Religious Training In Public School?

[Ringtone]

Pay for your own brainwashing. Kids who aren’t christian don’t need to be brainwashed with Christian dogma in school.
Unless if course they’re going to be taught Jewish or Buddhist or other beliefs.

no doubt that would still make christofascisrs happy

View attachment 431119

So now you're admitting that brain washing is taking place in the public schools.

Perhaps it's time to make sure it's only reading, writing, and arithmetic that's taught there since that's all a child really needs.

*****SMILE*****

The very existence of the public education system sans universal academic choice is unconstitutional. Your notion is to impose yet another collective—one size fits all—pedagogic regime on individuals in violation of the imperatives of natural law.

View attachment 435163

Imposing a one sided political theme to their teaching is also a violation of individual rights.

*****SMILE*****

What in the world is a one-sided political theme, and what does your assertion, whatever is, have to do with me given that I'm a classical liberal, a Lockean of natural law and unbridled individual liberty?

 

[Ringtone]

The religious right has shown they will back any despot like Trump and love him like the messiah..

Even though their alleged religious beliefs tell them to beware of false messiahs

Trust none of what you hear and less of what you see. Wisdom comes from other places besides "religious leaders." I grew up in Jersey in the 60s, and, as a teenager I traded the wooden pews of the local Catholic church for the benches of Quaker meeting and a whole different meaning of the Christian faith.

Yup.

Facts are facts.



1.Many make the mistake of believing that religion is not allowed to be imparted, imposed, authorized, or even allowed, in public school. There could hardly be a greater misapprehension! Only one religion is strictly forbidden, and punished when observed, and that is the religion of our Founders, the Judeo-Christian faith.
Consulting the Merriam-Webster Dictionary will inform as to the definition of religion, including “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”
Most graduates of government school leave with a deep and abiding faith, one that is infused in school. It is a fairly recent version, Militant Secularism.



2. Faith is defined as complete trust or confidence in someone or something, and Faith is the key in understanding what a religion is.
And faith requires no proof or objective explanation. The simple proof that Militant Secularism is such a faith, simply ask any adherent….they will admit that they are if you use the phrase ‘Democrat’ in place of ‘Militant Secularist’…..to explain/defend several of the policies they voted for, and you will quickly ascertain that Democrats vote based on faith.

As questioning ones faith is not encouraged, most Democrats are unaware of their own conversion, and the less perceptive may even deny that they are of the religious cult of Militant Secularism.
Not even certain which of the denominations they belong to: communism, Fascism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism or socialism.

[You may try to suddenly ask “have you accepted the nomenklatura as your lord and savior?”]




3. In any case, the old saying, “reality is defined by actions, not by words” applies. Admitting membership or not, they behave as Militant Secularists.
Let’s see where that takes us. To begin, keep in mind that ‘power over others’ is a sacrament of the faith, and this translates to the need to erase the other religion from the public space.


4. “Militant Secularists On The March: Pushing To Dominate A Biden Administration’s Agenda Trump appointees were harassed for their Christian views — now the Left is looking to actively reverse all the religious freedom gains that Trump’s administration fought for.

Now, they are looking forward to the resumption of duties by the same partisans who fought literal nuns all the way to the Supreme Court over a birth control mandate and fought hard to rescind the religious refugee status granted to the Romeike family.

Believing they now have allies in positions of power, the militant secularists are now on the march, demanding a rollback of that emphasis on religious freedom protections."
Militant Secularists On The March: Pushing To Dominate A Biden Administration's Agenda



It hardly seems fair that only their religion deserves the protections of the Constitution, protections that they have worked assiduously to wear away.
But.....'fair' isn't a requirement of Militant Secularism.

Mark 12:17

God's portion is the unbridled individual liberty of self-determination and free-association.

 

[alang1216]

More nonsensical than usual. You're saying that 'they' vote for policies regardless of what 'phrase' you wish to put in front of it? That sounds like reason and not what you espouse, faith in an ideology.

Faith is an ideology?! What's that supposed to mean?

It may mean reading is not your strong suit since I actually wrote "faith in an ideology". Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[anotherlife]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

There is not an improvement in laws by secular society for the past 300 years, in fact there is a rapid degeneration.

Churches were frequently turned into businesses of warlords , I agree. But democratic institutions and secular authorities degenerate even faster because they don't fear a higher power.

I would have to disagree about improvement in laws by secular society in the last 300 years. Secular society has allowed laws to flex and adjust as society has evolved. We can go through a list of those who ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma. It was the church and their inflexible dogma that allowed for many of the horrors to be leveled at humanity.

Not very many astronomers being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse these days. Not many old women being burned at the stake for witchcraft, either.

On the other hand, we see the positive results of representative democracy, when free of oppressive religious institutions, being able to advance societies which was impossible during the Dark Ages in Europe under the Christian church.

There is no freedom in democracy. The only thing that a secular democracy does is making your neighbor report you for whatever other than theology. If you are reported for theology then you may find God grace. Otherwise no. So democracy is that much worse. And by the way the witchcraft prosecutions were black witches prosecuting white witches through institutional authority.

 

[Ringtone]

More nonsensical than usual. You're saying that 'they' vote for policies regardless of what 'phrase' you wish to put in front of it? That sounds like reason and not what you espouse, faith in an ideology.

Faith is an ideology?! What's that supposed to mean?

It may mean reading is not your strong suit since I actually wrote "faith in an ideology". Makes perfect sense to me.

Well, we both know that's not true given my obvious intelligence. Rather, as we both know, my question demonstrates that I merely misread your post. Okay. So are you saying that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, and if so, why?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. “A Democratic group dedicated to representing secular values unveiled a slate of recommendations for President-elect Joe Biden’s incoming administration on Monday (Nov. 30), outlining a sweeping agenda designed to roll back many of President Trump’s actions involving religion and to “restore a vision of constitutional secularism.”



The 28-page document, crafted by the Secular Democrats of America PAC, is being presented to the incoming administration by Democratic Representatives Jamie Raskin and Jared Huffman — both co-chairs of the Congressional Freethought Caucus.” Militant Secularists On The March: Pushing To Dominate A Biden Administration's Agenda



Can you imagine how blind and tone-deaf the above posters who denied there membership in the reverse-religion, Militant Secularism, are????



6. Those who read the prescient Orwell novel, ‘1984,’ are familiar with the concept of ‘Newspeak’… propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings (Merriam-Webster) and, so, are not surprised by the Democrat Militant Secularist’s use of the word ‘Freethought’ meaning the very opposite.



It is almost humorous coming from the folks who created the concept of ‘Hate Speech.’

No indoctrination here.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so incredibly disastrous for all of us. And all the while leftists are perfectly happy to sacrifice the minds of their children on the altar of Baal.

Home school family, here.

 

[Ringtone]

5. “A Democratic group dedicated to representing secular values unveiled a slate of recommendations for President-elect Joe Biden’s incoming administration on Monday (Nov. 30), outlining a sweeping agenda designed to roll back many of President Trump’s actions involving religion and to “restore a vision of constitutional secularism.”



The 28-page document, crafted by the Secular Democrats of America PAC, is being presented to the incoming administration by Democratic Representatives Jamie Raskin and Jared Huffman — both co-chairs of the Congressional Freethought Caucus.” Militant Secularists On The March: Pushing To Dominate A Biden Administration's Agenda



Can you imagine how blind and tone-deaf the above posters who denied there membership in the reverse-religion, Militant Secularism, are????



6. Those who read the prescient Orwell novel, ‘1984,’ are familiar with the concept of ‘Newspeak’… propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings (Merriam-Webster) and, so, are not surprised by the Democrat Militant Secularist’s use of the word ‘Freethought’ meaning the very opposite.



It is almost humorous coming from the folks who created the concept of ‘Hate Speech.’

No indoctrination here.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so incredibly disastrous for all of us. And all the while leftists are perfectly happy to sacrifice the minds of their children on the altar of Baal.

Home school family, here.

Me too. But then we, my wife and I, pay twice to educate our children once.

 

[Hollie]

Well, we both know that's not true given my obvious intelligence.

Your intelligence is obvious? Not to anyone who has read your pointless prattle.

 

[Hollie]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

There is not an improvement in laws by secular society for the past 300 years, in fact there is a rapid degeneration.

Churches were frequently turned into businesses of warlords , I agree. But democratic institutions and secular authorities degenerate even faster because they don't fear a higher power.

I would have to disagree about improvement in laws by secular society in the last 300 years. Secular society has allowed laws to flex and adjust as society has evolved. We can go through a list of those who ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma. It was the church and their inflexible dogma that allowed for many of the horrors to be leveled at humanity.

Not very many astronomers being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse these days. Not many old women being burned at the stake for witchcraft, either.

On the other hand, we see the positive results of representative democracy, when free of oppressive religious institutions, being able to advance societies which was impossible during the Dark Ages in Europe under the Christian church.

There is no freedom in democracy. The only thing that a secular democracy does is making your neighbor report you for whatever other than theology. If you are reported for theology then you may find God grace. Otherwise no. So democracy is that much worse. And by the way the witchcraft prosecutions were black witches prosecuting white witches through institutional authority.

I believe “no freedom in democracy” is incorrect. Historically, it has been religious authoritarianism which has oppressed populations. Unfortunately, it is the fundie Christian who believes that theocratic totalitarianism is the natural alternative to the secular institutions of Western representative democracy. How do you reconcile the ascendancy of the West and its representative democracy, largely being shaped around the principles of equal rights, personal freedoms and personal responsibility vs. the history of Dark Age Europe and Islamic majority nations that are based upon the principles of derision, learned hatreds and promotion of fear societies?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. “A Democratic group dedicated to representing secular values unveiled a slate of recommendations for President-elect Joe Biden’s incoming administration on Monday (Nov. 30), outlining a sweeping agenda designed to roll back many of President Trump’s actions involving religion and to “restore a vision of constitutional secularism.”



The 28-page document, crafted by the Secular Democrats of America PAC, is being presented to the incoming administration by Democratic Representatives Jamie Raskin and Jared Huffman — both co-chairs of the Congressional Freethought Caucus.” Militant Secularists On The March: Pushing To Dominate A Biden Administration's Agenda



Can you imagine how blind and tone-deaf the above posters who denied there membership in the reverse-religion, Militant Secularism, are????



6. Those who read the prescient Orwell novel, ‘1984,’ are familiar with the concept of ‘Newspeak’… propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings (Merriam-Webster) and, so, are not surprised by the Democrat Militant Secularist’s use of the word ‘Freethought’ meaning the very opposite.



It is almost humorous coming from the folks who created the concept of ‘Hate Speech.’

No indoctrination here.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so incredibly disastrous for all of us. And all the while leftists are perfectly happy to sacrifice the minds of their children on the altar of Baal.

Home school family, here.

Me too. But then we, my wife and I, pay twice to educate our children once.

Of course, we do as well.

But if it were up to the Democrats, they would outlaw homeschooling.

 

[anotherlife]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

There is not an improvement in laws by secular society for the past 300 years, in fact there is a rapid degeneration.

Churches were frequently turned into businesses of warlords , I agree. But democratic institutions and secular authorities degenerate even faster because they don't fear a higher power.

I would have to disagree about improvement in laws by secular society in the last 300 years. Secular society has allowed laws to flex and adjust as society has evolved. We can go through a list of those who ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma. It was the church and their inflexible dogma that allowed for many of the horrors to be leveled at humanity.

Not very many astronomers being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse these days. Not many old women being burned at the stake for witchcraft, either.

On the other hand, we see the positive results of representative democracy, when free of oppressive religious institutions, being able to advance societies which was impossible during the Dark Ages in Europe under the Christian church.

There is no freedom in democracy. The only thing that a secular democracy does is making your neighbor report you for whatever other than theology. If you are reported for theology then you may find God grace. Otherwise no. So democracy is that much worse. And by the way the witchcraft prosecutions were black witches prosecuting white witches through institutional authority.

I believe “no freedom in democracy” is incorrect. Historically, it has been religious authoritarianism which has oppressed populations. Unfortunately, it is the fundie Christian who believes that theocratic totalitarianism is the natural alternative to the secular institutions of Western representative democracy. How do you reconcile the ascendancy of the West and its representative democracy, largely being shaped around the principles of equal rights, personal freedoms and personal responsibility vs. the history of Dark Age Europe and Islamic majority nations that are based upon the principles of derision, learned hatreds and promotion of fear societies?

The secular west has a well oiled propaganda machine, those things that you write as achievements by the western secular societies are farcical.

Life is much more tightly controlled in secular western democracies than they were during the medieval ages or in Islamic countries or in Africa today.

 

[Ringtone]

5. “A Democratic group dedicated to representing secular values unveiled a slate of recommendations for President-elect Joe Biden’s incoming administration on Monday (Nov. 30), outlining a sweeping agenda designed to roll back many of President Trump’s actions involving religion and to “restore a vision of constitutional secularism.”



The 28-page document, crafted by the Secular Democrats of America PAC, is being presented to the incoming administration by Democratic Representatives Jamie Raskin and Jared Huffman — both co-chairs of the Congressional Freethought Caucus.” Militant Secularists On The March: Pushing To Dominate A Biden Administration's Agenda



Can you imagine how blind and tone-deaf the above posters who denied there membership in the reverse-religion, Militant Secularism, are????



6. Those who read the prescient Orwell novel, ‘1984,’ are familiar with the concept of ‘Newspeak’… propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings (Merriam-Webster) and, so, are not surprised by the Democrat Militant Secularist’s use of the word ‘Freethought’ meaning the very opposite.



It is almost humorous coming from the folks who created the concept of ‘Hate Speech.’

No indoctrination here.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so incredibly disastrous for all of us. And all the while leftists are perfectly happy to sacrifice the minds of their children on the altar of Baal.

Home school family, here.

Me too. But then we, my wife and I, pay twice to educate our children once.

Of course, we do as well.

But if it were up to the Democrats, they would outlaw homeschooling.

Yep! They're systematically trying to do just that in blue states especially. California is the worst, in my opinion, which is why I moved my family and business from San Diego to Arizona several years ago.

 

[Ringtone]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

There is not an improvement in laws by secular society for the past 300 years, in fact there is a rapid degeneration.

Churches were frequently turned into businesses of warlords , I agree. But democratic institutions and secular authorities degenerate even faster because they don't fear a higher power.

I would have to disagree about improvement in laws by secular society in the last 300 years. Secular society has allowed laws to flex and adjust as society has evolved. We can go through a list of those who ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma. It was the church and their inflexible dogma that allowed for many of the horrors to be leveled at humanity.

Not very many astronomers being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse these days. Not many old women being burned at the stake for witchcraft, either.

On the other hand, we see the positive results of representative democracy, when free of oppressive religious institutions, being able to advance societies which was impossible during the Dark Ages in Europe under the Christian church.

There is no freedom in democracy. The only thing that a secular democracy does is making your neighbor report you for whatever other than theology. If you are reported for theology then you may find God grace. Otherwise no. So democracy is that much worse. And by the way the witchcraft prosecutions were black witches prosecuting white witches through institutional authority.

I believe “no freedom in democracy” is incorrect. Historically, it has been religious authoritarianism which has oppressed populations. Unfortunately, it is the fundie Christian who believes that theocratic totalitarianism is the natural alternative to the secular institutions of Western representative democracy. How do you reconcile the ascendancy of the West and its representative democracy, largely being shaped around the principles of equal rights, personal freedoms and personal responsibility vs. the history of Dark Age Europe and Islamic majority nations that are based upon the principles of derision, learned hatreds and promotion of fear societies?

Statist Bootlick Alert!

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. “A Democratic group dedicated to representing secular values unveiled a slate of recommendations for President-elect Joe Biden’s incoming administration on Monday (Nov. 30), outlining a sweeping agenda designed to roll back many of President Trump’s actions involving religion and to “restore a vision of constitutional secularism.”



The 28-page document, crafted by the Secular Democrats of America PAC, is being presented to the incoming administration by Democratic Representatives Jamie Raskin and Jared Huffman — both co-chairs of the Congressional Freethought Caucus.” Militant Secularists On The March: Pushing To Dominate A Biden Administration's Agenda



Can you imagine how blind and tone-deaf the above posters who denied there membership in the reverse-religion, Militant Secularism, are????



6. Those who read the prescient Orwell novel, ‘1984,’ are familiar with the concept of ‘Newspeak’… propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings (Merriam-Webster) and, so, are not surprised by the Democrat Militant Secularist’s use of the word ‘Freethought’ meaning the very opposite.



It is almost humorous coming from the folks who created the concept of ‘Hate Speech.’

No indoctrination here.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so incredibly disastrous for all of us. And all the while leftists are perfectly happy to sacrifice the minds of their children on the altar of Baal.

Home school family, here.

Me too. But then we, my wife and I, pay twice to educate our children once.

Of course, we do as well.

But if it were up to the Democrats, they would outlaw homeschooling.

Yep! They're systematically trying to do just that in blue states especially. California is the worst, in my opinion, which is why I moved my family and business from San Diego to Arizona several years ago.

Just one point, for clarity.

Peripheral to your point, but may I vent on this point.....the 'color of states' thing is like fingernails on a blackboard to me.

We are blue, they are red.



Red is traditionally associated with socialism and communism. The oldest symbol of socialism (and, by extension, communism) is the Red Flag, which dates back to the revolutions of 1848. The colour red was chosen to represent the blood of the workers who died in the struggle against capitalism. All major socialist and communist alliances and organisations – including the First, Second, and Third Internationals – used red as their official colour. The association between the colour red and communism is particularly strong. Communists use red much more often and more extensively than other ideologies use their respective traditional colours.

In the United States, since the year 2000, the mass media have associated red with the Republican Party, despite the fact that the Republican Party is a conservative-leaning party. Since at least 2010, the party has adopted an all red logo.
Political colour - Wikipedia





"The choice of colors in this divide is counter-intuitive to many international observers, as throughout the world, red is commonly the designated color for parties representing labor, socialist, and/or liberal interests [5] [6], which in the United States would be more closely correlated with the Democratic Party. Similarly, blue is used in these countries to depict conservative parties which in the case of the United States would be a color more suitable for the Republicans. For example, in Canada party colors are deeply ingrained and historic and have been unchanged during the Twentieth Century. Red states and blue states - Wikipedia







The Democrats should be Gray….reminiscent of the outfits they wore when they were the Confederacy, and we’re Blue….the color we wore when we pried their slaves away from them.

Justice will not be on the upswing until the true color scheme is put back in place.

 

[Hollie]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

There is not an improvement in laws by secular society for the past 300 years, in fact there is a rapid degeneration.

Churches were frequently turned into businesses of warlords , I agree. But democratic institutions and secular authorities degenerate even faster because they don't fear a higher power.

I would have to disagree about improvement in laws by secular society in the last 300 years. Secular society has allowed laws to flex and adjust as society has evolved. We can go through a list of those who ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma. It was the church and their inflexible dogma that allowed for many of the horrors to be leveled at humanity.

Not very many astronomers being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse these days. Not many old women being burned at the stake for witchcraft, either.

On the other hand, we see the positive results of representative democracy, when free of oppressive religious institutions, being able to advance societies which was impossible during the Dark Ages in Europe under the Christian church.

There is no freedom in democracy. The only thing that a secular democracy does is making your neighbor report you for whatever other than theology. If you are reported for theology then you may find God grace. Otherwise no. So democracy is that much worse. And by the way the witchcraft prosecutions were black witches prosecuting white witches through institutional authority.

I believe “no freedom in democracy” is incorrect. Historically, it has been religious authoritarianism which has oppressed populations. Unfortunately, it is the fundie Christian who believes that theocratic totalitarianism is the natural alternative to the secular institutions of Western representative democracy. How do you reconcile the ascendancy of the West and its representative democracy, largely being shaped around the principles of equal rights, personal freedoms and personal responsibility vs. the history of Dark Age Europe and Islamic majority nations that are based upon the principles of derision, learned hatreds and promotion of fear societies?

Statist Bootlick Alert!

The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe has hurt feelings.

 

[Ringtone]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

There is not an improvement in laws by secular society for the past 300 years, in fact there is a rapid degeneration.

Churches were frequently turned into businesses of warlords , I agree. But democratic institutions and secular authorities degenerate even faster because they don't fear a higher power.

I would have to disagree about improvement in laws by secular society in the last 300 years. Secular society has allowed laws to flex and adjust as society has evolved. We can go through a list of those who ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma. It was the church and their inflexible dogma that allowed for many of the horrors to be leveled at humanity.

Not very many astronomers being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse these days. Not many old women being burned at the stake for witchcraft, either.

On the other hand, we see the positive results of representative democracy, when free of oppressive religious institutions, being able to advance societies which was impossible during the Dark Ages in Europe under the Christian church.

There is no freedom in democracy. The only thing that a secular democracy does is making your neighbor report you for whatever other than theology. If you are reported for theology then you may find God grace. Otherwise no. So democracy is that much worse. And by the way the witchcraft prosecutions were black witches prosecuting white witches through institutional authority.

I believe “no freedom in democracy” is incorrect. Historically, it has been religious authoritarianism which has oppressed populations. Unfortunately, it is the fundie Christian who believes that theocratic totalitarianism is the natural alternative to the secular institutions of Western representative democracy. How do you reconcile the ascendancy of the West and its representative democracy, largely being shaped around the principles of equal rights, personal freedoms and personal responsibility vs. the history of Dark Age Europe and Islamic majority nations that are based upon the principles of derision, learned hatreds and promotion of fear societies?

Statist Bootlick Alert!

The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe has hurt feelings.

Hollie of US Message Board

 

[Hollie]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

There is not an improvement in laws by secular society for the past 300 years, in fact there is a rapid degeneration.

Churches were frequently turned into businesses of warlords , I agree. But democratic institutions and secular authorities degenerate even faster because they don't fear a higher power.

I would have to disagree about improvement in laws by secular society in the last 300 years. Secular society has allowed laws to flex and adjust as society has evolved. We can go through a list of those who ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma. It was the church and their inflexible dogma that allowed for many of the horrors to be leveled at humanity.

Not very many astronomers being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse these days. Not many old women being burned at the stake for witchcraft, either.

On the other hand, we see the positive results of representative democracy, when free of oppressive religious institutions, being able to advance societies which was impossible during the Dark Ages in Europe under the Christian church.

There is no freedom in democracy. The only thing that a secular democracy does is making your neighbor report you for whatever other than theology. If you are reported for theology then you may find God grace. Otherwise no. So democracy is that much worse. And by the way the witchcraft prosecutions were black witches prosecuting white witches through institutional authority.

I believe “no freedom in democracy” is incorrect. Historically, it has been religious authoritarianism which has oppressed populations. Unfortunately, it is the fundie Christian who believes that theocratic totalitarianism is the natural alternative to the secular institutions of Western representative democracy. How do you reconcile the ascendancy of the West and its representative democracy, largely being shaped around the principles of equal rights, personal freedoms and personal responsibility vs. the history of Dark Age Europe and Islamic majority nations that are based upon the principles of derision, learned hatreds and promotion of fear societies?

The secular west has a well oiled propaganda machine, those things that you write as achievements by the western secular societies are farcical.

Life is much more tightly controlled in secular western democracies than they were during the medieval ages or in Islamic countries or in Africa today.

I wouldn't agree. The achievements I noted are in large part because our secular governments have put a muzzle on religion. Freedom from religion is a central theme in the US Constitution. We see clearly in threads like this one that if the xtian Taliban had their way, we would be different from an Islamic Middle Eastern hell hole in terms of only the kinds of robes worn by the ruling Mullahs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

There is not an improvement in laws by secular society for the past 300 years, in fact there is a rapid degeneration.

Churches were frequently turned into businesses of warlords , I agree. But democratic institutions and secular authorities degenerate even faster because they don't fear a higher power.

I would have to disagree about improvement in laws by secular society in the last 300 years. Secular society has allowed laws to flex and adjust as society has evolved. We can go through a list of those who ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma. It was the church and their inflexible dogma that allowed for many of the horrors to be leveled at humanity.

Not very many astronomers being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse these days. Not many old women being burned at the stake for witchcraft, either.

On the other hand, we see the positive results of representative democracy, when free of oppressive religious institutions, being able to advance societies which was impossible during the Dark Ages in Europe under the Christian church.

There is no freedom in democracy. The only thing that a secular democracy does is making your neighbor report you for whatever other than theology. If you are reported for theology then you may find God grace. Otherwise no. So democracy is that much worse. And by the way the witchcraft prosecutions were black witches prosecuting white witches through institutional authority.

I believe “no freedom in democracy” is incorrect. Historically, it has been religious authoritarianism which has oppressed populations. Unfortunately, it is the fundie Christian who believes that theocratic totalitarianism is the natural alternative to the secular institutions of Western representative democracy. How do you reconcile the ascendancy of the West and its representative democracy, largely being shaped around the principles of equal rights, personal freedoms and personal responsibility vs. the history of Dark Age Europe and Islamic majority nations that are based upon the principles of derision, learned hatreds and promotion of fear societies?

Statist Bootlick Alert!

The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe has hurt feelings.

Hollie of US Message Board
View attachment 435237

Remember when she boiled the rabbit?

 

[Hollie]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

There is not an improvement in laws by secular society for the past 300 years, in fact there is a rapid degeneration.

Churches were frequently turned into businesses of warlords , I agree. But democratic institutions and secular authorities degenerate even faster because they don't fear a higher power.

I would have to disagree about improvement in laws by secular society in the last 300 years. Secular society has allowed laws to flex and adjust as society has evolved. We can go through a list of those who ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma. It was the church and their inflexible dogma that allowed for many of the horrors to be leveled at humanity.

Not very many astronomers being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse these days. Not many old women being burned at the stake for witchcraft, either.

On the other hand, we see the positive results of representative democracy, when free of oppressive religious institutions, being able to advance societies which was impossible during the Dark Ages in Europe under the Christian church.

There is no freedom in democracy. The only thing that a secular democracy does is making your neighbor report you for whatever other than theology. If you are reported for theology then you may find God grace. Otherwise no. So democracy is that much worse. And by the way the witchcraft prosecutions were black witches prosecuting white witches through institutional authority.

I believe “no freedom in democracy” is incorrect. Historically, it has been religious authoritarianism which has oppressed populations. Unfortunately, it is the fundie Christian who believes that theocratic totalitarianism is the natural alternative to the secular institutions of Western representative democracy. How do you reconcile the ascendancy of the West and its representative democracy, largely being shaped around the principles of equal rights, personal freedoms and personal responsibility vs. the history of Dark Age Europe and Islamic majority nations that are based upon the principles of derision, learned hatreds and promotion of fear societies?

Statist Bootlick Alert!

The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe has hurt feelings.

Hollie of US Message Board
View attachment 435237

The xtian Taliban are so cute when they're on a gee-had.

 

[Hollie]

First global victory of the devil was the proud separation of church and state.

The second global victory of the devil is public schools.

Once you don't get the news that there is a Christ, or you reject Him, even if under peer pressure, your life will no longer be anything but running up a down escalator.

What better way to implement universal slavery than making you believe that it is your government that is God. Jesus rejected this in the desert.

But Stalin of the Soviet Union said that "the antichrists are the real enemies of socialism and we believe that we have to fight a real struggle against real enemies".

I don't see the lack of Christian madrassah in place of public schools as a detriment. Angry, hyper-religious types such as the OP and perhaps you see things differently but we have a model for the type of society that you may want and it's been given a name: the Dark Ages.

I'm less inclined to believe that Devils or other boogeymen achieved anything with implementation of public, secular school systems.


The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) (loc.gov)



"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

This is interesting. Socrates was sentenced to death / exile along the same lines too.

But what if truth is relative? Secular society seems to admit that. And in that case truth can have only two sources, good (God) and evil (the devil). It is then probably not a surprise that all religions suggest that all laws should come only from God and not a state.

I disagree that your versions of gods and devils exist. Therefore, I can't accept that there are exclusively two sources of truth.

I would generally agree that religions would prefer all laws come only from a God or gods and not from the state. It is in their respective interests, rather the interests of the religion's ruling class, to place the religion in a position of ultimate authority. That proscription was a disaster for Europe during the Dark Ages and similarly, a disaster for the Islamic Middle East, currently.

No because religions argue that laws should come from the grace of God and not anywhere else. Otherwise you generate sin, which is logical.

The medieval age was a true attempt at this indeed. But when modern age stopped it, we ended up with even worse situations.

Most notably, that the number of laws are now so high that nobody can even count them.

Humans are not created to function is such environment, demons are. This is why it was always safer to put legislation in the hands of churches rather than secular institutions.

Yes, religions want laws that the religions claim derive from their respective gods. So, how comfortable would you be if the laws here in the US came from the Hindu gods? I see nothing to suggest that the Christian gods are extant as opposed to the Hindu gods so that presents a problem. How comfortable would you be under the boot heel of Islam. The Islamic gods are alleged to be the same as the Christian gods (although the inventor of Islam has partnered himself with god), but the respective societies are clearly modeled upon vastly different ''truths''.

I would disagree that the Medieval age was an attempt at laws from the grace of the Christian god. At least in my opinion, it was the imposition of cruel, vicious and capricious rule by men who suppressed knowledge and learning because those elements were a threat to an institution of vast wealth and power.

There is not an improvement in laws by secular society for the past 300 years, in fact there is a rapid degeneration.

Churches were frequently turned into businesses of warlords , I agree. But democratic institutions and secular authorities degenerate even faster because they don't fear a higher power.

I would have to disagree about improvement in laws by secular society in the last 300 years. Secular society has allowed laws to flex and adjust as society has evolved. We can go through a list of those who ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma. It was the church and their inflexible dogma that allowed for many of the horrors to be leveled at humanity.

Not very many astronomers being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse these days. Not many old women being burned at the stake for witchcraft, either.

On the other hand, we see the positive results of representative democracy, when free of oppressive religious institutions, being able to advance societies which was impossible during the Dark Ages in Europe under the Christian church.

There is no freedom in democracy. The only thing that a secular democracy does is making your neighbor report you for whatever other than theology. If you are reported for theology then you may find God grace. Otherwise no. So democracy is that much worse. And by the way the witchcraft prosecutions were black witches prosecuting white witches through institutional authority.

I believe “no freedom in democracy” is incorrect. Historically, it has been religious authoritarianism which has oppressed populations. Unfortunately, it is the fundie Christian who believes that theocratic totalitarianism is the natural alternative to the secular institutions of Western representative democracy. How do you reconcile the ascendancy of the West and its representative democracy, largely being shaped around the principles of equal rights, personal freedoms and personal responsibility vs. the history of Dark Age Europe and Islamic majority nations that are based upon the principles of derision, learned hatreds and promotion of fear societies?

Statist Bootlick Alert!

The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe has hurt feelings.

Hollie of US Message Board
View attachment 435237

Remember when she boiled the rabbit?

Tag team hyper-religious cranks.