What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Zone1 If the US were to declare itself a Christian nation, what version of Christianity would you think it would be?

If the US declared itself a Christian nation, what version of Christianity would it be?

  • Roman Catholic

  • Protestant (name the denomination in a comment)

  • Mormon

  • Generic Christian


Results are only viewable after voting.

presonorek

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
701
Points
130
Location
North Carolina
Evangelical Christians, you know, the ones who cherry-pick the bible and take charge of women's bodies.

That was my initial thought as well. It could be considered Generic Christian or Protestant. I wasn’t sure which one to pick.

It would be a fun country.
 

presonorek

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
701
Points
130
Location
North Carolina
Law and the Constitution are founded on the Ten Commandments. To understand this you would have to understand that it was supposed to be written by the hand of God and so could not be change nor broken by even the latest big enchilada.

These are abstractions far beyond your limited grasp.

You serious? There is only two commandments that apply to the United States.
 

presonorek

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
701
Points
130
Location
North Carolina
Another theological midget.

Public prayer was in no way prohibited in the NT or even OT

Thanks for playing.

Christ’s teaching is pretty clear on public prayer.
 

onefour1

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
2,331
Reaction score
499
Points
130
One only need study history to understand the evils of allowing religion to dominate in the political affairs of a free and diverse country of individual beliefs. People used to be burned at the stake for not adhering to the state religion.
 

konradv

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
35,284
Reaction score
9,334
Points
1,330
Location
Baltimore adjacent
First, let me say that I am adamantly opposed to the amending of the 1st amendment. I think our current way of doing it is far superior. And I would fight against the US adopting ANY official religion.

But the topic has been discussed in other threads, so I wanted to ask this question.
What, no Arianism?!?!
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
71,023
Reaction score
28,745
Points
2,290
Location
In a Republic, actually

Clyde 154

Gold Member
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
451
Points
208
First, let me say that I am adamantly opposed to the amending of the 1st amendment. I think our current way of doing it is far superior. And I would fight against the US adopting ANY official religion.

But the topic has been discussed in other threads, so I wanted to ask this question.
That is the purpose of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution....to forbid the federal congress from Establishing one religion in favor of another religion. The "Establishment Clause" established "Freedom of Religion" not freedom from religion.

Thomas Jefferson expressed the same logic and reason in addressing a letter from a Bapist Minister in Danbury. The preacher was concerned that the US federal government was going to adopt one religion in favor and in exclusion to all other religions. Jefferson did not address state sponsered churches but he assured the Bapist Minister that the Federal Government was forbidden by the 1st amendment "Establishment Clause" from endorsing on religion over another.

Some attempt to twist Jefferson's response as claiming there is a "Wall of Separation" between church and state.......which is absurd, with the US Government establishing the Chaplin Corp to serve its military members in July 1775......which has never been disbanded from that date forward to current......add the fact that every state constitution makes a reference to God. Jefferson was simply reasurring the people of Danbury that the federal government was expressly forbidden from Establishing Religion which results with THE PEOPLE/STATES having a guaranteed "freedom of religion". Jefferson never concluded that any state was forbidden from practicing what ever faith its people wanted to practice. Jefferson referenced only the Establishment Clause that is expressly forbids CONGRESS (the US Congress) from establishing religion.

The reason the 1st amendment exists is due to the fact European Governments were controlled by ONE RELGION from Rome.......this was the direct cause of the Protestant Movement that was the beginning of the establishment of the United States of America as THE PEOPLE made an exodus from the Government mandated religion found in Europe seeking religious freedom on the North American continent. All the early settlements came about from those seeking religious freedom.

That is the reason that the Freedom of Religion, Freedom to Assemble, and Freedom of the Press and Speech are all found in the State's Bill of Rights, also known as the 1st 10 amendments to the US Constitution. Not one of the States wanted a carbon copy that had existed in Europe where the state mandated what religion was acceptable and what religion was not acceptable.

Now you have supposed LIBERALS attempting to grant to the Fed's power and authority that the States Bill of Rights forbid the Feds from having......dictating to people that they are not free to exercise their religious faith in places paid for by TAX PAYER DOLLARS.
 

Vastator

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
19,017
Reaction score
6,204
Points
360
I doubt that any of the choices in the poll would take hold on a national level. Possibly a new sect of the religion which incorporates the constitution the founders wrote, the bill of rights, and possibly the canonization of certain founder, to form a newer, more relatable, and ultimately more popular cult.
 

sparky

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
23,846
Reaction score
10,741
Points
940
Location
paradise
I would fight just as hard against outlawing Christianity as I would against making this a theocracy.

Jefferson was simply reasurring the people of Danbury that the federal government was expressly forbidden from Establishing Religion which results with THE PEOPLE/STATES having a guaranteed "freedom of religion".


Freedom OF does not grant freedom FROM anything.....~S~
 
OP
WinterBorn

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
50,091
Reaction score
17,736
Points
2,260
Location
Atlanta
Freedom OF does not grant freedom FROM anything.....~S~

I guess it is a good thing the founding fathers wrote the 1st amendment the way that they did.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

That way we have freedom OF religion, and freedom FROM a state religion.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
13,993
Reaction score
1,015
Points
85
That is the purpose of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution....to forbid the federal congress from Establishing one religion in favor of another religion. The "Establishment Clause" established "Freedom of Religion" not freedom from religion.

Thomas Jefferson expressed the same logic and reason in addressing a letter from a Bapist Minister in Danbury. The preacher was concerned that the US federal government was going to adopt one religion in favor and in exclusion to all other religions. Jefferson did not address state sponsered churches but he assured the Bapist Minister that the Federal Government was forbidden by the 1st amendment "Establishment Clause" from endorsing on religion over another.

Some attempt to twist Jefferson's response as claiming there is a "Wall of Separation" between church and state.......which is absurd, with the US Government establishing the Chaplin Corp to serve its military members in July 1775......which has never been disbanded from that date forward to current......add the fact that every state constitution makes a reference to God. Jefferson was simply reasurring the people of Danbury that the federal government was expressly forbidden from Establishing Religion which results with THE PEOPLE/STATES having a guaranteed "freedom of religion". Jefferson never concluded that any state was forbidden from practicing what ever faith its people wanted to practice. Jefferson referenced only the Establishment Clause that is expressly forbids CONGRESS (the US Congress) from establishing religion.

The reason the 1st amendment exists is due to the fact European Governments were controlled by ONE RELGION from Rome.......this was the direct cause of the Protestant Movement that was the beginning of the establishment of the United States of America as THE PEOPLE made an exodus from the Government mandated religion found in Europe seeking religious freedom on the North American continent. All the early settlements came about from those seeking religious freedom.

That is the reason that the Freedom of Religion, Freedom to Assemble, and Freedom of the Press and Speech are all found in the State's Bill of Rights, also known as the 1st 10 amendments to the US Constitution. Not one of the States wanted a carbon copy that had existed in Europe where the state mandated what religion was acceptable and what religion was not acceptable.

Now you have supposed LIBERALS attempting to grant to the Fed's power and authority that the States Bill of Rights forbid the Feds from having......dictating to people that they are not free to exercise their religious faith in places paid for by TAX PAYER DOLLARS.

have you ever read the 1st amendment ...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

no where is freedom - of or against - religion mentioned and refers to - of religion - in general not specificity.

they deliberatly and knowingly had a bias aginst all religion, reflected in their amendment.
 

Clyde 154

Gold Member
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
451
Points
208
Freedom OF does not grant freedom FROM anything.....~S~
Exactly...........I wonder how the radical Supreme Court decided that "OF" was "FROM" and the STATES/PEOPLE was the government body that was denied the FREEDOM "TO" ESTABLISH relgion as they see fit? Either they are dumber than rocks or they have changed the words (void of any authority of representation) of the 1st amendment, basically legislating law that did not exist prior to their OPINION becoming law.

Definning OF as FROM is the only method that could erect a wall of separation "in the states/people" local and state governments........who are free to establish what religion they wish to endorse. Jefferson could speak only as the federal representative that he was.....as stated in his letter to Danbury......the president does not hold the authority to LEGISLATE LAW, just as the legislative branch does not have the authority to ESTABLISH RELIGION.
 

konradv

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
35,284
Reaction score
9,334
Points
1,330
Location
Baltimore adjacent
Exactly...........I wonder how the radical Supreme Court decided that "OF" was "FROM" and the STATES/PEOPLE was the government body that was denied the FREEDOM "TO" ESTABLISH relgion as they see fit? Either they are dumber than rocks or they have changed the words (void of any authority of representation) of the 1st amendment, basically legislating law that did not exist prior to their OPINION becoming law.

Definning OF as FROM is the only method that could erect a wall of separation "in the states/people" local and state governments........who are free to establish what religion they wish to endorse. Jefferson could speak only as the federal representative that he was.....as stated in his letter to Danbury......the president does not hold the authority to LEGISLATE LAW, just as the legislative branch does not have the authority to ESTABLISH RELIGION.
You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion, unless you're OK with Muslims moving into your community and instituting shariah law. I'm positive, if something like that happened, the same people with the attitude above would be turning on a dime.
 

Clyde 154

Gold Member
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
451
Points
208
You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion, unless you're OK with Muslims moving into your community and instituting shariah law. I'm positive, if something like that happened, the same people with the attitude above would be turning on a dime.
Bigot Much? I'm OK with Muslims living in the Untied States as long as they abide by the laws established through this representative republic. Again........freedom "from" religion is a term that does not exist the 1st amendment. What kind of "oxymornic" statement compares OF to FROM? Of is a preposition that expresses a connection ....in the 1st amendment that connection is spelled out.......Of connects the religion of one's choice. On the other hand "From" is a prepostion that expresses separation.......if From was the intention of the 1st amendment there would be no Establishment Clause against the Federal Government in establishing a specific religion.

You are attempting to promote the same STATE AUTHORIZED BIGTORY that existed in Europe where the RCC controlled religion, that brought about the Protestant Reformation that eventually ended with the founding of this republic whose 1st amendment to the Constitution was a "guaranted" right to worship whatever god (or no god) you personally might claim to serve.

You have no right to tell anyone what religion they can practice as long as the common laws of the land are obeyed that protects others with the same right "OF" religious faith. This is not a Monarachy, Its not an Oligarchy, not a Parlimetary System of government.........we live in a Representative Constitutional Republic with the people/states having the right to make state and local laws as they see fit as long as these laws do not conflict with the standard that calibrates this Republic......the US Constitution (see Article 10 of the states bill of rights, which states that words not included in the Constitution belong to the states/people, not the federal court system).....

the Constitution is nothing but a contract among the states that places limits upon the scope and boundaries of a Central Government. The Constitution was not drafted to place limits upon THE PEOPLE but the federal government. Any changes to that source of calibrating law in this republic......must come through Amendment and a .75% ratification process......by a Supermajority, the constitution can't be amended by the Federal Court System.......as the Judicial Branch of Government is part of the same Federal Government that the Constitution was drafted to restrain from usurpinig power away from THE PEOPLE/STATES. When SCOTUS attempts to change OF to FROM.........it changes the very context of the 1st amendment without any REPRESENTATION FROM THE PEOPLE/STATES.

And what does the first article of the states bill of rights deal with? The establishment of religion at the federal level (that would include all the STATES is not authorized. Its called the Establishment Clause that places limits on the feds...and in the same sentence there is a guarantee "OF" religous freedom by THE PEOPLE/STATES........even Muslims are protected from Bigots.
 
Last edited:

konradv

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
35,284
Reaction score
9,334
Points
1,330
Location
Baltimore adjacent
Bigot Much? I'm OK with Muslims living in the Untied States as long as they abide by the laws established through this representative republic. Again........freedom "from" religion is a term that does not exist the 1st amendment. What kind of "oxymornic" statement compares OF to FROM? Of is a preposition that expresses a connection ....in the 1st amendment that connection is spelled out.......Of connects the religion of one's choice. On the other hand "From" is a prepostion that expresses separation.......if From was the intention of the 1st amendment there would be no Establishment Clause agains the Federal Government from establishing religion.

You are attempting to promote the same STATE AUTHORIZED BIGTORY that brought about the Protestant Reformation that eventually ended with the founding of this republic whose 1st amendment to the Constitution was a "guaranted" right to worship whatever god (or no god) you personally might claim to serve.

You have no right to tell anyone what religion they can practice as long as the common laws of the land are obeyed that protects others with the same right "OF" religious faith. This is not a Monarachy, Its not an Oligarchy, not a Parlimetary System of government.........we live in a Representative Constitutional Republic with the people/states having the right to make state and local laws as they see fit as long as these laws do not conflict with the standard that calibrates this Republic......the US Constitution.....which is nothing but a contract among the states that places limits upon the scope and boundaries of a Central Government. The Constitution was not drafted to place limits upon THE PEOPLE but the federal government.

And what does the first article of the states bill of rights deal with? The establishment of religion at the federal level (that would include all the STATES is not authorized. Its called the Establishment Clause that places limits on the feds...and in the same sentence there is a guarantee "OF" religous freedom........even Muslims are protected from Bigots.
How is asking to be protected from a religion "bigotry"? Are you saying the people have no right to prosecute pedophile priests because they represent a religion? If you do think we have such an interest, where do you draw the line? I'm not saying anything about people's practices, but rather the imposition of those practices on others.
 

Vastator

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
19,017
Reaction score
6,204
Points
360
Bigot Much? I'm OK with Muslims living in the Untied States as long as they abide by the laws established through this representative republic. Again........freedom "from" religion is a term that does not exist the 1st amendment. What kind of "oxymornic" statement compares OF to FROM? Of is a preposition that expresses a connection ....in the 1st amendment that connection is spelled out.......Of connects the religion of one's choice. On the other hand "From" is a prepostion that expresses separation.......if From was the intention of the 1st amendment there would be no Establishment Clause against the Federal Government in establishing a specific religion.

You are attempting to promote the same STATE AUTHORIZED BIGTORY that existed in Europe where the RCC controlled religion, that brought about the Protestant Reformation that eventually ended with the founding of this republic whose 1st amendment to the Constitution was a "guaranted" right to worship whatever god (or no god) you personally might claim to serve.

You have no right to tell anyone what religion they can practice as long as the common laws of the land are obeyed that protects others with the same right "OF" religious faith. This is not a Monarachy, Its not an Oligarchy, not a Parlimetary System of government.........we live in a Representative Constitutional Republic with the people/states having the right to make state and local laws as they see fit as long as these laws do not conflict with the standard that calibrates this Republic......the US Constitution (see Article 10 of the states bill of rights, which states that words not included in the Constitution belong to the states/people, not the federal court system).....

the Constitution is nothing but a contract among the states that places limits upon the scope and boundaries of a Central Government. The Constitution was not drafted to place limits upon THE PEOPLE but the federal government. Any changes to that source of calibrating law in this republic......must come through Amendment and a .75% ratification process......by a Supermajority, the constitution can't be amended by the Federal Court System.......as the Judicial Branch of Government is part of the same Federal Government that the Constitution was drafted to restrain from usurpinig power away from THE PEOPLE/STATES. When SCOTUS attempts to change OF to FROM.........it changes the very context of the 1st amendment without any REPRESENTATION FROM THE PEOPLE/STATES.

And what does the first article of the states bill of rights deal with? The establishment of religion at the federal level (that would include all the STATES is not authorized. Its called the Establishment Clause that places limits on the feds...and in the same sentence there is a guarantee "OF" religous freedom by THE PEOPLE/STATES........even Muslims are protected from Bigots.
That contract that limits the Feferal government influence upon states has been shattered. Religion be damned.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
13,993
Reaction score
1,015
Points
85
That contract that limits the Feferal government influence upon states has been shattered. Religion be damned.

it's called the civil war - 14th amendment - cry a river ... its not changing anytime too soon.

- except by the present, phony - scotus. if they can. by deception, their calling card.
 

Clyde 154

Gold Member
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
451
Points
208
How is asking to be protected from a religion "bigotry"? Are you saying the people have no right to prosecute pedophile priests because they represent a religion? If you do think we have such an interest, where do you draw the line? I'm not saying anything about people's practices, but rather the imposition of those practices on others.
What? You are not an agent of "Free Will".........? :dunno: Someone of another faith can force you to accept their faith and still abide by the common laws of this Republic? You are FREE......to choose what religion you wish, just as others have FREEDOM "OF" religion. That is the very point of the 1st amendment.......there can be NO LAW that demands you to accept a faith that you do not wish to accept. What more do you want to be protected from another religion.....its a guaranteed right as defined by this Consitutional Republic's Bill of Rights?

If you fear those of another faith.......are you sure you are serving the correct God? You have no need to fear, God watches over His people. (Luke 12:22-33) The only 1 you should fear is He that can cut your soul asunder. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter; Fear God and keep "HIS COMMANDMENTS", for this is the duty of man." -- Eccl. 12:13 "Fear not them that can kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." -- Matthew 10:28

This reminds me of and old Axiom by Ben Franklin; Those that would give up freedom for safety, deserve neither. You want to take another's right of religious freedom to comfort your personal fear? I am more than grateful for the freedom's that we enjoy in this republic. Why do you assume the world continues to flood the US by migrating here? Its for those very freedom's that you would deny to others. Your rights end at the threshold of were mine rights to the same begin.
 
Last edited:

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top