Republicans propose declaring Idaho a 'Christian state'

[JakeStarkey]

Really? Are Mormons really Christians? Really?

As much as any evangelical or Pentecostal.

 

[hipeter924]

If they want to declare a Christian state, they had better decide which denomination and text they intend to support. They can't just say 'the bible' as there is more than one interpretation. Would last about a month, before Christians turn on each other over what Christianity means.

 

[Kondor3]

The Constitution is, indeed, based, at least in part, on Enlightenment principles, which are, in turn, evolved, developed and somewhat secularized variants of European Judeo-Christian religion, philosophy, morality, ethics, legal codifications and populist teachings and sentiments that have their roots and basis in a Judeo-Christian framework.

We're merely talking about a two-hopper here.... Judeo-Christian Framework > Enlightenment > Constution... with a vast element of Judeo-Christian Framework still recognizable as such, and still recognizable in its roots or basis or point-of-departure... the evolutionary philosophical grandparent to the US Constitution.

Add Greco-Roman jurisprudence and philosophy and you will reach goal.

Nolo contendere...

A collection of extremely critical foundational works that came into the possession of Christian Europe...

Which nutured and preserved and expanded upon and evolved it into something beyond what it was when Christianity first took those values under its wing...

All of which became part of the umbrella of the European Judeo-Christian Framework, long before the Enlightenment...

Props and credit to Greco-Roman predecessor elements are a 'gimme'... obvious... understood without restating the obvious.

Many of our left and our right require the "restating the obvious."

Given that that was an Equal Opportunity Slam, I, for one, am content...

Yours was the slam, which I corrected.

What slam was that?

 

[Political Junky]

Certainly within the law, such an action will spark intense discussion, I think. Whether I agree or not, my left and right sides of the brain are in disagreement at the moment.

Republicans propose declaring Idaho a Christian state - Yahoo News

How long before the Right tries this in other states, particularly in the South?
It's Theocracy, folks.

 

[Lakhota]

9 Facts On The Shifting American Religious Landscape

More Than One Faith

More: 9 Facts On The Shifting American Religious Landscape

Many faiths are represented in the United States - and the Constitution does not give preference to any one of them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Members of a county Republican Party in Idaho are to take up a measure on Tuesday evening that would declare the state a Christian one to bolster what the proposal calls the "Judeo-Christian bedrock of the founding of the United States."

Nonsense.

The bedrock of the founding of the United States is centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, where the rule of law is paramount.

And among our must fundamental tenets of law is the prohibition of codifying religious dogma into secular law.

'The measure argues that the Christian faith is under "strident attack" in the United States, and cites as evidence the absence of Christian traditions and symbols in public institutions such as schools.'

This is paranoid, delusional, ignorant, and wrong.

The Christian faith is not 'under attack,' 'strident' or otherwise. There are no Christian traditions and symbols in public institutions such as schools because for government to seek to endorse, promote, or advance religious dogma absent a secular legislative purpose violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which further prohibits government from becoming excessively entangled in religious practice.

"It's important that Christians stand up and be unashamed to say they're Christians."

They should actually be ashamed of their ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution and its case law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Certainly within the law, such an action will spark intense discussion, I think. Whether I agree or not, my left and right sides of the brain are in disagreement at the moment.

Republicans propose declaring Idaho a Christian state - Yahoo News

How long before the Right tries this in other states, particularly in the South?
It's Theocracy, folks.

It has been tried in Illinois and the perps got the unholy shit kicked out of them.

 

[SwimExpert]

The Constitution is based on Judeo Christian ethics.

No it's not, and that's a fucking stupid thing to say. The constitution is based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty, democratic government, de-establishment of state religion and religious tolerance, and the pursuit of scientific study and development.

The Constitution is, indeed, based, at least in part, on Enlightenment principles, which are, in turn, evolved, developed and somewhat secularized variants of European Judeo-Christian religion, philosophy, morality, ethics, legal codifications and populist teachings and sentiments that have their roots and basis in a Judeo-Christian framework.

We're merely talking about a two-hopper here.... Judeo-Christian Framework > Enlightenment > Constution... with a vast element of Judeo-Christian Framework still recognizable as such, and still recognizable in its roots or basis or point-of-departure... the evolutionary philosophical grandparent to the US Constitution.

You're a fucking idiot. A central pillar of enlightenment thinking was to break away from religious dogma, belief in miracles, and related concepts, and to be grounded in reason and science. Secularized variants of Judeo-Christian religion? You have to be so god damned stupid to think that in the first place I don't know how you ever learned how to speak to utter it.

 

[SwimExpert]

The Constitution is based on Judeo Christian ethics.

No it's not, and that's a fucking stupid thing to say. The constitution is based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty, democratic government, de-establishment of state religion and religious tolerance, and the pursuit of scientific study and development.

So what happened to the founding fathers between the declaration of independence and the Constitution?

You mean the deists?

 

[Political Junky]

The Constitution is based on Judeo Christian ethics.

No it's not, and that's a fucking stupid thing to say. The constitution is based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty, democratic government, de-establishment of state religion and religious tolerance, and the pursuit of scientific study and development.

So what happened to the founding fathers between the declaration of independence and the Constitution?

You mean the deists?

Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible in which he omitted all the miracles.

 

[Kondor3]

The Constitution is based on Judeo Christian ethics.

No it's not, and that's a fucking stupid thing to say. The constitution is based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty, democratic government, de-establishment of state religion and religious tolerance, and the pursuit of scientific study and development.

The Constitution is, indeed, based, at least in part, on Enlightenment principles, which are, in turn, evolved, developed and somewhat secularized variants of European Judeo-Christian religion, philosophy, morality, ethics, legal codifications and populist teachings and sentiments that have their roots and basis in a Judeo-Christian framework.

We're merely talking about a two-hopper here.... Judeo-Christian Framework > Enlightenment > Constution... with a vast element of Judeo-Christian Framework still recognizable as such, and still recognizable in its roots or basis or point-of-departure... the evolutionary philosophical grandparent to the US Constitution.

You're a fucking idiot...

Hardly. I am merely better than you in objectively identifying the tremendous debt owed by The Enlightenment to its cultural and philosophical roots and heritage.

...A central pillar of enlightenment thinking was to break away from religious dogma, belief in miracles, and related concepts...

Who-the-phukk is talking about dogma, miracles and such? I'm talking about the whole enchilada - the entire philosophical and ethical and judicial package.

...and to be grounded in reason and science...

Indeed. What I cited is entirely symmetrical with a shift towards just that.

...Secularized variants of Judeo-Christian religion?...

Indeed. Taking both the temporal and spiritual aspects of Judeo-Christian tradition, jettisoning the unusable, preserving the useful, removing the surviving elements from any particular religious association, repackaging them, and building upon that foundation.

...You have to be so god damned stupid to think that in the first place I don't know how you ever learned how to speak to utter it.

Again, hardly. I merely understand better than you, how we got to where we are, and have no vested interest in attempting (and failing) to minimize the debt owed by The Enlightenment to its cultural environment and heritage, nor attempting (and failing) to hide the vast array of elements from that heritage that survived that rigorous vetting.

You appear to have very little understanding of who you are, in the framework of our common cultural heritage, nor how much of that survives to this day, woven into the very fabric of our modern Western (and American) society - with respect to ethics and morals and our corpus juris and our politics and governance and philosophy and customs and traditions - and you appear to be extremely hostile to any mention of the huge debt we owe to our European Judeo-Christian heritage.

Your bias and hostility in this context constitute a set of blinkers, preventing you from objectively identifying the middle-ground truth in the matter.

Your cross to bear, not mine.

---------

As to your unprovoked attacks ('stupid', 'idiot', 'learned to speak'), well... feel free to shove your insults straight up your backside, when ready... hell, you'll probably enjoy it.

 

[initforme]

I'm fine with them calling it a Christian state. But then they need to start acting like it and put more into helping the poor and middle clas and much le into doing anything for the wealthy. Then they are practicing what Christianity is purely about

 

[Kondor3]

I'm fine with them calling it a Christian state. But then they need to start acting like it and put more into helping the poor and middle clas and much le into doing anything for the wealthy. Then they are practicing what Christianity is purely about

Interesting perspective... and a good point, about 'practicing'...

 

[kaz]

The Constitution is based on Judeo Christian ethics.

No it's not, and that's a fucking stupid thing to say. The constitution is based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty, democratic government, de-establishment of state religion and religious tolerance, and the pursuit of scientific study and development.

So what happened to the founding fathers between the declaration of independence and the Constitution?

You mean the deists?

Yes, many were. Deism isn't atheism, BTW. They had a lot of influences. To say they were also influenced by John Locke and others is clearly true. But to say they were not influenced by Christian-Judeo is ridiculous. As I said, the DOI was a reason, they mentioned God. The Constitution was a rulebook. They weren't looking for the Church to run the government and they said so. This is obvious to anyone who knows history and no one would argue it except someone who doesn't or someone who just wants to engage in a game of no it isn't.

What point are you even making with this? Clearly they did not want a religious government, I did not suggest otherwise. But they weren't anti-religion like the left is today either

 

[rightwinger]

Certainly within the law, such an action will spark intense discussion, I think. Whether I agree or not, my left and right sides of the brain are in disagreement at the moment.

Republicans propose declaring Idaho a Christian state - Yahoo News

Sounds like ISIS

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes, many were. Deism isn't atheism, BTW.

Where did I say that deism was atheism?

They had a lot of influences. To say they were also influenced by John Locke and others is clearly true. But to say they were not influenced by Christian-Judeo is ridiculous.

No, it's the truth. Absolutely nothing about the constitution, Declaration of Independence, enlightenment era thought, or anything about the founding of our country has anything Judeo-Christian about it at all, beyond the fact that some of the actors happened to be Christians. For you to even make a claim like this is a blatant admission that you don't know or understand the first thing about Christianity or Judaism, or enlightenment thinking.

As I said, the DOI was a reason, they mentioned God.

Whose god? Your god? Sure they weren't talking about another god? Maybe they meant Allah. Perhaps Demeter. You know, I don't actually know for myself....but I've heard rumors that that Jefferson was having a gay love affair with that fellow Odin.

The Constitution was a rulebook. They weren't looking for the Church to run the government and they said so. This is obvious to anyone who knows history and no one would argue it except someone who doesn't or someone who just wants to engage in a game of no it isn't.

.....And that's why you think that the constitution was influenced by Judaism and Christianity? Because they wanted the church to not be an influence? Do you not grasp how absolutely batshit that is?

What point are you even making with this? Clearly they did not want a religious government, I did not suggest otherwise. But they weren't anti-religion like the left is today either

Where did I say anything about being anti-religious? Secularism is not anti-religious. Nor is it anti-religious to refute your asinine claim that the constitution was supposedly baseded on Judeo-Christian ideas. It's simply anti-bullshit.

 

[SwimExpert]

The Constitution is based on Judeo Christian ethics.

No it's not, and that's a fucking stupid thing to say. The constitution is based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty, democratic government, de-establishment of state religion and religious tolerance, and the pursuit of scientific study and development.

The Constitution is, indeed, based, at least in part, on Enlightenment principles, which are, in turn, evolved, developed and somewhat secularized variants of European Judeo-Christian religion, philosophy, morality, ethics, legal codifications and populist teachings and sentiments that have their roots and basis in a Judeo-Christian framework.

We're merely talking about a two-hopper here.... Judeo-Christian Framework > Enlightenment > Constution... with a vast element of Judeo-Christian Framework still recognizable as such, and still recognizable in its roots or basis or point-of-departure... the evolutionary philosophical grandparent to the US Constitution.

You're a fucking idiot...

Hardly. I am merely better than you in objectively identifying the tremendous debt owed by The Enlightenment to its cultural and philosophical roots and heritage.

...A central pillar of enlightenment thinking was to break away from religious dogma, belief in miracles, and related concepts...

Who-the-phukk is talking about dogma, miracles and such? I'm talking about the whole enchilada - the entire philosophical and ethical and judicial package.

...and to be grounded in reason and science...

Indeed. What I cited is entirely symmetrical with a shift towards just that.

...Secularized variants of Judeo-Christian religion?...

Indeed. Taking both the temporal and spiritual aspects of Judeo-Christian tradition, jettisoning the unusable, preserving the useful, removing the surviving elements from any particular religious association, repackaging them, and building upon that foundation.

...You have to be so god damned stupid to think that in the first place I don't know how you ever learned how to speak to utter it.

Again, hardly. I merely understand better than you, how we got to where we are, and have no vested interest in attempting (and failing) to minimize the debt owed by The Enlightenment to its cultural environment and heritage, nor attempting (and failing) to hide the vast array of elements from that heritage that survived that rigorous vetting.

You appear to have very little understanding of who you are, in the framework of our common cultural heritage, nor how much of that survives to this day, woven into the very fabric of our modern Western (and American) society - with respect to ethics and morals and our corpus juris and our politics and governance and philosophy and customs and traditions - and you appear to be extremely hostile to any mention of the huge debt we owe to our European Judeo-Christian heritage.

Your bias and hostility in this context constitute a set of blinkers, preventing you from objectively identifying the middle-ground truth in the matter.

Your cross to bear, not mine.

---------

As to your unprovoked attacks ('stupid', 'idiot', 'learned to speak'), well... feel free to shove your insults straight up your backside, when ready... hell, you'll probably enjoy it.

 

[hangover]

There is no such thing as a republican Christian. They are like ISIS pretending to be Muslims.

 

[rightwinger]

ISIS-ho?

 

[kaz]

Yes, many were. Deism isn't atheism, BTW.

Where did I say that deism was atheism?

They had a lot of influences. To say they were also influenced by John Locke and others is clearly true. But to say they were not influenced by Christian-Judeo is ridiculous.

No, it's the truth. Absolutely nothing about the constitution, Declaration of Independence, enlightenment era thought, or anything about the founding of our country has anything Judeo-Christian about it at all, beyond the fact that some of the actors happened to be Christians. For you to even make a claim like this is a blatant admission that you don't know or understand the first thing about Christianity or Judaism, or enlightenment thinking.

As I said, the DOI was a reason, they mentioned God.

Whose god? Your god? Sure they weren't talking about another god? Maybe they meant Allah. Perhaps Demeter. You know, I don't actually know for myself....but I've heard rumors that that Jefferson was having a gay love affair with that fellow Odin.

The Constitution was a rulebook. They weren't looking for the Church to run the government and they said so. This is obvious to anyone who knows history and no one would argue it except someone who doesn't or someone who just wants to engage in a game of no it isn't.

.....And that's why you think that the constitution was influenced by Judaism and Christianity? Because they wanted the church to not be an influence? Do you not grasp how absolutely batshit that is?

What point are you even making with this? Clearly they did not want a religious government, I did not suggest otherwise. But they weren't anti-religion like the left is today either

Where did I say anything about being anti-religious? Secularism is not anti-religious. Nor is it anti-religious to refute your asinine claim that the constitution was supposedly baseded on Judeo-Christian ideas. It's simply anti-bullshit.

Obviously they were referring to Allah, they probably hadn't heard of Christianity. I'm not interested in a no it isn't discussion.