rights belong to each human individually.

3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.

4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.

5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.




How about explaining your view of what 'racism' is?

...'racism.' Are you opposed to it????

If so....

Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




You have to learn that we do things my way.

Now...write soon, y'hear!

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.



There are ‘religion’ groups that do demand control of the society…but the Judeo-Christian view on which this nation was founded is not one. But this nation was created with Judeo-Christian principles in mind:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams



2. Now about that ‘ramming down disproving throats’ fable.

“Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.



3. Assume arguendo that there is as much reason to have a religious citizenry as there is to have an non-religious one. The solution is that you don’t have to believe, ....but it is in your interest to have others believe.

The most succinct argument in favor of a religious citizenry comes from a famous atheist, Voltaire: "I don't believe in God, but I hope my valet does so he won't steal my spoons."
How Voltaire's Atheism Overthrew Deism

And, Voltaire also famously said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance. "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented."

For the same reason as above....it is society's interest to have more religious folks, than non-religious


BTW…when about to die, Voltaire recanted: “He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ The Tragic Death of Voltaire the Atheist | Paw Creek Ministries





Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.


4. The less educated also claim that the Constitution somehow inveighs against religion and mandates it be separated from government. Another falsity.
The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.




Sooooo......where is the 'threat' of a theocracy?????

The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.

Wrong.

I. Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was his Almighty power to do . . .

II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

III. And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the act of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such as would be an infringement of natural right.

Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom | Virginia Museum of History & Culture Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

Actually.....I'm never wrong.


While individual states had religious requirements.....The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.



Now....whenever you see something I have written, jot it down and treat is like Gospel.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here we are about 250 years since the American revolution where the Founding Fathers guaranteed freedom of religion in the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights and the crazy left is worried about a "theocracy". Go figure.

I don't believe they are worried in the least.

They have their marching orders, which specify the destruction of all tradition, values, and beliefs, and the pretense is simply one more attempt to damage America and the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.



There are ‘religion’ groups that do demand control of the society…but the Judeo-Christian view on which this nation was founded is not one. But this nation was created with Judeo-Christian principles in mind:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams



2. Now about that ‘ramming down disproving throats’ fable.

“Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.



3. Assume arguendo that there is as much reason to have a religious citizenry as there is to have an non-religious one. The solution is that you don’t have to believe, ....but it is in your interest to have others believe.

The most succinct argument in favor of a religious citizenry comes from a famous atheist, Voltaire: "I don't believe in God, but I hope my valet does so he won't steal my spoons."
How Voltaire's Atheism Overthrew Deism

And, Voltaire also famously said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance. "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented."

For the same reason as above....it is society's interest to have more religious folks, than non-religious


BTW…when about to die, Voltaire recanted: “He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ The Tragic Death of Voltaire the Atheist | Paw Creek Ministries





Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.


4. The less educated also claim that the Constitution somehow inveighs against religion and mandates it be separated from government. Another falsity.
The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.




Sooooo......where is the 'threat' of a theocracy?????

Um the threat from theocracy isn’t from the actual teachings in the Bible. It comes from faux Christian righty-tighties who cherry pick what Biblical values to live by and which to ignore

And that affects you.....how?

Up it affects because these same faux Christians have no concept of separation of church and state.

/—-/ We know what the founders intended and have posted it here several times.

Lol you jackasses did not. It’s not like you can even explain it.

I explained it.


Have someone more educated than you explain what I explained.....any third grader will do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.



There are ‘religion’ groups that do demand control of the society…but the Judeo-Christian view on which this nation was founded is not one. But this nation was created with Judeo-Christian principles in mind:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams



2. Now about that ‘ramming down disproving throats’ fable.

“Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.



3. Assume arguendo that there is as much reason to have a religious citizenry as there is to have an non-religious one. The solution is that you don’t have to believe, ....but it is in your interest to have others believe.

The most succinct argument in favor of a religious citizenry comes from a famous atheist, Voltaire: "I don't believe in God, but I hope my valet does so he won't steal my spoons."
How Voltaire's Atheism Overthrew Deism

And, Voltaire also famously said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance. "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented."

For the same reason as above....it is society's interest to have more religious folks, than non-religious


BTW…when about to die, Voltaire recanted: “He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ The Tragic Death of Voltaire the Atheist | Paw Creek Ministries





Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.


4. The less educated also claim that the Constitution somehow inveighs against religion and mandates it be separated from government. Another falsity.
The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.




Sooooo......where is the 'threat' of a theocracy?????

I remember somebody remarking that Muslim culture never had the freedoms that western cultures did. So they aren't so introspective. No Hegels, no de Tocquevilles. From a muslim, no less.

You may have put your finger on the problem....

"Indeed, the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year. The report noted that Arab rulers stay in office all their lives and create dynasties that inherit power, and the peoples are unable to institute change."
Arab Human Development Report - Worldpress.org

 

[Billy000]

Up it affects because these same faux Christians have no concept of separation of church and state.

So other individuals have the power to re-write the Constitution?

I see you prefer not to think before posting....so as to be just as surprised as everyone else by what comes out.


Seems you didn't know that there is no such separation in the Constitution.

Uh of course that exists in the constitution. Republicans just pretend that it doesn’t.

Perhaps you could quote where it says that.



And when you can't....if you ask nicely....I'll explain why you are confused in the matter.

That term was paraphrased by Jefferson In regards to the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

Soooo....you're no longer mouthing that 'separation of church and state is in the Constitution'?

Excellent.

See....you learned something.


Jefferson never applied that to any separation of religion from government, only of government from religion. It is explained in the establishment clause. Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticutt, who were worried that a new federal government would force them to alter their religion.
The separation he referenced was one way: government out of person's beliefs.


The phrase entered jurisprudence when Democrat FDR had a KKKer put on the Supreme Court, and he hated Catholicism...Hugo Black.
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..." Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"]





See....now you've learned two things.

What the fuck? Lol. He separated it one way but not the other? Do you even listen to yourself? Of course it was meant both ways. If you actually read the establishment clause specifically, it specifically makes clear that laws cannot be dictated by religion. You’re completely omitting language in the clause. This garbage about FDR is irrelevant to what was written.

What the fuck is the point you are even trying to make here?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So other individuals have the power to re-write the Constitution?

I see you prefer not to think before posting....so as to be just as surprised as everyone else by what comes out.


Seems you didn't know that there is no such separation in the Constitution.

Uh of course that exists in the constitution. Republicans just pretend that it doesn’t.

Perhaps you could quote where it says that.



And when you can't....if you ask nicely....I'll explain why you are confused in the matter.

That term was paraphrased by Jefferson In regards to the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

Soooo....you're no longer mouthing that 'separation of church and state is in the Constitution'?

Excellent.

See....you learned something.


Jefferson never applied that to any separation of religion from government, only of government from religion. It is explained in the establishment clause. Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticutt, who were worried that a new federal government would force them to alter their religion.
The separation he referenced was one way: government out of person's beliefs.


The phrase entered jurisprudence when Democrat FDR had a KKKer put on the Supreme Court, and he hated Catholicism...Hugo Black.
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..." Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"]





See....now you've learned two things.

What the fuck? Lol. He separated it one way but not the other? Do you even listen to yourself? Of course it was meant both ways. If you actually read the establishment clause specifically, it specifically makes clear that laws cannot be dictated by religion. You’re completely omitting language in the clause. This garbage about FDR is irrelevant to what was written.

What the fuck is the point you are even trying to make here?

Re-post sans the juvenile vulgarity and I'll consider educating your further.


Lord knows you need it.

 

[Billy000]

Uh of course that exists in the constitution. Republicans just pretend that it doesn’t.

Perhaps you could quote where it says that.



And when you can't....if you ask nicely....I'll explain why you are confused in the matter.

That term was paraphrased by Jefferson In regards to the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

Soooo....you're no longer mouthing that 'separation of church and state is in the Constitution'?

Excellent.

See....you learned something.


Jefferson never applied that to any separation of religion from government, only of government from religion. It is explained in the establishment clause. Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticutt, who were worried that a new federal government would force them to alter their religion.
The separation he referenced was one way: government out of person's beliefs.


The phrase entered jurisprudence when Democrat FDR had a KKKer put on the Supreme Court, and he hated Catholicism...Hugo Black.
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..." Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"]





See....now you've learned two things.

What the fuck? Lol. He separated it one way but not the other? Do you even listen to yourself? Of course it was meant both ways. If you actually read the establishment clause specifically, it specifically makes clear that laws cannot be dictated by religion. You’re completely omitting language in the clause. This garbage about FDR is irrelevant to what was written.

What the fuck is the point you are even trying to make here?

Re-post sans the juvenile vulgarity and I'll consider educating your further.


Lord knows you need it.

I’m sure if you thought you could you would just do it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps you could quote where it says that.



And when you can't....if you ask nicely....I'll explain why you are confused in the matter.

That term was paraphrased by Jefferson In regards to the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

Soooo....you're no longer mouthing that 'separation of church and state is in the Constitution'?

Excellent.

See....you learned something.


Jefferson never applied that to any separation of religion from government, only of government from religion. It is explained in the establishment clause. Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticutt, who were worried that a new federal government would force them to alter their religion.
The separation he referenced was one way: government out of person's beliefs.


The phrase entered jurisprudence when Democrat FDR had a KKKer put on the Supreme Court, and he hated Catholicism...Hugo Black.
"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..." Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"]





See....now you've learned two things.

What the fuck? Lol. He separated it one way but not the other? Do you even listen to yourself? Of course it was meant both ways. If you actually read the establishment clause specifically, it specifically makes clear that laws cannot be dictated by religion. You’re completely omitting language in the clause. This garbage about FDR is irrelevant to what was written.

What the fuck is the point you are even trying to make here?

Re-post sans the juvenile vulgarity and I'll consider educating your further.


Lord knows you need it.

I’m sure if you thought you could you would just do it.

There isn't anything I can't do.

As a note, I forced you to admit that there is no such 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution.


Nor did Jefferson ever say that religion, morality, should be keep from government.


Only Leftists claim such. Hence, your government school 'education.'


Democrat FDR, who hated minorities of every type, put a KKKer on the Supreme Court, and that KKK official, Hugo Black,
inserted the bogus 'separation of church and state.'


These are the facts.

You know what 'facts' are, don't you?