Only if you're doing it from the state side. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was really about keeping the state out of church affairs. So you could also say secularism is the biggest threat to Christianity, since secular government tends to want to reward or punish people for lifestyle choices in the same way religious leaders do, however the preference by the government has to do with things other than divine edict.
"religious conservatism has been losing the culture war for years"
With Gorsuch on SCOTUS, Devos at Ed, etc, Christian Taliban are excited about how they are going to up America with their bull in the coming years.
same sex marriage gone, 1st's separation gone, abortion gone, Christian sharia as official USA religion
Let me know when all that happens.
Americans =/= theists
Lol trying to slide that by.
Try again. Or don't. I'll probably drop an lol either way.
Damn that's a lot of cherry picking AmericansPRINCETON, NJ -- Twenty-eight percent of Americans believe the Bible is the actual word of God and that it should be taken literally. This is somewhat below the 38% to 40% seen in the late 1970s, and near the all-time low of 27% reached in 2001 and 2009. But about half of Americans continue to say the Bible is the*inspiredword of God, not to be taken literally -- meaning a combined 75% believe the Bible is in some way connected to God.....
Oh update
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05...ken-literally/
It's 71% that are cherry pickers
24% STILL believe the Bible is literally true?
this is why we have both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause
You're so edgy.
It must really suck that an atheist who knows religions better than most of the religious has shown you to be the fraud you are. Keep up the crusade, Flake.
Neither of which indicate that the church is any threat to the secular government, even though 'In God We Trust" which came along in the 1950's I believe.
Keep running, Blake. Why are you so mad at God?
That was in response to your "so you could also say secularism is the biggest threat to christianity" comment. The free exercise clause stands for the "freedom of religion" while the establishment clause separately stands for the "freedom from religion"
the free exercise clause, specifically, would protect against the concerns you mentioned
Remember, I said basically only if the "one" you mention in the 1st quote is the state. How can Christianity be the biggest threat to its own separation if that the goal of a Christian (which Jefferson was btw, though not anything resembling modern day Christians) is to widen the gap of separation for self protection?
1803 April 21. (Jefferson to Benjamin Rush). "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."
So I am not disagreeing with your comment, I am only pointing out that the concerned party need not be assumed by default to be the state. In that case, your statement in the 1st quote is incorrect or at least unclear.
Why would state want to put itself closer to the church? To meddle in the affairs of the church, for a number of reasons that seem obvious such as education of the laity (think evolution), and for tax purposes (there's a huge untapped income stream in established religion, that the state seems happy to turn a blind eye to).
Last edited by DMC; 07-09-2017 at 03:06 AM.
the rationale behind a secular government was to protect religion, though. religious folk were supposed to practice any religion they want... privately.
what has happened instead is that the religious majority has been trying to entangle the two, and take any resistance to that as "anti-religious." by having your religion (or aspects of it) in the rule of law, they are actually undermining the intended religious freedom that the founding fathers had put together
they just dont see it that way since they're in the majority for now. believe me, christians would be all about that separation of church and state if we became a muslim majority country
You make a claim, get burned on it then then call me flake.
Lol.
Keep running, Blake. Why are you so mad at God?
Keep trying to make it all about me.
Lol.
So you claim most theists think the Holy Bible is inerrant?
Keep trying to make it all about me.
Lol.
Even the founding fathers knew a person cannot separate their beliefs from their lifestyle and choices. Of course religious people want the laws to reflect their beliefs. If they didn't, they wouldn't really believe what they claim to believe. You and I want laws to reflect ours as well, only under the umbrella of secularism. It's the same want, just a different outcome.
Our leaders have religious advisors. They often run on a platform of religious morality and belief. They often invoke God in their comments. Church and state is hardly separate. I don't think it has ever been. Only the laws you mentioned are in play, otherwise church is firmly in bed with state.
No, I said most religions do.
You said many theists don't
It's all right there above
and even the religious founding fathers went so far as to go along with the first amendment, to not use the word god in the cons ution, etc
i dont doubt that religion plays a role in politics. i'm arguing that it is an hetical to the first amendment to have that happen. all the people who love it now would suddenly be hating religious entanglement if they were no longer in the majority religion... at which point they'll be craving their religious freedom that they worked so hard to undermine
the people fleeing to this country during it's inception were largely fleeing from religious persecution. granted, most of them were christians fleeing from different kinds of christians, but nonetheless they wanted to establish a land where people dont get on by the religious preference of the state
I was giving you an out.
Most religions don't even use the Holy Bible.
That's true for most people regardless their position, even on things other than religion. Just look at the 2nd Amendment and how the liberals here want it done away with, but their pants when the 1st Amendment is threatened. The same founding fathers created the 2nd Amendment as well. If their reasoning is so crucial to a free secular society, then you cannot just surgically remove the parts of it you disagree with. If you do, you're right back where they started, and why they started.
ok, now we're jumping to the 2nd amendment?
what do you mean by "liberals wanting the 2nd amendment done away with"... what prominent liberals are calling for a ban on gun ownership?
it can also be said that the purpose of the 2nd amendment being a defense against a tyrannical government is no longer even a possibility. sure when you give civilians muskets to combat against the government, who is also armed with muskets, i can see that working.
letting us have larger magazines isn't doing against a federal government with access to drones, tanks, missiles, and air force, etc. the only way the 2nd amendment can serve it's original purpose in today's world is to have a complete deregulation on arms. let civilians own tanks, fighter jets, bombers, and keep missile silos in their yards, and let them hold nuclear arms
Why did you move the goalpost to "prominent liberal"?
How many prominent liberals post here?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
