The Problem With Christian Nationalism

[The Original Tree]

Wrong.
If not for the Native Americans, then the Founders would have reflected the exact same mistakes as Europe.
The colonists were NOT more ethical, intelligent, etc.
Most actually came to the New World out of "get rich quick" schemes.
The ONLY factor that changes them and made the colonies different than Europe was the native belief in individual rights and their rejection of imposed heirarchies.

How the Iroquois Great Law of Peace Shaped U.S. Democracy

Season 2 of Native America is a groundbreaking portrait of contemporary Indian Country. Building on the success of the first season, this four-part Native…

www.pbs.org

{...
uch has been said about the inspiration of the ancient Iroquois “Great League of Peace” in planting the seeds that led to the formation of the United States of America and its representative democracy.

The Iroquois Confederacy, founded by the Great Peacemaker in 11421, is the oldest living participatory democracy on earth2. In 1988, the U.S. Senate paid tribute with a resolution3 that said, "The confederation of the original 13 colonies into one republic was influenced by the political system developed by the Iroquois Confederacy, as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the constitution itself."

The peoples of the Iroquois Confederacy, also known as the Six Nations, refer to themselves as the Haudenosaunee, (pronounced "hoo-dee-noh-SHAW-nee"). It means “peoples of the longhouse,” and refers to their lengthy bark-covered longhouses that housed many families. Theirs was a sophisticated and thriving society of well over 5,000 people when the first European explorers encountered them in the early seventeenth century.
...}

May I remind you that the rebel snake flag was an Iroquois flag originally, that the colonists just copied?

The Iroquois were about the only large democratic republic in all history.
It is the only real basis for the US.

You are a dumb ass. Native Americans did not believe in Individual Rights. They practiced Sex Slavery, Blood Feuds, and raped, murdered and pillaged other tribes for their tribal lands. Groups in South America and in North America practiced Human Sacrifice. The People of Hawaii were still sacrificing virgins to their pagan volcano God when Captain Cook landed there.

These weren't Noble Savages. They were Pagan Savages.

On top of that, Native Americans did not live in Harmony with Nature. They decimated the Mega Fauna they came across early in their IMMIGRATION from ASIA across the Bering Straits and Pacific Ocean in other areas.

Want to know where the Saber Tooth Tiger, Wooley Mammoth, Giant Sloth, Dire Wolf, Cave Bear, Wooly Rhinoceros went?
In some Native American's Stomach.
That's where.

The only thing I agree with Native Americans on is Eating Meat and lots of it. I'm hungry for a Buffalo Burger right now.

 

[The Original Tree]

Not my opinion, dipshit. Try reading a history book for once in your life.

I recommend this one:

Democracy in America - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Never mind. Your head would not get past the first page.

Was it written by a Communist Pig History Revisionist like you?

 

[Rigby5]

if all you have is the 1st A that says nothing about any separation its not worth my time to further the discussion because I already won,,

It is also the SCOTUS who gets to interpret the Constitution, not you, and they say there is a wall between government and religion.

{...
Separation of Church and State is a phrase that refers to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The phrase dates back to the early days of U.S. history, and Thomas Jefferson referred to the First Amendment as creating a “wall of separation” between church and state as the third president of the U.S. The term is also often employed in court cases. For example, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black famously stated in Everson v. Board of Education that “[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state,” and “[t]hat wall must be kept high and impregnable.”
...}

{...

Facts of the case, Everson vs Board of Ed. NJ​

A New Jersey law authorized reimbursement by local school boards of the costs of transportation to and from schools, including private schools. 96% of the private schools who benefitted from this law were parochial Catholic schools. Arch R. Everson, a taxpayer in Ewing Township, filed a lawsuit alleging that this indirect aid to religion violated both the New Jersey state constitution and the First Amendment. After losing in state courts, Everson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on purely federal constitutional grounds.
...
A divided Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. Justice Black reasoned that the law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was rather enacted to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

You are a dumb ass. Native Americans did not believe in Individual Rights. They practiced Sex Slavery, Blood Feuds, and raped, murdered and pillaged other tribes for their tribal lands. Groups in South America and in North America practiced Human Sacrifice. The People of Hawaii were still sacrificing virgins to their pagan volcano God when Captain Cook landed there.

These weren't Noble Savages. They were Pagan Savages.

On top of that, Native Americans did not live in Harmony with Nature. They decimated the Mega Fauna they came across early in their IMMIGRATION from ASIA across the Bering Straits and Pacific Ocean in other areas.

Want to know where the Saber Tooth Tiger, Wooley Mammoth, Giant Sloth, Dire Wolf, Cave Bear, Wooly Rhinoceros went?
In some Native American's Stomach.
That's where.

The only thing I agree with Native Americans on is Eating Meat and lots of it. I'm hungry for a Buffalo Burger right now.

Wrong.
Native Americans definitely believed in individual human rights.
They just tended to believe other tribes were not necessarily human.

The belief native Americans "practiced Sex Slavery, Blood Feuds, and raped, murdered and pillaged other tribes for their tribal lands" is pretty much fake propaganda, so we could justify murdering them and stealing their lands.
There was some illegal practices like that, but far less than happens now in the US, and the natives did not have police or prisons.
They pretty much went by the honor system, and did much better than we do now.

And you are also wrong about the "mega fauna" being killed off by the natives.
They died from the change in climate, and that is easily proven since the mega fauna died ever where, not just the Americas or where there were humans.

 

[bodecea]

so fringe they dont exist in this country,,

The Christian Front exists....as does Patriots Arise (losing PA governor candidate Mastriano's group)

 

[progressive hunter]

It is also the SCOTUS who gets to interpret the Constitution, not you, and they say there is a wall between government and religion.

{...
Separation of Church and State is a phrase that refers to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The phrase dates back to the early days of U.S. history, and Thomas Jefferson referred to the First Amendment as creating a “wall of separation” between church and state as the third president of the U.S. The term is also often employed in court cases. For example, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black famously stated in Everson v. Board of Education that “[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state,” and “[t]hat wall must be kept high and impregnable.”
...}

{...

Facts of the case, Everson vs Board of Ed. NJ​

A New Jersey law authorized reimbursement by local school boards of the costs of transportation to and from schools, including private schools. 96% of the private schools who benefitted from this law were parochial Catholic schools. Arch R. Everson, a taxpayer in Ewing Township, filed a lawsuit alleging that this indirect aid to religion violated both the New Jersey state constitution and the First Amendment. After losing in state courts, Everson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on purely federal constitutional grounds.
...
A divided Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. Justice Black reasoned that the law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was rather enacted to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school.
...}

why people try to use the separation argument is beyond me,, there is nothing that stops a judge or politician from voting based on religious views or a preacher talking about politics from the pulpit,,

 

[bodecea]

There's that dramatic background music again.


.

With good reason. Our Founders saw the example of the puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and made sure religion was not part of government.

 

[bodecea]

why people try to use the separation argument is beyond me,, there is nothing that stops a judge or politician from voting based on religious views or a preacher talking about politics from the pulpit,,

But if they make their ruling based on religion, it's unConstitutional.

Better hope the Catholics don't take over...........................kiss divorce goodbye then.

 

[progressive hunter]

But if they make their ruling based on religion, it's unConstitutional.

Better hope the Catholics don't take over...........................kiss divorce goodbye then.

says who?? and how do you prove that??

everyone makes decisions based on beliefs and thats all religion is,,

 

[g5000]

if all you have is the 1st A that says nothing about any separation its not worth my time to further the discussion because I already won,,

You are a coward. You cannot back up your lie about me wanting a socialist nightmare.

I understand why you have to run away now, coward.

Go back to eating live babies.

 

[progressive hunter]

You are a coward. You cannot back up your lie about me wanting a socialist nightmare.

I understand why you have to run away now, coward.

Go back to eating live babies.

I did back it up,, just not going to play your bitchy word games,,,

you attacking MTG over this made up BS and being silent about the socialist threat makes you a supporter of the socialist nightmare being pushed on us,,

but please continue with your fearmongering,,

 

[Rigby5]

why people try to use the separation argument is beyond me,, there is nothing that stops a judge or politician from voting based on religious views or a preacher talking about politics from the pulpit,,

Of course anyone can base their opinion on whatever they want, the POINT is unless they based in on generic principles of law and justice, they will be WRONG.
The principles of law and justice say that you can not force others to do what you want, but only to defend your own inherent rights from being violated.
Which means laws like the War on Drugs, prohibiting prostitution, bigamy, etc., are all inherently illegal.
The are not based on defense of the rights of anyone.

 

[Rigby5]

says who?? and how do you prove that??

everyone makes decisions based on beliefs and thats all religion is,,

When it is not necessary in order to defend your own rights, then the law is illegal.
It is inherently illegal to force your opinion on others when not necessary to defend your rights.

 

[Rigby5]

I did back it up,, just not going to play your bitchy word games,,,

you attacking MTG over this made up BS and being silent about the socialist threat makes you a supporter of the socialist nightmare being pushed on us,,

but please continue with your fearmongering,,

There is no "socialist threat" and all humans are inherently socialists.

 

[progressive hunter]

Of course anyone can base their opinion on whatever they want, the POINT is unless they based in on generic principles of law and justice, they will be WRONG.
The principles of law and justice say that you can not force others to do what you want, but only to defend your own inherent rights from being violated.
Which means laws like the War on Drugs, prohibiting prostitution, bigamy, etc., are all inherently illegal.
The are not based on defense of the rights of anyone.

wrong is a matter of perspective and opinion,,

again theres nothing illegal with a preacher speaking on politics from the pulpit or even running for office or making policy based on their beliefs,, so that separation thing is bogus bs ,, unless they signed a contract with the government for a non profit status that they dont need to do,,

I agree with you on the war on drugs and other stuff you listed,,

 

[22lcidw]

With good reason. Our Founders saw the example of the puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and made sure religion was not part of government.

But socialism which you love and adore as a god was part of the puritan's doctrine when they arrived. Remember that part? Many died.

 

[g5000]

I did back it up,, just not going to play your bitchy word games,,,

you attacking MTG over this made up BS and being silent about the socialist threat makes you a supporter of the socialist nightmare being pushed on us,,

but please continue with your fearmongering,,

Do you know what a false dichotomy is?

You just made one.

You did not back up your bullshit. You employed a logical fallacy, which is what you tards always do.

 

[progressive hunter]

When it is not necessary in order to defend your own rights, then the law is illegal.
It is inherently illegal to force your opinion on others when not necessary to defend your rights.

I can force my opinion on anyone I want,, its up to them to accept or reject it,,

of course if that force includes violence then it becomes illegal,,

 

[22lcidw]

There is no "socialist threat" and all humans are inherently socialists.

The never-ending ghettos in urban areas is proof of the socialism threat.

 

[progressive hunter]

There is no "socialist threat" and all humans are inherently socialists.

thanks for your opinion,,

consider it filed with the rest of them,,