Trump and Evangelical religion pro's and con's. Should Religion even be involved in the election?

[TruthNotBS]

Later in life Jefferson wrote that we must follow "those moral rules which the Author of our being has implanted in man as the law of his nature to govern him in his associated, as well as individual character."21 That the natural rights of man came from God, in Jefferson's belief, was beyond doubt.

#winning

Time and time again, the biblical deity, commands for the feeding and housing of the hungry and indigent. Christian conservatives often forget that.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Oh, right, the left hates the public mention of the word "god"...unless it's followed by "damn America".

Enjoy losing. Again

 

[Luckyone]

Whichever. I think we both agree about what he's up to. Still not seeing how this has anything with my claim that Democrats want to force other people care for the poor.

As I stated before evidently you did not see it. The Democrats want to force everyone to carry their fair share of what a nation needs to have to be a nation for all, not just for the rich

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Later in life Jefferson wrote that we must follow "those moral rules which the Author of our being has implanted in man as the law of his nature to govern him in his associated, as well as individual character."21 That the natural rights of man came from God, in Jefferson's belief, was beyond doubt.

#winning

Jefferson also said that it does himself no injury if my neighbor says there are many gods or no god. In other words. It’s our neighbor’s natural right to be an atheist or a polytheist.


That is not compatible with any version of Christianity from Jefferson’s day to the present.

 

[struth]

I’m not saying you claimed it. I am saying the native Americans had no obligation to create a nation according to the European Church/State system of government.

I am telling you the divine rights of kings extending their right to rule over all mankind as was given to those families by the God of Abraham.had no moral or natural law authority to take the land from the inhabitants of the New World.

Let’s quit pretending that moral justification credit the success of the Christians from Europe who basically stole three Continents from the human beings who lived on them.

Native Americans and Americans don’t believe in the Devine right of kings

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Native Americans and Americans don’t believe in the Devine right of kings

The Puritans did. And they used that belief to justify stealing the land from its rightful Owners….. Native Americans.

And we have Saint ding over there, telling me that the God of the Puritans is the source of natural law which guarantees an equal right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness to all humans beings on earth,

I do not see how that God of Abraham can be the source for inalienable rights. everyone through His guidance to the Puritans who left Europe for North America in the early 1600s.

 

[dblack]

You don't have to care for the poor, but you will pay your taxes like everyone else. You can try to defund government programs that lift the poor, providing them with the resources that they need to survive and become productive members of society, but there will always be people that resist your efforts to do that, knowing that if such social ills are left unaddressed they lead to more serious and expensive problems for society.

Still doesn't address, nor deny, my claim. Democrats say they want to help the poor, but that's not all they want. If they're advocating for state welfare they want the government to force others to help the poor as well. That's the whole point.

The sad irony is that when we task government with helping people in need, it's not just the poor that get attention. Need is a subjective matter, and Congress has lots of "friends in need". Lots of wealthy friends in need.

There's a reason income disparity has ramped up alongside the expanding welfare state.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Still doesn't address, nor deny, my claim. Democrats claim they want to help the poor, but that's not all the want. If they're advocating for state welfare they want the government to force others to help the poor as well. That's the whole point.

The sad irony is that when we task government with helping people in need, it's not just the poor that get attention. Need is a subjective matter, and Congress has lots of "friends in need". Lots of wealthy friends in need.

There's a reason income disparity has ramped up along side the expanding welfare state.

If the government protected the rights and served the needs of the working class, we wouldn't have poverty in America, and everyone able to work, would be gainfully employed but unfortunately the right-wingers get in the way of the government providing services to the public and developing our nation's infrastructure, hence the poverty and welfare checks.

 

[dblack]

If the government protected the rights and served the needs of the working class, we wouldn't have poverty in America, and everyone able to work, would be gainfully employed but unfortunately the right-wingers get in the way of the government providing services to the public and developing our nation's infrastructure, hence the poverty and welfare checks.

I think Trump is leaning your way. Populism almost always devolves to "free shit".

 

[Picaro]

Do you think Christians don't vote are aren't politically-active?

The agenda for the left is to criminalize Christianity the same way they do in Red China. a lot of the right wing 'social Darwinists' love that idea, too, and of course so do all the multi-national corporations leadership class. They get in the way of a lot of agendas favored by sociopaths and perverts.

 

[struth]

The Puritans did. And they used that belief to justify stealing the land from its rightful Owners….. Native Americans.

And we have Saint ding over there, telling me that the God of the Puritans is the source of natural law which guarantees an equal right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness to all humans beings on earth,

I do not see how that God of Abraham can be the source for inalienable rights. everyone through His guidance to the Puritans who left Europe for North America in the early 1600s.

A lot of early settlees like the puritans did, they were British subjects. Much like Canadians today. Thankfully they grew out of that here, and became Americans

 

[TruthNotBS]

I think Trump is leaning your way. Populism almost always devolves to "free shit".

None of it is unearned or unnecessary, so your "free shit" argument is at best, disingenuous and shortsighted.

 

[Doc7505]

??? Is Biden or Harris using religion as a tool to win the election?

I think not, so your post is useless and on top of that, you did not answer the questions put forth in the OP!

~~~~~~
It appears that Joey has spoken in Black Baptist churches, Synagogues' to gather votes claiming that he is a regular

 

[ding]

Jefferson also said that it does himself no injury if my neighbor says there are many gods or no god. In other words. It’s our neighbor’s natural right to be an atheist or a polytheist.


That is not compatible with any version of Christianity from Jefferson’s day to the present.

His fellow Virginians were ready to join in asserting that our rights came from "the great Author of nature, '22 which assertion was simply sharing in such a view held by practically all of our Revolutionary leaders. Typically, John Adams wrote in his Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, "I say RIGHTS, for such they have,undoubtedly, antecedent to all earthly government,-Rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws-Rights, derived from the great Legislator of the universe."23 A later Virginian, John Randolph Tucker, outstanding authority on constitutional rights, nicely emphasized how our Founding Fathers understood that our natural rights and liberties come from God. Tucker wrote: "Liberty, which means this exclusive right of each man to self-use-that is, the exclusive use of the Divine gifts to him, under trust and responsibility to God, does not come, therefore, through any social compact of men,or as a gift from society or from government. It is the gift of God! It is a liberty of self-use, inalienable by himself, because that would be breach of duty and surrender of the trust Divinely vested; and inalienably by any and all others, because of sacrilegious robbery of that with which he is Divinely invested." And this, holds Tucker, is the philosophy adopted in the Declaration of Independence.

#winning

 

[Luckyone]

~~~~~~
It appears that Joey has spoken in Black Baptist churches, Synagogues' to gather votes claiming that he is a regular

Wake up, Joey is no longer running for president

 

[whutTHEYsay]

A lot of early settlees like the puritans did, they

Later in life Jefferson wrote that we must follow "those moral rules which the Author of our being has implanted in man as the law of his nature to govern him in his associated, as well as individual character.

That said when people say the US was founded as a Christian Nation they are talking about the principles it was founded on which are undoubtedly Judeo Christian.

The JudeoChristisn unique and severely weird principle belief that all human beings suffer from Original Sin which causes separation into darkness from the God of Abraham who is the one and only true God who originally required sacrifice of one’s livestock to stay in good graces with Him until he got a virgin human being pregnant and she bore his only begotten earthly Son who basically says human beings should be nice to each other but that won’t make the God of Abraham happy at all. Everyong has to check their rational thinking at the saloon door and swear in front of other like/minded human beings that they believe the story revealed in the Holy Bible that Jesus Christ died on the cross for their sins and in exchange for that plus 10 percent of your production in the fields from your labor given to a church; that belief will keep you united with God for all eternity,

The United States of America was not founded on anything remotely similar to the above. If you think it is, Saint_Couchpotato Saint_Ding or Saint_Struth please go into detail..

At least one a you three should be able to come up with an explanation.

 

[ding]

The JudeoChristisn unique and severely weird principle belief that all human beings suffer from Original Sin which causes separation into darkness from the God of Abraham who is the one and only true God who originally required sacrifice of one’s livestock to stay in good graces with Him until he got a virgin human being pregnant and she bore his only begotten earthly Son who basically says human beings should.benice to each other but that won’t make the God of Abraham happy at all. Everyong had to check their rational thinking at the saloon door and swear in front of other like/minded human beings that they believe the story revealed in the Holy Bible that Jesus Christ died on the cross for their sins and in exchange for that plus 10 percent of your production in the fields from your labor given to a church; that belief will keep you united with God for all eternity,

The United States of America was not founded on anything remotely similar to the above. If you think it is, Saint_Couchpotato please go into detail..

Thomas Jefferson and many of his contemporaries understood that the natural rights of man depended upon teleological considerations. So viewed, and accepting the premise that man's goal is being with his Creator for eternity, man has the duty to abide by His will and directions, because they are necessary to satisfy man's duties. Jefferson wrote that "the true office is to declare and enforce our natural rights and duties."24 The existence of natural duties and the relationship of rights to duties were quite apparent to Jefferson, and anyone who has studied the man should realize that the only natural duties Jefferson acknowledged were not to temporal kings, but to the Creator.

#winning

 

[whutTHEYsay]

It is so easy to tell when Saint_Ding is stuck

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Thomas Jefferson and many of his contemporaries understood that the natural rights of man depended upon teleological considerations.

View attachment 308301. Weir, Robert W. The Embarkation of the Pilgrims. Architect
of the Capitol. Commissioned 1837, placed 1844 in United. States Capitol Rotunda.

ding said: Again... the establishment clause in the first amendment was written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the states had at the time the constitution was ratified.

NotfooledbyW said: They allowed “religions” or “no religions at alll” which is multiculturalism. You are a very confused Christian. You think the framers required states to establish Christian State religion.

That’s a fallacy.

ding said: Again... each state was able to establish their own state religion. It was up to the states to decide. The national government was forbidden to interfere.

NotfooledbyW said: You say America was founded as a Christian Nation not a multicultural nation. For America to be a Christian nation there has to be a mandatory requirement for the states to establish a Christian State religion. There is no such mandate in the Constitution.

ding said: The culture was Christian. Overwhelmingly so.

NotfooledbyW said: The extent of Christian culture during the second half of the 18th Century can only be objectively measured by the percent of the population who professed their faith publically through membership in a Church. Less than 20% of British Colonists belonged to a church.

The men however found their religion in a tavern

Taverns in North America - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Taverns in North America date back to colonial America. Colonial Americans drank a variety of distilled spirits. As the supply of distilled spirits, especially rum, increased, and their price dropped, they became the drink of choice throughout the colonies.[1] In 1770, per capita consumption was 3.7 gallons of distilled spirits per year, rising to 5.2 gallons in 1830 or approximately 1.8 one-ounce shotsa day for every adult white man.[2]That total does not include the beeror hard cider, which colonists routinely drank in addition to rum, the most consumed distilled beverage available in British America. Benjamin Franklin printed a "Drinker's Dictionary" in his Pennsylvania Gazette in 1737, listing some 228 slang terms used for drunkenness in Philadelphia.

The Vera Cruz Tavern in Vera Cruz, Pennsylvania
The sheer volume of hard liquorconsumption fell off, but the brewing of beer increased, and men developed customs and traditionsbased on how to behave at the tavern. By 1900, the 26 million American men over age 18 patronized 215,000 licensedtaverns and probably 50,000 unlicensed (illegal) ones, or one per 100 men.[3] Twice the density could be found in working class neighborhoods. They served mostly beer; bottles were available, but most drinkers went to the taverns. Probably half of the American men avoided saloons and so the average consumption for actual patrons was about half-a-gallon of beer per day, six days a week. In 1900, the city of Boston, with about 200,000 adult men, counted 227,000 daily saloon customers.[4]

Colonial America to 1800​

Taverns in the colonies closely followed the ordinaries of the mother country. Taverns, along with inns, at first were mostly known as ordinaries, which were constructed throughout most of New England.[5]These institutions were influential in the development of new settlements, serving as gathering spaces for the community. Taverns here though served many purposes such as courtrooms, religious meetings, trading posts, inns, post offices, and convenience stores.[6]The taverns in the North and the South were different in their uses as well unlike the central ideal tavern in England. The ones in the South that are closer to the frontier were used as inns and trading post from those who were headed into the unknown lands to settle.[7] The multiple functions of public houses were especially important in frontier communities in which other institutions were often weak, which was certainly true on the southern colonial frontier.[7] They were supervised by county officials, who recognized the need for taverns and the need to maintain order, to minimize drunkenness and avoid it on Sundays if possible, and to establish the responsibilities of tavern keepers. With those profits came progress, which improved the new homelands with the use of taverns as well as breweries.[8] The original structure of these taverns were log cabins, typically a storey and a half high with two rooms on each floor. The ground floor could be used by the public, and the upper floor had the bedrooms and was somewhat removed from the public.

Earliest hotels​

Larger taverns provided rooms for travelers, especially in county seats that housed the county court. Upscale taverns had a lounge with a huge fireplace, a bar at one side, plenty of benches and chairs, and several dining tables. The best houses had a separate parlor for ladies because the other part was unclean, as well as an affable landlord, good cooking, soft, roomy beds, fires in all rooms in cold weather, and warming pans used on the beds at night. In the backwoods, the taverns were wretched hovels, dirty with vermin for company; even so, they were safer and more pleasant for the stranger than camping by the roadside. Even on main highways such as the Boston Post Road, travelers routinely reported the taverns had bad food, hard beds, scanty blankets, inadequate heat, and poor service. One Sunday in 1789, President George Washington, who was touring Connecticut, discovered that the locals discouraged travel on the Sabbath and so he spent the day at Perkins Tavern, "which by the way is not a good one."[9]

Locals​

Taverns were essential for colonial Americans, especially in the rural South, where colonists learned current crop prices, engaged in trade, and heard newspapers read aloud. For most rural Americans, the tavern was the chief link to the greater world and played a role much like the city marketplace of medieval Europe.

Taverns absorbed leisure hours, and games were provided. Horse races often began and ended at taverns, as did militia-training exercises. Cockfights were common. At upscale taverns, the gentry had private rooms or even organized a club. When politics was in season or the county court was meeting, political talk filled the taverns.

Taverns served multiple functions on the Southern colonial frontier. Society in Rowan County, North Carolina, was divided along lines of ethnicity, gender, race, and class, but in taverns, the boundaries often overlapped, as diverse groups were brought together at nearby tables. Consumerism in the backcountry was limited not by ideology or culture but by distance from markets and poor transportation. The increasing variety of drinks served and the development of clubs indicates that genteel culture spread rapidly from London to the periphery of the English world.[7]

Business​

In the colonial era, in certain areas, up to 40 percent of taverns were operated by women,[10][11]especially widows. Local magistrates, who had to award a license before a tavern could operate, preferred widows who knew the business and might otherwise be impoverished and become a charge to the county.[12]The main reason was that taverns started to become upper-class establishments, which called for more experienced proprietors.[1]Only licensed ordinaries, though, were usually allowed to sell alcohol for consumption with fixed measures for fixed prices.[5] Women and children were not usually welcome as fellow drinkers. In some instances, women and children were welcome in taverns but it was mostly a place reserved for men. If women were found in a tavern, they were typically considered prostitutes. Women would come into taverns to look for their husbands or would come with their fathers or brothers; otherwise, women were not allowed.[13] The drinkers were men, and indeed, they often defined their manliness by how much alcohol they could drink at a time. The public held standards like keeping an orderly house, selling at prices according to the law, and not slandering other tavern keepers to avoid bad reputations.[7]

 

[daveman]

Where did you get that idea? God wants smiting, Shirley? Lots of smiting.

I got that idea from leftists, naturally.