Evangelicals and Trump

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,347
Reaction score
14,103
Points
2,220
That religious freedom was enshrined in the Constitution, does not mean that the nation was not a Christian nation.
Since no one had to be a Christian to be an American citizen under the new Constitution m, there is no way it truthfully can be said that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Sure it can. The nation was massively majority Christian, with Christians dominating every aspect of public life and with Churches happy to engage in politics and Christian ideas and culture enshrined in law and culture.

That it also respected the religious freedom of every citizen, including religious minorities, does not conflict with that.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
1,329
Points
245
The nation was massively majority Christian, with Christians dominating every aspect of public life
I am a US citizen. I am not a Christian. I am not living in a Christian Nation. You are a liar if you say I am.

You would have been lying to each and every non/Christian alive when the United States was founded, including Thomas Jefferson, if you told him that he had just founded a Protestant Christian Nation just because Protestant Christians were a large percentage of the population at that time.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,347
Reaction score
14,103
Points
2,220
The nation was massively majority Christian, with Christians dominating every aspect of public life
I am a US citizen. I am not a Christian. I am not living in a Christian Nation. You are a liar if you say I am.

You would have been lying to each and every non/Christian alive when the United States was founded, including Thomas Jefferson, if you told him that he had just founded a Protestant Christian Nation just because Protestant Christians were a large percentage of the population at that time.

No, I would not.

This country is far less Christian than it was, but it is still majority Christian.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,237
Reaction score
578
Points
85
It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.
.
It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.
.
- and your purpose for the "discussion" you have not already imposed by your incendiary statements.
To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.
To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.
but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok -
.
View attachment 391463
.
you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.
.
That is moronic. Completely moronic.
but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok - you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.
.
don't be a coward, give it a whirll -
.
View attachment 391758
.
have you your letter from the priest, their permission for your vasectomy ... bing fixed it for himself no different than an abortion.

A sperm is not a human life you fucking moron. A fertilized egg, is. THe sperm by itself, will not grow up and one day have a family of it's own.

The fertilized egg, will. Because it is a human life. A brand new human life, with a lot of growing in front of him or her, but a human never the less.
.

What part of that, is too hard for you to understand?
.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved - bing chose abortion for himself while denying the same to others the same as you and your self centric, qualifying motivations intervening against the lives of others you have no legitimacy being involved with.
.
The sperm is not.
you are a joke by using a condom you are preventing a birth. the very purpose of a vasectomy is the prevention of life - your doing nothing more than screaming fire in a packed theatre.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,


and later on, it is a human being.
.
Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,
and later on, it is a human being.
.
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs - you are nothing more than a disingenuous sociopathic zealot.

at least build and sale your chastity belt you alone have the key for, they will be forever in your debt.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.
.
THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.
.
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

you must have no intervention, intercourse but only for the sole purpose you deem as animalistic reproduction whether or not pregnancy is the result for your objection to be valid.

and they will need your approval to make the attempt being certain by your presence no mistakes or loss of fluids occurs.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,347
Reaction score
14,103
Points
2,220
It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.
.
It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.
.
- and your purpose for the "discussion" you have not already imposed by your incendiary statements.
To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.
To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.
but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok -
.
View attachment 391463
.
you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.
.
That is moronic. Completely moronic.
but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok - you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.
.
don't be a coward, give it a whirll -
.
View attachment 391758
.
have you your letter from the priest, their permission for your vasectomy ... bing fixed it for himself no different than an abortion.

A sperm is not a human life you fucking moron. A fertilized egg, is. THe sperm by itself, will not grow up and one day have a family of it's own.

The fertilized egg, will. Because it is a human life. A brand new human life, with a lot of growing in front of him or her, but a human never the less.
.

What part of that, is too hard for you to understand?
.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved - bing chose abortion for himself while denying the same to others the same as you and your self centric, qualifying motivations intervening against the lives of others you have no legitimacy being involved with.
.
The sperm is not.
you are a joke by using a condom you are preventing a birth. the very purpose of a vasectomy is the prevention of life - your doing nothing more than screaming fire in a packed theatre.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,


and later on, it is a human being.
.
Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,
and later on, it is a human being.
.
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs - you are nothing more than a disingenuous sociopathic zealot.

at least build and sale your chastity belt you alone have the key for, they will be forever in your debt.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.
.
THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.
.
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

you must have no intervention, intercourse but only for the sole purpose you deem as animalistic reproduction whether or not pregnancy is the result for your objection to be valid.

and they will need your approval to make the attempt being certain by your presence no mistakes or loss of fluids occurs.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
1,329
Points
245
Your were making the argument that they did not Found this nation as a Christian Nation because they were such anti-Catholic bigots, but now you are saying that they embraced religious freedom.
My argument and the truth is that America was founded by non-Christians and Protestant Christians as they were engaged in framing a Constitutional form of government in Philadelphia. The Christians wanted Christianity to be the official religion of the new nation. The non-Christians wanted no mention of Protestant anti-Catholic Christianity mentioned in the new set of laws for the land. The non-Christians prevailed. They won. The Protestants lost. CATHOLICS were never in the game even though most Christians in the world were Catholic.

But you say the Christians won and a Christian Nstion was formed. That’s how big is your lie. You have the losers win and the winners lose.

Jefferson hoped Protestant Christianity would dissipate and die out in the new Republic. He certainly did not want Catholicism to take Its place.

Amid the proliferation of upstart Protestants in the early republic, Jefferson’s countermeasures amounted to symbolic resistance. He found the birth of popular Protestantism a foreboding development, writing to a friend in 1822, “The atmosphere of our country is unquestioningly charged with a threatening cloud of fanaticism, lighter in some parts, denser in others, but too heavy in all.” Jefferson had expected that disestablishment would weaken religion, especially revealed religion. He believed, as Immanuel Kant put it, “if only freedom is granted, enlightenment is sure to follow.”​
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,347
Reaction score
14,103
Points
2,220
Your were making the argument that they did not Found this nation as a Christian Nation because they were such anti-Catholic bigots, but now you are saying that they embraced religious freedom.
My argument and the truth is that America was founded by non-Christians and Protestant Christians as they were engaged in framing a Constitutional form of government in Philadelphia. The Christians wanted Christianity to be the official religion of the new nation. The non-Christians wanted no mention of Protestant anti-Catholic Christianity mentioned in the new set of laws for the land. The non-Christians prevailed. They won. The Protestants lost. CATHOLICS were never in the game even though most Christians in the world were Catholic.

But you say the Christians won and a Christian Nstion was formed. That’s how big is your lie. You have the losers win and the winners lose.

Jefferson hoped Protestant Christianity would dissipate and die out in the new Republic. He certainly did not want Catholicism to take Its place.

Amid the proliferation of upstart Protestants in the early republic, Jefferson’s countermeasures amounted to symbolic resistance. He found the birth of popular Protestantism a foreboding development, writing to a friend in 1822, “The atmosphere of our country is unquestioningly charged with a threatening cloud of fanaticism, lighter in some parts, denser in others, but too heavy in all.” Jefferson had expected that disestablishment would weaken religion, especially revealed religion. He believed, as Immanuel Kant put it, “if only freedom is granted, enlightenment is sure to follow.”​

SOME Christians might have wanted some official recognition of Christian Religion in the Constitution. Other Christians disagreed and no such mention was made and the focus on Religious Freedom.;

That is not a defeat for Christians as a group. NOr does it change the fact that the nation that was founded, was massively Christian.


Your pretense that ALL CHRISTIANS AS A GROUP, were defeated, by the small minority of non-Christians, is completely unsupported.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,237
Reaction score
578
Points
85
It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.
.
It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.
.
- and your purpose for the "discussion" you have not already imposed by your incendiary statements.
To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.
To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.
but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok -
.
View attachment 391463
.
you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.
.
That is moronic. Completely moronic.
but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok - you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.
.
don't be a coward, give it a whirll -
.
View attachment 391758
.
have you your letter from the priest, their permission for your vasectomy ... bing fixed it for himself no different than an abortion.

A sperm is not a human life you fucking moron. A fertilized egg, is. THe sperm by itself, will not grow up and one day have a family of it's own.

The fertilized egg, will. Because it is a human life. A brand new human life, with a lot of growing in front of him or her, but a human never the less.
.

What part of that, is too hard for you to understand?
.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved - bing chose abortion for himself while denying the same to others the same as you and your self centric, qualifying motivations intervening against the lives of others you have no legitimacy being involved with.
.
The sperm is not.
you are a joke by using a condom you are preventing a birth. the very purpose of a vasectomy is the prevention of life - your doing nothing more than screaming fire in a packed theatre.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,


and later on, it is a human being.
.
Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,
and later on, it is a human being.
.
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs - you are nothing more than a disingenuous sociopathic zealot.

at least build and sale your chastity belt you alone have the key for, they will be forever in your debt.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.
.
THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.
.
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

you must have no intervention, intercourse but only for the sole purpose you deem as animalistic reproduction whether or not pregnancy is the result for your objection to be valid.

and they will need your approval to make the attempt being certain by your presence no mistakes or loss of fluids occurs.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.
.
No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.
.
you mustn't what - bear witness to their intercourse to preserve whatever may spill from their bedside.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,347
Reaction score
14,103
Points
2,220
It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.
.
It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.
.
- and your purpose for the "discussion" you have not already imposed by your incendiary statements.
To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.
To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.
but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok -
.
View attachment 391463
.
you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.
.
That is moronic. Completely moronic.
but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok - you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.
.
don't be a coward, give it a whirll -
.
View attachment 391758
.
have you your letter from the priest, their permission for your vasectomy ... bing fixed it for himself no different than an abortion.

A sperm is not a human life you fucking moron. A fertilized egg, is. THe sperm by itself, will not grow up and one day have a family of it's own.

The fertilized egg, will. Because it is a human life. A brand new human life, with a lot of growing in front of him or her, but a human never the less.
.

What part of that, is too hard for you to understand?
.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved - bing chose abortion for himself while denying the same to others the same as you and your self centric, qualifying motivations intervening against the lives of others you have no legitimacy being involved with.
.
The sperm is not.
you are a joke by using a condom you are preventing a birth. the very purpose of a vasectomy is the prevention of life - your doing nothing more than screaming fire in a packed theatre.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,


and later on, it is a human being.
.
Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,
and later on, it is a human being.
.
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs - you are nothing more than a disingenuous sociopathic zealot.

at least build and sale your chastity belt you alone have the key for, they will be forever in your debt.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.
.
THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.
.
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

you must have no intervention, intercourse but only for the sole purpose you deem as animalistic reproduction whether or not pregnancy is the result for your objection to be valid.

and they will need your approval to make the attempt being certain by your presence no mistakes or loss of fluids occurs.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.
.
No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.
.
you mustn't what - bear witness to their intercourse to preserve whatever may spill from their bedside.

You said I must. I said, NOT.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
1,329
Points
245
SOME Christians might have wanted some official recognition of Christian Religion in the Constitution. Other Christians disagreed and no such mention was made and the focus on Religious Freedom.;

The Christians that wanted some official recognition of Christian Religion in the Constitution wanted the Federal Government to establish a Christian Nation. They lost.

The other Christians that disagreed with the Christian Nation Christians sided with the non-Christian secularists because they did not want "Congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
They were not founding a Christian Nation.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
1,329
Points
245
No, I would not.

This country is far less Christian than it was, but it is still majority Christian.
Did you actually just say that you would not call today’s America a Christian



That is not a defeat for Christians as a group. NOr does it change the fact that the nation that was founded, was massively Christian.
Being ‘massively Christian’ back then did not mean the framers founded a Christian Nation.


The founding fathers’ purposes were clear.... They had no intention to found the country according to Christian doctrines. Having said that, it is important to add that this exclusion in no way devalued the importance of the Christian religion in their minds—nor should it in ours. Christianity is thriving in America, and so is Judaism, Islam, and other religions. Rather than listening to those who distort history and pit one faith as superior to others because it is more “American,” we should instead be working together on a shared spiritual vision—to empower the poor and marginalized, heal the planet, bring relief to those who suffer, and bring peace to our precious world. We should instead be grateful for the wisdom of our founding fathers who purposely devised a government and a nation based upon the Constitution that gave people the freedom and liberty to practice their religion. This system has worked amazingly well for over 200 years and is the envy of many countries ensnared in sectarian strife. Our history is one to be proud of, for it allows religious and political freedom, both of which are precious commodities in today’s world.​

 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,347
Reaction score
14,103
Points
2,220
SOME Christians might have wanted some official recognition of Christian Religion in the Constitution. Other Christians disagreed and no such mention was made and the focus on Religious Freedom.;

The Christians that wanted some official recognition of Christian Religion in the Constitution wanted the Federal Government to establish a Christian Nation. They lost.

The other Christians that disagreed with the Christian Nation Christians sided with the non-Christian secularists because they did not want "Congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
They were not founding a Christian Nation.
1. Some Christians wanted some official recognition. You don't get to pretend it was the group as a whole, when it was not.

2. Other Christians wanted to avoid anything that looked like a step towards an Established State Church. That was their concern with religion. You can tell because they made a constitutional amendment saying so. That does not mean that the nation they founded was not Christian, just that it embraced and celebrated religious freedom, even for it's religious minorities.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,347
Reaction score
14,103
Points
2,220
No, I would not.

This country is far less Christian than it was, but it is still majority Christian.
Did you actually just say that you would not call today’s America a Christian



That is not a defeat for Christians as a group. NOr does it change the fact that the nation that was founded, was massively Christian.
Being ‘massively Christian’ back then did not mean the framers founded a Christian Nation.


The founding fathers’ purposes were clear.... They had no intention to found the country according to Christian doctrines. Having said that, it is important to add that this exclusion in no way devalued the importance of the Christian religion in their minds—nor should it in ours. Christianity is thriving in America, and so is Judaism, Islam, and other religions. Rather than listening to those who distort history and pit one faith as superior to others because it is more “American,” we should instead be working together on a shared spiritual vision—to empower the poor and marginalized, heal the planet, bring relief to those who suffer, and bring peace to our precious world. We should instead be grateful for the wisdom of our founding fathers who purposely devised a government and a nation based upon the Constitution that gave people the freedom and liberty to practice their religion. This system has worked amazingly well for over 200 years and is the envy of many countries ensnared in sectarian strife. Our history is one to be proud of, for it allows religious and political freedom, both of which are precious commodities in today’s world.​


1. Does a majority define a group, or the minority leadership?

2. The founding fathers intent was to found a nation based on Enlightenment Era principles. Those were philosophical and political. That does not conflict with the Nation being Christian.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,237
Reaction score
578
Points
85
It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.
.
It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.
.
- and your purpose for the "discussion" you have not already imposed by your incendiary statements.
To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.
To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.
but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok -
.
View attachment 391463
.
you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.
.
That is moronic. Completely moronic.
but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok - you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.
.
don't be a coward, give it a whirll -
.
View attachment 391758
.
have you your letter from the priest, their permission for your vasectomy ... bing fixed it for himself no different than an abortion.

A sperm is not a human life you fucking moron. A fertilized egg, is. THe sperm by itself, will not grow up and one day have a family of it's own.

The fertilized egg, will. Because it is a human life. A brand new human life, with a lot of growing in front of him or her, but a human never the less.
.

What part of that, is too hard for you to understand?
.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved - bing chose abortion for himself while denying the same to others the same as you and your self centric, qualifying motivations intervening against the lives of others you have no legitimacy being involved with.
.
The sperm is not.
you are a joke by using a condom you are preventing a birth. the very purpose of a vasectomy is the prevention of life - your doing nothing more than screaming fire in a packed theatre.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,


and later on, it is a human being.
.
Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,
and later on, it is a human being.
.
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs - you are nothing more than a disingenuous sociopathic zealot.

at least build and sale your chastity belt you alone have the key for, they will be forever in your debt.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.
.
THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.
.
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

you must have no intervention, intercourse but only for the sole purpose you deem as animalistic reproduction whether or not pregnancy is the result for your objection to be valid.

and they will need your approval to make the attempt being certain by your presence no mistakes or loss of fluids occurs.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.
.
No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.
.
you mustn't what - bear witness to their intercourse to preserve whatever may spill from their bedside.

You said I must. I said, NOT.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.
.
You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.
.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved -
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs -
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.
.
my position has been made perfectly clear - your end run is nothing more than sociopathic zealotry.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
1,329
Points
245
Imo, yes. It is a Christian Nation
This is not an opinion poll.

Putting your biased “opinion” aside give me your Constitutionally correct answer to the question whether America was founded as a Christian Nation.

I understand that it is your opinion that the Protestant Christian majority of adherents living in 1790s America makes it necessary and official that all Americans now must recognize that the supreme religion of the American Nation was and still is Christianity. Therefore it is Constitutionally correct to proclaim to all the world that America was founded as a Protestant Christian Nation.

Is that correct?

If so please tell us where and when the Constitution was amended to change Protestant Christian Nation to Christian Nation in order to now include Catholicism in the official name of the Nation.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
1,329
Points
245
1. Some Christians wanted some official recognition. You don't get to pretend it was the group as a whole, when it was not.
I never said all wanted official recognition of Christianity in the Constitution. The ones that did - lost.

You are the one pretending that colonial Christians were united in desire to pressure the framers Into creating a Christian Nation. Yet you admit that Christians back then were not of one mind at all. Perhaps most involved Christians in Philadelphia were united with the non-Christian secularists from the start In keeping Christianity out of Constitution. It comes to mind that the Virginia Baptist’s were opposed to forming a Christian nationalist Governnent.

That presents the flaw in your Christian Nation creationism because you can only point to the Protestant Christian majority to justify your fake Christian Nation reality. So if the Protestant Christian majority did not want to form a Christian Nation at the founding who are you to tell us and them 200 years later that they did?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
1,329
Points
245
2. Other Christians wanted to avoid anything that looked like a step towards an Established State Church.
Then why run around telling everybody that America was founded as a Christian Nation when it wasn’t?

Why don’t you respect what the 1790’s Christians wanted to avoid? When you say America was founded as a Christian Nation it sounds exactly like the founders took all the steps they needed to establish a state/nations church and religion.
 

Bezukhov

Anarcho-Capitalist
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
461
Reaction score
100
Points
90
Location
Providence, R.I.
I entertained the idea of reparations for slavery, it WAS within the real of probability. They lost me, slavery ended 155 years ago. Rioting and destroying stuff, um no fuck racism. Its happening NOW. Racism is a lie. Riots are very real...
If we are going to consider reparations it should be for existing blacks to pay us for allowing them to stay in the US and make this their home. We pay many monthly for food, rent and medical treatments when needed. If they were still living in a tribe in Africa, what would their life be? Would they own a car, computer, a wardrobe and be considered "poor?" Doubt it.
White people get money for food, rent and medical treatment. What are those reparations for?
White people aren't asking for reparations.
1.Arguendo is a Latin legal term meaning for the sake of argument.
Arguendo - Wikipedia

Before the knee jerk aspersions learned in government school kick in (see what I did there?), let’s try this as an intellectual exercise: examples of evil as the motivation, as the fuel for many events and doctrines, abound. Consider the case of the Las Vegas shooter by whose actions 868 people were injured, and 60 killed, with no benefit to the shooter….and, as of this date, no motive. Call it evil.

Now, take the further step of personification of evil, as Satan, or as Obama’s mentor, Saul Alinsky posited, Lucifer….just as God can be viewed as the personification of good.



2. Now, bigger picture: Richard Wurmbrand begins his book “Marx and Satan,” [*Wurmbrand, Marx and Satan, https://legiochristi.com/static/lit/Marx_and_Satan.pdf] this way: “Marxism today governs over one third of mankind. If it could be shown that the originators and perpetrators of this movement were indeed behind-closed doors devil-worshipers, consciously exploiting Satanic powers, would not such a startling realization require action?”
I’d say a careful consideration of such a widespread power of evil a worthy endeavor, rather than dismissing it out of hand.




3. “Paul Kengor is a professor of political science at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania. He has just published "The Devil and Karl Marx,"
The Devil and Karl Marx

4. The book has come out during an important time in our history since so many Americans, particularly our youth, have fallen for the seductive siren song of socialism taught to them by the academic elite.

5. "The Black Book of Communism," edited by Stephane Courtois, details the Marxist-Leninist death toll in the 20th century. Here is the breakdown: USSR, 20 million deaths; China, 65 million; Vietnam, 1 million; North Korea and Cambodia, 2 million each; Eastern Europe, 1 million; and about 3.5 million in Latin America, Africa and Afghanistan. These figures understate those detailed by Professor R.J. Rummel in "Death by Government." He finds that from 1917 until its collapse, the Soviet Union murdered or caused the death of 61 million people, mostly its own citizens. From 1949 to 1976, Communist China's Mao Zedong regime was responsible for the death of as many as 78 million of its own citizens.” The Devil and Karl Marx



6. Evil “ There are certain words that have passed out of the realm of public debate. One of them is the word “evil.” Its disuse is certainly not because the world is any less dangerous, or because people have finally gotten the better of their base nature, or because Satan has been neutered. When was the last time you heard anyone use the word in common conversation? When was the last time it was uttered by one of your political leaders?”
What does the Bible say about recognizing evil?

The doctrines that result in million upon millions of dead human being are evil.



Evil always takes advantage of ignorance (Proverbs 7:6–27)

If the Bible isn’t your source of knowledge, Santayana put it this way:

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Acts 4
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.


Which has what to do with the OP? A sign of your indoctrination?

The Bible has naught to do with and certainly doesn't endorse, socialism.
Not hardly.

An accurate understanding of the Bible requires the distinction between 'redistribution' and 'generosity.'

"Some people conclude from these verses that the Bible supports government-enforced wealth redistribution. But what these verses really show is that the Bible advocates generosity.

These are two very different concepts.
Generosity springs from free will....not force, coercion, or threats.


The motivation to give and share originates in compassion, as 1 John 3:17 indicates—but there is choice involved.

With socialism, it is the opposite.
Redistribution of wealth is always by force of government. The government simply uses its overwhelming power to take what it thinks is “fair” from the “givers.” Is God a Socialist?

Generosity is based on choice....on free will....the cornerstone of Judeo-Christian tradition.
Not so with any of these six: Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, et al



And this is the face of government coercion.....


Under the Bolsheviks, the dynasty with which Franklin Roosevelt felt comradeship, slaughter was so omnipresent that corpse-disposal actually became a problem.

There was resistance to the Lefts mandate of collectivism, especially in the Ukraine.
September 11, 1932, Stalin wrote to his assistant, 'We must take steps so we do not lose the Ukraine.' So, 1932-1933, all food supplies in the Ukraine were confiscated.


Those who tried to leave were shot, those who remained, starved to death. Men, women, children. They died tortuously slowly.
NKVD squads collected the dead. They received 200 grams of bread for every dead body they delivered; often they didn't wait until the victim was dead.


'Lazar Kaganovich (together with Vyacheslav Molotov) participated with the All-Ukrainian Party Conference of 1930 and were given the task of implementation of thecollectivization policy that caused a catastrophic 1932–33 famine known as theHolodomor. He also personally oversaw grain confiscations during the same time periods.

'Similar policies also inflicted enormous suffering on the Soviet Central Asian republic ofKazakhstan, the Kuban region, Crimea, the lower Volga region, and other parts of the Soviet Union. As an emissary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Kaganovich traveled to Ukraine, the central regions of the USSR, the NorthernCaucasus, and Siberia demanding the acceleration of collectivization and repressions against theKulaks, who were generally blamed for the slow progress of collectivization.'
Lazar Kaganovich - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That religious freedom was enshrined in the Constitution, does not mean that the nation was not a Christian nation.
Since no one had to be a Christian to be an American citizen under the new Constitution m, there is no way it truthfully can be said that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Sure it can. The nation was massively majority Christian, with Christians dominating every aspect of public life and with Churches happy to engage in politics and Christian ideas and culture enshrined in law and culture.

That it also respected the religious freedom of every citizen, including religious minorities, does not conflict with that.
So where exactly did Jesus command His followers to seize earthly political power and set up Christian nations, where they can then lord over and dominate others?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top