Concerned Catholics

[Chizzang]

I don't know if we're a Christian Nation
But we are a nation full of Christians

Which is not at all a problem...
unless the moderate Christians don't hold the Fundamentalists in check

Religious Fundamentalists are the most dangerous humans on earth
They are the scourge of humanity and the end of reason

[JoltinJoe]

I don't know if we're a Christian Nation
But we are a nation full of Christians

We are certainly a "Christian nation" at least in the sense that "we are a nation full of Christians." So it would make little sense to say "that the United States are in no sense a Christian nation" -- and even less sense to have said that in 1790.

However, our government was not founded on the Christian religion. That is correct. Our government was and is founded on natural law.

[kalm]

Re-quoting Madison from the OP.

Thanks.

Was reading up from where I came in.

Interesting that Madison asked whether a Catholic could ever be appointed chaplain. Here we have a Catholic chaplain canned by a Catholic speaker acting at the demand of Southern Baptists. That Madison was probably on to something, wasn't he?

Good point. It’s almost like the founders also had concerns over the tyranny of a RELIGIOUS majority.

[Chizzang]

Thanks.

Was reading up from where I came in.

Interesting that Madison asked whether a Catholic could ever be appointed chaplain. Here we have a Catholic chaplain canned by a Catholic speaker acting at the demand of Southern Baptists. That Madison was probably on to something, wasn't he?

Good point. It’s almost like the founders also had concerns over the tyranny of a RELIGIOUS majority.

in 2003 well over 50% of Conservative politicians answered that they believed in Evolution
in 2008 just under 50% answered that they believed in Evolution
in 2016 of the 17 Republicans running for president only 1 believed in Evolution and he walked that back

The tyranny of a minority of religious fundamentalists is more like it...
Nothing changed, politicians just became fearful of admitting they used common sense

[kalm]

Good point. It’s almost like the founders also had concerns over the tyranny of a RELIGIOUS majority.

in 2003 well over 50% of Conservative politicians answered that they believed in Evolution
in 2008 just under 50% answered that they believed in Evolution
in 2016 of the 17 Republicans running for president only 1 believed in Evolution and he walked that back

The tyranny of a minority of religious fundamentalists is more like it...
Nothing changed, politicians just became fearful of admitting they used common sense

OK Mr. Bigger Problem/Root of the Problem guy...

Just like with Democrats having to embrace feminism and SJW issues, otherwise reasonable Republicans must embrace religion.

The root of the problem is the duopoly.

(I really do think you're making a great point here )

[Ibanez]

Unless you’re the “father of the constitution” evidently.

The separation clause was intended to prevent one religion from dominating the government and preventing others from their free exercise of religion. It was never intended to separate faith from government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Eh...you’re failing to understand the theocracies that the colonies were originally and were trying to avoid. Theocracies were undemocratic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

The separation clause was intended to prevent one religion from dominating the government and preventing others from their free exercise of religion. It was never intended to separate faith from government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Eh...you’re failing to understand the theocracies that the colonies were originally and were trying to avoid. Theocracies were undemocratic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Religious folk and conservatives tend to not like democracies very much.

[css75]

Thanks.

Was reading up from where I came in.

Interesting that Madison asked whether a Catholic could ever be appointed chaplain. Here we have a Catholic chaplain canned by a Catholic speaker acting at the demand of Southern Baptists. That Madison was probably on to something, wasn't he?

Good point. It’s almost like the founders also had concerns over the tyranny of a RELIGIOUS majority.

Not quite, they were concerned that one denomination would rule, they wanted freedom for all religions equally.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[css75]

Good point. It’s almost like the founders also had concerns over the tyranny of a RELIGIOUS majority.

in 2003 well over 50% of Conservative politicians answered that they believed in Evolution
in 2008 just under 50% answered that they believed in Evolution
in 2016 of the 17 Republicans running for president only 1 believed in Evolution and he walked that back

The tyranny of a minority of religious fundamentalists is more like it...
Nothing changed, politicians just became fearful of admitting they used common sense

Shows that more people are coming to their senses.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[css75]

The separation clause was intended to prevent one religion from dominating the government and preventing others from their free exercise of religion. It was never intended to separate faith from government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Eh...you’re failing to understand the theocracies that the colonies were originally and were trying to avoid. Theocracies were undemocratic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t think I ever stated I was for a theocracy, just that all faiths are allowed equal access and none shut out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

Good point. It’s almost like the founders also had concerns over the tyranny of a RELIGIOUS majority.

in 2003 well over 50% of Conservative politicians answered that they believed in Evolution
in 2008 just under 50% answered that they believed in Evolution
in 2016 of the 17 Republicans running for president only 1 believed in Evolution and he walked that back

The tyranny of a minority of religious fundamentalists is more like it...
Nothing changed, politicians just became fearful of admitting they used common sense

Isn't admitting you have a problem the first step to any solution..?
First we have to figure out what the problem is, kinda like your "build a wall" observation
Building a wall doesn't even address our immigration problems it's just a chant for idiots

[CID1990]

And I always tell people to read "Democracy in America," written by Tocqueville in the 1830s after he was sent to observe America.

Hey, I'm going to recommend a book for you... its "Democracy in America", written by Alexis de Tocqueville

You should try reading it in its entirety

He's basically your polar opposite

(He also has some things to say about Christian morality's positive effect on the country)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

You're missing the big picture. The point is that everyone (including Christians, which obviously made up the vast majority of America), took it as their obligation to separate Church and State. He obviously had an affinity for Christianity because he was a faithful Christian himself.

I have no problem with Christianity. I have a problem with Evangelicals which bastardize Christianity and justify it as a political movement. Stick to the pews and stay away from the State.

[UNI88]

You're missing the big picture. The point is that everyone (including Christians, which obviously made up the vast majority of America), took it as their obligation to separate Church and State. He obviously had an affinity for Christianity because he was a faithful Christian himself.

I have no problem with Christianity. I have a problem with Evangelicals which bastardize Christianity and justify it as a political movement. Stick to the pews and stay away from the State.

So are Evangelicals Christianity's kinder, gentler version of Wahhabists and their like?

One of the many problems with the extremes of either side is that they tend to see things in black & white terms - I'm right, you're wrong; I'm good, you're evil. This leaves little room for dialogue and understanding which leads to compromise and better overall solutions.



Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

in 2003 well over 50% of Conservative politicians answered that they believed in Evolution
in 2008 just under 50% answered that they believed in Evolution
in 2016 of the 17 Republicans running for president only 1 believed in Evolution and he walked that back

The tyranny of a minority of religious fundamentalists is more like it...
Nothing changed, politicians just became fearful of admitting they used common sense

Shows that more people are coming to their senses.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Forcing schools to teach creationism is a step away from logic and reason and I would understand why some would consider it a step toward a theocracy.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Eh...you’re failing to understand the theocracies that the colonies were originally and were trying to avoid. Theocracies were undemocratic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t think I ever stated I was for a theocracy, just that all faiths are allowed equal access and none shut out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No.. Go back and read what you said. I'll wait.

[kalm]

You're missing the big picture. The point is that everyone (including Christians, which obviously made up the vast majority of America), took it as their obligation to separate Church and State. He obviously had an affinity for Christianity because he was a faithful Christian himself.

I have no problem with Christianity. I have a problem with Evangelicals which bastardize Christianity and justify it as a political movement. Stick to the pews and stay away from the State.

So are Evangelicals Christianity's kinder, gentler version of Wahhabists and their like?

One of the many problems with the extremes of either side is that they tend to see things in black & white terms - I'm right, you're wrong; I'm good, you're evil. This leaves little room for dialogue and understanding which leads to compromise and better overall solutions.


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Agree on the black and white thing but as Chizzy suggested, fundies of any stripe are dangerous. Christians happen to be 700 years ahead of muslims but wasn't a big part of that the enlightenment and resulting restrictions placed on their political influence by constitutionally created freedoms and government?

And when it comes to picking sides, I think one can also make a case for radical islam being a conservative movement, obviously socially but also from a top-down economic concept.

[Gil Dobie]

Thirteen states intensely debated about the Constitution and couldn't agree on specifics, so they agreed on wording that's somewhat vague. Ultimately it's just a baseline and each American society gets to make it whatever they want. It's not some infallible document.

However, there's always been a social agreement to separate Church and State; this is clear through the Federalist papers and letters written by the founders. And I always tell people to read "Democracy in America," written by Tocqueville in the 1830s after he was sent to observe America.

One of his observations is that Americans took separation of Church and State so seriously that it was ingrained in sub-cultures throughout the known continent...less than 50 years after the Revolution.

Is that like the un-written rules in baseball?

[∞∞∞]

Thirteen states intensely debated about the Constitution and couldn't agree on specifics, so they agreed on wording that's somewhat vague. Ultimately it's just a baseline and each American society gets to make it whatever they want. It's not some infallible document.

However, there's always been a social agreement to separate Church and State; this is clear through the Federalist papers and letters written by the founders. And I always tell people to read "Democracy in America," written by Tocqueville in the 1830s after he was sent to observe America.

One of his observations is that Americans took separation of Church and State so seriously that it was ingrained in sub-cultures throughout the known continent...less than 50 years after the Revolution.

Is that like the un-written rules in baseball?

No, because the Supreme Court has certainly made it written over hundreds of years. Every branch, including the judiciary, has an equal right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

[Gil Dobie]

Is that like the un-written rules in baseball?

No, because the Supreme Court has certainly made it written. Every branch, including the SCOTUS, has an equal right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

Same thing in baseball, every team and every umpire has their interpretation of the unwritten rules of baseball.

When these people disagree, you see a rhubarb.

[css75]

Don’t think I ever stated I was for a theocracy, just that all faiths are allowed equal access and none shut out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No.. Go back and read what you said. I'll wait.

All I said was no denomination should dominate and that people should be allowed to worship however they want as the founders intended. People are also free not to worship.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kalm]

No.. Go back and read what you said. I'll wait.

All I said was no denomination should dominate and that people should be allowed to worship however they want as the founders intended. People are also free not to worship.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think it was your last line about faith. Faith is a personal matter, not a government matter. Does separation hurt an individuals right to believe?

[Ibanez]

No.. Go back and read what you said. I'll wait.

All I said was no denomination should dominate and that people should be allowed to worship however they want as the founders intended. People are also free not to worship.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Maybe you should comprehend what you wrote. Try again, champ.

Spoiler: show

It was never intended to separate faith from government

We specifically wanted faith separate from government. I think you're either forgetting or ignoring early colonial history.

[UNI88]

So are Evangelicals Christianity's kinder, gentler version of Wahhabists and their like?

One of the many problems with the extremes of either side is that they tend to see things in black & white terms - I'm right, you're wrong; I'm good, you're evil. This leaves little room for dialogue and understanding which leads to compromise and better overall solutions.


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Agree on the black and white thing but as Chizzy suggested, fundies of any stripe are dangerous. Christians happen to be 700 years ahead of muslims but wasn't a big part of that the enlightenment and resulting restrictions placed on their political influence by constitutionally created freedoms and government?

And when it comes to picking sides, I think one can also make a case for radical islam being a conservative movement, obviously socially but also from a top-down economic concept.

Agree with chizzy that fundies can be dangerous. The idea of Prresident Pence (or Boobs) scares me. And fundies do tend to be conservative.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

Agree with chizzy that fundies can be dangerous. The idea of Prresident Pence (or Boobs) scares me. And fundies do tend to be conservative.

That still cracks me up.