NationStates Jolt Archive

Regardless of whether you think America should become a Christian State, it is clear to all of us that the USA is at a crossroads and much needs to change.

I am not an American myself.

However, as I am from England, I know the problems of the English Nation can be solved by a process of reviving English Nationhood and the rebirth of our own heritage and culture.

However the Americans are not of any particular racial or ethnic grouping, they are multitude of them.

Given the American Nation lacks any common cultural heritage or racial grouping, the only thing that holds the USA together is their Christian Faith.

Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all share the Christian Faith.

Given that, prehaps a Chritian governmental system, say similar to the system of Islamic law and government in Iran, would be beneficial to the American Nation.

It is clear, with all the corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife, uncertain economic future and the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.

Prehaps the Law of the Holy Scriptures is the answer for the USA.

Debate!

Absolutely hell-fuckin' NO.

Not only that, but I would fight tooth and nail and to my death (if needed) to prevent such a thing.

If anything, we need to be more secular.

The US is already a very Christian republic, so it wouldn't be that much of a difference... :rolleyes:

Voted "No", but we're definitly heading towards a theocracy.

Regardless of whether you think America should become a Christian State, it is clear to all of us that the USA is at a crossroads and much needs to change.

It's not clear to me that something needs to change. Has something happened that I missed?

I don't think a Christian State is the answer at all, and I say that as a Christian. I do not believe that 'the law of Holy Scriptures' is a better one at all; I believe that the Bible is there to be interpreted and understood in context, not selectively quoted or followed word for word. Theologians can't decide what the Bible really means, but you think politicians would be able to?

Would the law be 'homosexuality as an abomination' or 'love thy neighbour'?

Would I really need to gather the village to stone my brother to death if he plants two different crops side by side?

It all sounds a little complicated to me...

There's so much wrong with what you said I can't even begin to try and dissemble it. Thus I shall simply say, 'God No', suggest that something more than Christianity keeps Americans together (Patriotism, love of the country and not a religion etc) and that you give all British people who aren't the BNP a bad name.

I voted yes just to be a dick.

The US is already a very Christian republic, so it wouldn't be that much of a difference...

No it is not, please don't use the 'arguement' put forward by communists/liberals and those who follow the immoral path that somehow the USA is already a theocratic system.

That is used by the far-left to try and gain public support for their own corrupt cause, for they seek to tarnish the good work of the Christian Faith with a government that is now starting to lack popular support and is SECULAR.

If the USA was a Christian Republic, the Constitution would not exist as it does in it's present form.

How come homosexuality and abortion and pornography are still LEGAL?

Under the Chrisitan Republic, as I would see it one which follows the Holy Scriptures, those sexual deviants would be executed.

But they are not.

Please show me REAL evidence of the USA being a Christian Republic, not just posting far-left propaganda.

Regardless of whether you think America should become a Christian State, it is clear to all of us that the USA is at a crossroads and much needs to change.

I am not an American myself.

However, as I am from England, I know the problems of the English Nation can be solved by a process of reviving English Nationhood and the rebirth of our own heritage and culture.

However the Americans are not of any particular racial or ethnic grouping, they are multitude of them.

Given the American Nation lacks any common cultural heritage or racial grouping, the only thing that holds the USA together is their Christian Faith.

Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all share the Christian Faith.

Given that, prehaps a Chritian governmental system, say similar to the system of Islamic law and government in Iran, would be beneficial to the American Nation.

It is clear, with all the corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife, uncertain economic future and the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.

Prehaps the Law of the Holy Scriptures is the answer for the USA.

Debate!
Guess what? Not only are we multi-ethnic, we're multi-religious.

The US is already a very Christian republic, so it wouldn't be that much of a difference... :rolleyes:
We have a large Christian population, but our government separates church from state. Less so under W, but still we don't have blasphemy laws, we don't have teacher-led prayer in schools, we permit non-christian behavior, we protect non-christian speech and religions, et cetera.

'Kindly get the hell out of my country.'

However, as I am from England, I know the problems of the English Nation can be solved by a process of reviving English Nationhood and the rebirth of our own heritage and culture.



I take it this means you are a racist?

I voted yes. Eventhough I don't give a shit.

There's so much wrong with what you said I can't even begin to try and dissemble it. Thus I shall simply say, 'God No', suggest that something more than Christianity keeps Americans together (Patriotism, love of the country and not a religion etc) and that you give all British people who aren't the BNP a bad name.

I do NOT support the BNP.

They are a liberal party that seeks to preserve the United Kingdom.

I support the establishment of an Independent State of England, with the Welsh Nation and the Scottish Nation having their own freedom.

The BNP are liberal because they have now made a pledge to uphold the democratic system.

As an English Nationslist and a Fascist, I oppose democracy for it's corruption and moral and social decay that it causes.

They'll have to grow their own pope, which of course means Pope Wars.

Just because you pay lip-service to democracy doesn't make you liberal.

Under the Chrisitan Republic, as I would see it one which follows the Holy Scriptures, those sexual deviants would be executed.

But they are not.


In a Christian republic, you can say goodbye to shellfish, polyester and would probably have weekly stonings of kids and women. At least if you followed it strictly.

And having executions for reasons like that is the same kind of stone age thinking the Taliban had. Nice to see that regardless of race or nation, fundamentalist lunacy is borderless.

Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all share the Christian Faith.


which one?
roman catholic? pentecostal? baptist? orthodox? mormons? church of scotland? it's a long list...

No it is not, please don't use the 'arguement' put forward by communists/liberals and those who follow the immoral path that somehow the USA is already a theocratic system.

That is used by the far-left to try and gain public support for their own corrupt cause, for they seek to tarnish the good work of the Christian Faith with a government that is now starting to lack popular support and is SECULAR.

If the USA was a Christian Republic, the Constitution would not exist as it does in it's present form.

How come homosexuality and abortion and pornography are still LEGAL?

Under the Chrisitan Republic, as I would see it one which follows the Holy Scriptures, those sexual deviants would be executed.

But they are not.

Please show me REAL evidence of the USA being a Christian Republic, not just posting far-left propaganda.Yes, they would be executed. Thank God that sane people founded this country.

The U.S. is becoming increasingly theocratic, because the balance of power shifting more and more towards far-right conservative evangelists who give the Bible and their twisted political agenda precendence over the Constitution. (Not to say that far-left or even moderate is much better...)

If your concern is making people more religious and more "moral", theocracy is not the answer. The European countries that still have state-established churches today are also the countries with the lowest church attendance rates and least religious populations (Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden until 2000).
America is more religious than Europe because America never had a national church. Churches existed in a "free market" and had to compete for members, and have proven to be very successful at this. Nationalise religion, and the country will become less religious not more.

I do NOT support the BNP.

They are a liberal party that seeks to preserve the United Kingdom.

I support the establishment of an Independent State of England, with the Welsh Nation and the Scottish Nation having their own freedom.

The BNP are liberal because they have now made a pledge to uphold the democratic system.

As an English Nationslist and a Fascist, I oppose democracy for it's corruption and moral and social decay that it causes.

...

I think thats the first time I've ever seen anyone call the BNP a liberal party...

right...this entire thread doesnt even deserve the effort that has to be put into striking the keys to put a responce in.

Now, for those of you who arent from the U.S., remember this. The constitution mandates seperation of church and state. End of story

There is nothing more to say.

I think thats the first time I've ever seen anyone call the BNP a liberal party...

I support an ideology of Fascism called the Third Position.

One of it's leading theorists is Roberto Fiore, who now leads an international group of Fascists, called the International Third Position (ITP).

In England, the ITP's wing is called the England First Movment.

The ITP's ideology traces itself to pre-WW2 political movements like the Legion of St. Micheal Archangel (Iron Guard) in Romania, the Iron Guard ruled Romania from 1940-41 and the Spanish Falange and Mussolini's Social Republic of 1943-45.

I also admire the Ustahse government of Croatia that existed from 1941-45.

kravania obviously has no sense of what american values are if he thinks that creating a theocracy in america would preserve our heritage. our heritage's foundation is on political and religious freedom. a theocracy would destroy everything that the vast majority hold dear, and i'm afraid i'd have to leave the country that i love.

The US is already a very Christian republic, so it wouldn't be that much of a difference... :rolleyes:
WTF do you get that America is Christian?!?
I agree with Keruvalia! I would fight to my death before I would let that happen.

Regardless of whether you think America should become a Christian State, it is clear to all of us that the USA is at a crossroads and much needs to change.
A lot in the USA could have a change, but not the Union. The fact that the USA are a (somewhat) secular republic has been an inspiratin for all non-americans throughout history, as it still is today. The USA becoming a christian state would be as out of line as France becoming a monarchy or something.

However, as I am from England, I know the problems of the English Nation can be solved by a process of reviving English Nationhood and the rebirth of our own heritage and culture.
That's alteady been tried in some countries, and the results haven't been good at all. Wanting to revive nationhood - or attempting some sort of regeneration - never solves any nation's problems.

However the Americans are not of any particular racial or ethnic grouping, they are multitude of them.
I suppose that's one of the things that holds America together. :D

Given the American Nation lacks any common cultural heritage or racial grouping, the only thing that holds the USA together is their Christian Faith.

Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all share the Christian Faith.
Really? You must be joking. :rolleyes: Did you know that approximately 1 out of 5 americans is not Christian?

Given that, prehaps a Chritian governmental system, say similar to the system of Islamic law and government in Iran, would be beneficial to the American Nation.

It is clear, with all the corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife, uncertain economic future and the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.

Prehaps the Law of the Holy Scriptures is the answer for the USA.
:rolleyes: This part doesn't even deserve a reply. :headbang:

I support an ideology of Fascism called the Third Position.

One of it's leading theorists is Roberto Fiore, who now leads an international group of Fascists, called the International Third Position (ITP).

In England, the ITP's wing is called the England First Movment.

The ITP's ideology traces itself to pre-WW2 political movements like the Legion of St. Micheal Archangel (Iron Guard) in Romania, the Iron Guard ruled Romania from 1940-41 and the Spanish Falange and Mussolini's Social Republic of 1943-45.

I also admire the Ustahse government of Croatia that existed from 1941-45.


Jesus, I thought you were just a fascist. It's turns out you're actually a pretentious fascist.

Should the USA abolish the Union for a Christian Republic?

Only if the EU will take atheist refugees like myself.

right...this entire thread doesnt even deserve the effort that has to be put into striking the keys to put a responce in.

Now, for those of you who arent from the U.S., remember this. The constitution mandates seperation of church and state. End of story

There is nothing more to say.

Nowhere does the constitution mandate the separation of church and state.

Nowhere does the constitution mandate the separation of church and state.


It forbids the establishment of a religion; consequently it does.

Well, I certainly think the US should just give up the pretense and admit that it is already a Christian theocracy. I'm sick of America pretending to be a free, equal, democratic, secular state, when superstition has so thoroughly hijacked America. Superstition is allowed to over-rule law, order, science, rationality, and any other aspect of reality that the superstitious sheeple want to fuck with. Why pretend any more? America is run by the superstitious, for the superstitious.

The United States was founded to preserve and advance the Christian faith, but it was also founded upon religious freedom. Establishing a state religion is prohibited by the first amendment, but I agree that America needs to return to its Biblical/Common-Law foundations and Constitutionally-limited government. Abortion/homosexuality/tyranny/etc. is here because Lincoln and the North invaded the real America (The South) in the 1860s. Ever since then, the Union government has becomes extremely oppressive, destroying religious freedom, which also destroys morality and reduces the influence of religion on public life.

The solution is not to create an unConstitutional theocracy, but to simply have the American citizens, 80-90% of whom are already Christian, elect true Chistian constitutional conservatives to restore the Republic as it's supposed to be.

If such efforts fail, I would move to the South, which will hopefully succeed in seceding from the Union to restore their Republic of Godliness and Christian Faith.

Well, I certainly think the US should just give up the pretense and admit that it is already a Christian theocracy. I'm sick of America pretending to be a free, equal, democratic, secular state, when superstition has so thoroughly hijacked America. Superstition is allowed to over-rule law, order, science, rationality, and any other aspect of reality that the superstitious sheeple want to fuck with. Why pretend any more? America is run by the superstitious, for the superstitious.
It is not a Christian theocracy. It has failed to be Christian. It's not free and equal because its laws have moved away from their biblical foundations.

But we should not be a secular state. Secularism is what diminishes liberty, because only the Bible holds the answer to liberty, freedom, and justice for all. Anything else is pre-destined to lead to tyranny.

It forbids the establishment of a religion; consequently it does.

The establishment clause would prevent a christian republic. Separation of church and state is different.

It is not a Christian theocracy. It has failed to be Christian. It's not free and equal because its laws have moved away from their biblical foundations.

But we should not be a secular state. Secularism is what diminishes liberty, because only the Bible holds the answer to liberty, freedom, and justice for all. Anything else is pre-destined to lead to tyranny.

Tell me - what's your view on the following things:

Evolution
Homosexuality
Abortion

Abortion/homosexuality/tyranny/etc. is here because Lincoln and the North invaded the real America (The South) in the 1860s. Ever since then, the Union government has becomes extremely oppressive, destroying religious freedom, which also destroys morality and reduces the influence of religion on public life.


Nice sweeping generalisation. And the South certainly took the moral high ground when it came to slavery no?



The solution is not to create an unConstitutional theocracy, but to simply have the American citizens, 80-90% of whom are already Christian, elect true Chistian constitutional conservatives to restore the Republic as it's supposed to be.


Erm, at the most recent election just under 50% of the population rejected that kind of representative. The majority of Americans may be Christians, it doesn't follow that they are also conservatives.



If such efforts fail, I would move to the South, which will hopefully succeed in seceding from the Union to restore their Republic of Godliness and Christian Faith.


Keep dreaming

It is clear, with all the corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife, uncertain economic future and the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.


How are abortion, homosexuality, and pornography inherently morally wrong? That is simply opinion. Morals are not absolute, which is why we have debate.

The reason America sucks is that it's too big. It's common knowledge that big republics/governments tend to fail and get really small after a while. Why? Well, in a smaller country, a law made might affect 98% of the population positively and 2% negatively, or 98% might support the moral or reasoning involved in making the law, and 2% might oppose it.
Now, that works fine in a country with a few million people, but when you have 250+ million, you're going to have problems, because that 2% is a gigantic force of unrest.
Now, I have no problem with religious governments. I certainly understand Christian Conservatives when they say Christians should be elected since they will run the government based on good morals.

The only problem with that is, a large portion of the country does not agree with many of their morals and viewpoints. The good thing with that is, it's mostly regional. The "bible belt" and many populated areas in the south would do just fine with a Christian government, while many areas in the northeast and west would fare better with a more secular government.

People have these grand nationalistic ideas about how "the union" should never be divided, when in fact it's that exactly that is hurting the country.

Dividing the south, the northeast, and the west into three seperate countries would greatly improve the country(ies.)

The establishment clause would prevent a christian republic.


..which is the subject of this thread.



Separation of church and state is different.


It is a broad topic but you claimed that nowhere in the constitution was the separation of church and state mandated. I merely provided an example of where it was.

No, the Bible simply isn't up to running a modern technological society, if nothing else. Of course, as an anarchist, I'm biased, but I really can't see any reason would this would be a good idea. I mean, people like me would be burned at the stake; all my favorite hobbies would be banned (except maybe for music, but I'd have to divert my plans to do Christian music instead); and it would put the US at a severe disadvantage in terms of science and technology (imagine space travel by a nation that makes flat earth official doctrine).

Regardless of whether you think America should become a Christian State, it is clear to all of us that the USA is at a crossroads and much needs to change.

I am not an American myself.

However, as I am from England, I know the problems of the English Nation can be solved by a process of reviving English Nationhood and the rebirth of our own heritage and culture.

However the Americans are not of any particular racial or ethnic grouping, they are multitude of them.

Given the American Nation lacks any common cultural heritage or racial grouping, the only thing that holds the USA together is their Christian Faith.

Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all share the Christian Faith.

Given that, prehaps a Chritian governmental system, say similar to the system of Islamic law and government in Iran, would be beneficial to the American Nation.

It is clear, with all the corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife, uncertain economic future and the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.

Prehaps the Law of the Holy Scriptures is the answer for the USA.

Debate!

HAHAHA!! Yeah, because none of that stuff would exist in a Christian Republic. Nope, no one can ever attribute any corruption to a Christian. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Amusingly I would say all three of those things are rampant among supposedly devout Christians.

Government would destroy Christianity. One of the reasons for separation of church and state is to protect religion from the corrupting force of government. What version of Christianity are considering? Do you really think that will be the one implemented? There are new age wishy washy interpretations out there and hardliner fundamentalist interpretations with no love at all. It is because I love my religion that I don't want government in anyway involved with it.

The reason America sucks is that it's too big. It's common knowledge that big republics/governments tend to fail and get really small after a while. Why? Well, in a smaller country, a law made might affect 98% of the population positively and 2% negatively, or 98% might support the moral or reasoning involved in making the law, and 2% might oppose it.
Now, that works fine in a country with a few million people, but when you have 250+ million, you're going to have problems, because that 2% is a gigantic force of unrest.


A bit of a one-sided argument. America draws much of its strength from it's size as well as it's weaknesses.




Now, I have no problem with religious governments. I certainly understand Christian Conservatives when they say Christians should be elected since they will run the government based on good morals.


The problem is that Christians, much like anyone else, are no strangers to corruption and immorality. Politicians are almost invariably hypocrites whether they are of religious bent or not.




People have these grand nationalistic ideas about how "the union" should never be divided, when in fact it's that exactly that is hurting the country.

Dividing the south, the northeast, and the west into three seperate countries would greatly improve the country(ies.)


It would also greatly reduce it's influence and power. Perhaps good news for the rest of the world, bad news for Americans.

Regardless of whether you think America should become a Christian State, it is clear to all of us that the USA is at a crossroads and much needs to change.

I am not an American myself.

However, as I am from England, I know the problems of the English Nation can be solved by a process of reviving English Nationhood and the rebirth of our own heritage and culture.

However the Americans are not of any particular racial or ethnic grouping, they are multitude of them.

Given the American Nation lacks any common cultural heritage or racial grouping, the only thing that holds the USA together is their Christian Faith.

Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all share the Christian Faith.

Given that, prehaps a Chritian governmental system, say similar to the system of Islamic law and government in Iran, would be beneficial to the American Nation.

It is clear, with all the corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife, uncertain economic future and the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.

Prehaps the Law of the Holy Scriptures is the answer for the USA.

Debate!

Hey! As long as foreigners are giving advice on how others should run their country, I have a proposal for you!










STFU!

would taking power away from he americans really be that bad?
in iraq since the occupation a civil war has started, who is to blame?
Americans are.

Tell me - what's your view on the following things:

Evolution
Homosexuality
Abortion
Biological evolution has too many holes, many of which are gaping holes, to be considered fact. That most scientists accept it does not verify it. For example, it does not explain how thought and feelings evolved. Also, there are some species that defy evolution. I should also point out that evolutionary thinking, in addition to Lincoln's tyranny, has contributed to the moral problems of the 20th century. Hitler could have supported his extermination of the Jews by referring to The Origin of Species by claiming that his people have evolved superior to the Jews. However, America is founded upon the principle that "all men are created equal," which destroys the Nazi concept of racial superiority. Evolutionary thinking has also led Supreme Court Justices to think that the Constitution is an evolving document, which is false. The text has never changed.

Homosexuality: I don't hate homosexuals, but I am wary of the dangers of letting homosexuality spread. It is an immoral lifestyle that corrupts individuals and distorts the image of man and woman. The first amendment should protect the Biblically-founded institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and we should stop homosexuals from trying to get nonexistent rights, like "civil unions," which are "marriages" under another name. I think the best way, however, to stop the spread of homosexuality is not to be so aggressive on them, but instead to simply encourage the role of religion on American life.

Abortion: murder.

Nice sweeping generalisation. And the South certainly took the moral high ground when it came to slavery no?
A very small percentage of them had slaves, and yes racial slavery is bad, but at least it was soon going to be abolished peacefully. Lincoln had to murder thousands just so slaves wouldn't steal white jobs. He was a bigger racist than most Southerners.

Regardless of whether you think America should become a Christian State, it is clear to all of us that the USA is at a crossroads and much needs to change.

I am not an American myself.

However, as I am from England, I know the problems of the English Nation can be solved by a process of reviving English Nationhood and the rebirth of our own heritage and culture.

However the Americans are not of any particular racial or ethnic grouping, they are multitude of them.

Given the American Nation lacks any common cultural heritage or racial grouping, the only thing that holds the USA together is their Christian Faith.

Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all share the Christian Faith.

Given that, prehaps a Chritian governmental system, say similar to the system of Islamic law and government in Iran, would be beneficial to the American Nation.

It is clear, with all the corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife, uncertain economic future and the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.

Prehaps the Law of the Holy Scriptures is the answer for the USA.

Debate!


You clearly have little or no understanding of democracy or America, much less the tandem.

In short, what unites the country is not Christianity. It is an abiding belief that no man is innately superior to another, and further that the only thing that should have power over men is the justly-made law. Now we debate all the time about whether a law is justly made or not, and we debate about what kind of laws define "justly-made", but we do not dispute the need for justly-made laws, and we do not dispute the notion that any man is above them, because it follows from our fundamental equality as persons that any just law is one that applies to all men equally.

This is precisely the opposite of what you are proposing. Any time in history people have created either the fascist state you advocate for Britain or the theocracy you advocate for America, what inevitably happens is the creation of a class that is effectively above the law because that class makes the law. Fascism's emphasis was on the imposition of the will of the powerful on the weak to make society work, which means that the powerful are above the law because they will the law into existence. Theocracies emphasis is on imposing a narrow interpretation of God's will to make society work, which means that the theocrats are above the law because they interpret God's will into law. Both cases fundamentally violate both presuppositions that unite Americans: fascism and theocracy suggests fundamental inequality between people in society, and in both cases the justice of a law is only incidental, because the emphasis is on the particular will that makes it, not the goodness or badness of a law. As such, America will never accept either.

As noted above, I'm not going to even dignify the statement about democracy's failure in America with a response; if you can't see how ridiculous that assertion is on your own, I'm not sure I can convince you.

Biological evolution has too many holes, many of which are gaping holes, to be considered fact. That most scientists accept it does not verify it. For example, it does not explain how thought and feelings evolved. Also, there are some species that defy evolution. I should also point out that evolutionary thinking, in addition to Lincoln's tyranny, has contributed to the moral problems of the 10th century. Hitler could have supported his extermination of the Jews by referring to The Origin of Species by claiming that his people have evolved superior to the Jews. However, America is founded upon the principle that "all men are created equal," which destroys the Nazi concept of racial superiority. Evolutionary thinking has also led Supreme Court Justices to think that the Constitution is an evolving document, which is false. The text has never changed.

No actually, none of those things is true. Do you actually even understand Evolution? Because... If you did, you would know that it is the ONLY logical conclusion from the evidence we have. Clearly you are given only to spouting the propoganda you have been fed.

Homosexuality: I don't hate homosexuals, but I am wary of the dangers of letting homosexuality spread. It is an immoral lifestyle that corrupts individuals and distorts the image of man and woman. The first amendment should protect the Biblically-founded institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and we should stop homosexuals from trying to get nonexistent rights, like "civil unions," which are "marriages" under another name. I think the best way, however, to stop the spread of homosexuality is not to be so aggressive on them, but instead to simply encourage the role of religion on American life.

So what then? They have less of a right than you do? That's total bullshit. You shouldn't be able to tell two men that they can't sleep together any more than I should have the right to tell you not to go to church. Do you not understand the concept of live and let live?

Abortion: murder.

Right... So glad that you have the scientific knowledge that we all have never seen that a fetus has all the traits of a person. Care to show us your findings?


A very small percentage of them had slaves, and yes racial slavery is bad, but at least it was soon going to be abolished peacefully. Lincoln had to murder thousands just so slaves wouldn't steal white jobs. He was a bigger racist than most Southerners.

Wow... Someone failed US History in High School. Lincoln never had an intention of abolishing the evil practice of slavery. In fact, he stated so before the election. Certain Southern troublemakers turned him into the devil for the local hicks to hate. Lincoln did not even choose to fight the Civil War for slaves, but rather to preserve the union. Lincoln was a member of the Republican party, which at the time was preferable to the sick racists in the Democratic party, but was still quite a Conservative party. So it is neither true that "Lincoln Corrupted the US" away from the intention of the founding fathers (Except perhaps by allowing the radical republicans to run rampant), who prefered secularism (get your goddamn historical facts right, please. A large portion of the Founding Fathers were influenced by deism and the enlightenment. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Washington amongst them. Jefferson, especially, was opposed to another theocratic state.) nor that Lincoln had any intention to undermine christianity in the US (Seeing as how the majority of his supporters were Northern Evangelists).

I should also point out that evolutionary thinking, in addition to Lincoln's tyranny, has contributed to the moral problems of the 10th century.


Care to share with us your detailed knowledge of world history concerning the period 900-1000 A.D. ?



Hitler could have supported his extermination of the Jews by referring to The Origin of Species by claiming that his people have evolved superior to the Jews. However, America is founded upon the principle that "all men are created equal," which destroys the Nazi concept of racial superiority.


This is garbage. Hitler did support his extermination of the Jews with Christian principles, amongst other things. Are you really so ignorant as to suppose that knowledge itself is evil, as opposed to the use to which knowledge may be put?



Homosexuality: I don't hate homosexuals, but I am wary of the dangers of letting homosexuality spread. It is an immoral lifestyle that corrupts individuals and distorts the image of man and woman. The first amendment should protect the Biblically-founded institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and we should stop homosexuals from trying to get nonexistent rights, like "civil unions," which are "marriages" under another name. I think the best way, however, to stop the spread of homosexuality is not to be so aggressive on them, but instead to simply encourage the role of religion on American life.


translation: I don't hate homosexuals, I just think they should be denied the rights the constitution seems to suggest they are entitled to. 'All Men are created equal' remember?



A very small percentage of them had slaves, and yes racial slavery is bad, but at least it was soon going to be abolished peacefully. Lincoln had to murder thousands just so slaves wouldn't steal white jobs. He was a bigger racist than most Southerners.

A laughably biased apologist's response

Well, I certainly think the US should just give up the pretense and admit that it is already a Christian theocracy. I'm sick of America pretending to be a free, equal, democratic, secular state, when superstition has so thoroughly hijacked America. Superstition is allowed to over-rule law, order, science, rationality, and any other aspect of reality that the superstitious sheeple want to fuck with. Why pretend any more? America is run by the superstitious, for the superstitious.
In my more hopeless moments I believe this. But I do not think there's no hope of turning it around.

As for the original post- what a load. Of crap, that is. Germany tried that whole Revival of Culture thing a few years ago. Jolly good time for all there.:rolleyes:

And- To Xenophobialand- yes, and thank you for saving me the typing time.

Quamia said: Lincoln had to murder thousands just so slaves wouldn't steal white jobs.

Yowza- you would have made excellent cannon fodder for the Slaveowning class of the time- that argument about "white jobs" is exactly how they got the poor whites to fight that war. Nice job maintaining retrograde thinking intact for 150 years!

But we should not be a secular state. Secularism is what diminishes liberty, because only the Bible holds the answer to liberty, freedom, and justice for all. Anything else is pre-destined to lead to tyranny.

You mean the same kind of Bible people used to justify invading other countries, slaughtering men, women and children, converting others by the sword, bomb medical buildings and kill doctors, marginalize (and kill) people based on skin color, sexual orientation, oppress women and promote a patriarchy?

No thanks.

Wow, this is quite a thread!! Proposing some mighty big changes here...

Anzio Cluster One said some things that sound, well, sound! This individual is right about how one government will work for one culture over another, but this individual goes too far by saying that the country should be divided.

I live in the South, but I want very much to be an American. And I'm also confident that even though there is a lot of debate about homosexual marriage and explicit content in the media, etc, we as a people will learn what is best for us and will return to God, and in so doing will learn more about Him. And to try to enforce theocracies and to have a national religiosity will corrupt the religion of those who truly wish to practice because it will be welded into the national religion which people practice whether they want to or not. Face it, too many people want to be secular, and no one else can choose religion or beliefs for them.

Establishment of a state religion would put an end to true spirituality. It would also force people into a state that they cannot accept.

"Love God with all your heart, all your strength, and all your mind." I cannot say more than that. If you do that, you will make the right decisions because your love for God will eclipse your hatred, prejudices, and sinfulness.

No actually, none of those things is true. Do you actually even understand Evolution? Because... If you did, you would know that it is the ONLY logical conclusion from the evidence we have. Clearly you are given only to spouting the propoganda you have been fed.
The "ONLY" logical conclusion? There are plenty of logical conclusions. Evolution is logical, Creation is logical, and Intelligent Design is logical, but only one is true.

So what then? They have less of a right than you do? That's total bullshit. You shouldn't be able to tell two men that they can't sleep together any more than I should have the right to tell you not to go to church. Do you not understand the concept of live and let live?
I cannot tell them not to sleep together; that is correct. They can go ahead, and the State has no jurisdiction in preventing them. However, it does have the jurisdiction to protect marriage.

Right... So glad that you have the scientific knowledge that we all have never seen that a fetus has all the traits of a person. Care to show us your findings?
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Wow... Someone failed US History in High School. Lincoln never had an intention of abolishing the evil practice of slavery. In fact, he stated so before the election.
Don't listen to what they tell you in high school. It's run by the government, but it has no jurisdiction in running it. They practice historical revisionism. I know that Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery -- he endorsed it in his 1860 inaugural address. His intention was to force the South to abide by federal laws, most of which were unConstitutional. The South had a point in seceding, and Lincoln didn't believe in the right to secede. He was an evil tyrant.

Care to share with us your detailed knowledge of world history concerning the period 900-1000 A.D. ?
Lol sorry, fixed it.

This is garbage. Hitler did support his extermination of the Jews with Christian principles, amongst other things. Are you really so ignorant as to suppose that knowledge itself is evil, as opposed to the use to which knowledge may be put?
To say that Hitler was a Christian or that his policies were supported by Christian principles offends me.

translation: I don't hate homosexuals, I just think they should be denied the rights the constitution seems to suggest they are entitled to. 'All Men are created equal' remember?
All men are created straight.

You mean the same kind of Bible people used to justify invading other countries, slaughtering men, women and children, converting others by the sword, bomb medical buildings and kill doctors, marginalize (and kill) people based on skin color, sexual orientation, oppress women and promote a patriarchy?

No thanks.
Most elite Republicans are not true Christians, and the same goes for the blind Republican cheerleaders, like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. The Bible does not justify invading other countries. The sword may only be used in self-defense.

Wow, this is quite a thread!! Proposing some mighty big changes here...

Anzio Cluster One said some things that sound, well, sound! This individual is right about how one government will work for one culture over another, but this individual goes too far by saying that the country should be divided.

I live in the South, but I want very much to be an American. And I'm also confident that even though there is a lot of debate about homosexual marriage and explicit content in the media, etc, we as a people will learn what is best for us and will return to God, and in so doing will learn more about Him. And to try to enforce theocracies and to have a national religiosity will corrupt the religion of those who truly wish to practice because it will be welded into the national religion which people practice whether they want to or not. Face it, too many people want to be secular, and no one else can choose religion or beliefs for them.

Establishment of a state religion would put an end to true spirituality. It would also force people into a state that they cannot accept.

"Love God with all your heart, all your strength, and all your mind." I cannot say more than that. If you do that, you will make the right decisions because your love for God will eclipse your hatred, prejudices, and sinfulness.
Amen.

The original post is utterly ridiculous. and everything Quamia says is even worse.
Christianity is the problem in america, not homosexuality and pornography, which do no harm to anyone. Only by truly seperating church and state, instead of the sham we have now, can America ever turn things around.

I dont know what England can do though. The far right are more troublesome than the immigrants they despise. Islam seems to be the main problem though, not a lack of national identity. If we just secularise the world everything will be alright.

The original post is utterly ridiculous. and everything Quamia says is even worse.
Christianity is the problem in america, not homosexuality and pornography, which do no harm to anyone. Only by truly seperating church and state, instead of the sham we have now, can America ever turn things around.

I dont know what England can do though. The far right are more troublesome than the immigrants they despise. Islam seems to be the main problem though, not a lack of national identity. If we just secularise the world everything will be alright.
Secularize the world? What happened to religious freedom? Secularism is tyrannical.

The day the the USA becomes the UCS (United Christian States) is the very same day I become a terrorist ironically enough.

Don't listen to what they tell you in high school. It's run by the government, but it has no jurisdiction in running it. They practice historical revisionism. I know that Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery -- he endorsed it in his 1860 inaugural address. His intention was to force the South to abide by federal laws, most of which were unConstitutional. The South had a point in seceding, and Lincoln didn't believe in the right to secede. He was an evil tyrant.


Which ones were unConstitutional? If most of them were, then it shouldn't be hard to find.

More importantly, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Lincoln didn't believe in the "right to secede" (although how exactly a state can have a right when rights are based on personhood, and a state is not a person eludes me). It seems more likely to me that he didn't believe that the South was exercising its option to secede properly: they seceded because they could not politically secure the institution of slavery, something that Lincoln had no interest in taking away politically anyway. If the South was in err, then Lincoln could hardly be called tyrannical for trying to rectify their mistake through force of arms.

Secularize the world? What happened to religious freedom? Secularism is tyrannical.

Secularism is the view that religion has no place in politics.

If that's tyrannical, then how do you describe the picture below?

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/911wtcreutersitaly.jpg

A. Righteous Freedom Fighters
B. Good Thing
C. We Need More Of This Kind of Thing
D. All of the Above

The day the the USA becomes the UCS (United Christian States) is the very same day I become a terrorist ironically enough.

You and me both.

A. Righteous Freedom Fighters
B. Good Thing
C. We Need More Of This Kind of Thing
D. All of the Above

E. Waste of perfectly good aircraft.

The "ONLY" logical conclusion? There are plenty of logical conclusions. Evolution is logical, Creation is logical, and Intelligent Design is logical, but only one is true.

Well... No, they are not logical. They have nothing to do with science and everything to do with Faith. Faith is not logical. Sorry.

I cannot tell them not to sleep together; that is correct. They can go ahead, and the State has no jurisdiction in preventing them. However, it does have the jurisdiction to protect marriage.

What the fuck are you "protecting" marriage from? How the hell are you harmed by two gay men getting married? You aren't. Marriage isn't. Families aren't. Marriage in the church is a religious institution and you are free to insert your doctorine of hate into that. Marriage in the government is completely different. It is not a religious institution, and if it is then the government needs to get out of it, now.


http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

So? All they have is quotes without evidence. I can do the same thing. Show me the trait that makes someone a person. Show me that a fetus has it the moment it is conceived. You can't. The trait that makes someone a person is the ability to think for themselves. A fetus cannot do that until the 3rd trimester.


Don't listen to what they tell you in high school. It's run by the government, but it has no jurisdiction in running it. They practice historical revisionism. I know that Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery -- he endorsed it in his 1860 inaugural address. His intention was to force the South to abide by federal laws, most of which were unConstitutional. The South had a point in seceding, and Lincoln didn't believe in the right to secede. He was an evil tyrant.


Right... Seriously. Fine. Don't trust your high school. Trust college teachers. Trust private historians. Trust the history channel. They'll all tell you the same thing. There may or may not have been a right to secede, and I'm not sure either way, but the desire to preserve the union was not a bad one. Personally, I wish Lincoln had just let the South go it's seperate way, because I don't like it's evil influince on national politics (Yeah: Evil). Lincoln may have been misguided, but he was not evil. Evil is forcing other people to follow your rules. Evil is forcing people to accept the unfactual in place of the factual in the name of "Showing the right way". Evil is letting mothers die because of a parasite they did not want. Evil is forcing the beleifs of 4/5ths off on 1/5. Evil is allowing people to die because you inhibit science's ability to treat them. Those are evil.

I notice you conveniently ignored my statements about the Founding Fathers. Conceding that point?

Don't listen to what they tell you in high school. It's run by the government, but it has no jurisdiction in running it. They practice historical revisionism. I know that Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery -- he endorsed it in his 1860 inaugural address. His intention was to force the South to abide by federal laws, most of which were unConstitutional. The South had a point in seceding, and Lincoln didn't believe in the right to secede. He was an evil tyrant.

Funnily enough my A level history lessons in History say the same as Kinda Sensible people, care to explain why the UK government has an agenda to revise American history?

Guess what? Not only are we multi-ethnic, we're multi-religious.

amen! And that's one thing I'm proud of... our diversity.

no, it is not what should be done at all, it would cause more problems then it would fix, same as in the islam nations, theres different christians, these christians would all try to be in power, and thus we have a holy war.

Personally I think the US should become a Christian Republic. All of our fundie nut-jobs can migrate over to America and the UK can take in all of the atheists (90% of the american scientific elite and 50% of american scientists in general). Oh, and obviously we'd take all of the minority religions as well.

In conclusion: we kick out the nutters and get some of the world's leading intellectuals in return. It's perfect. Admittedly it's not so great for the people in the US but you can't win them all...

Prehaps the Law of the Holy Scriptures is the answer for the USA.

Like it's helped the middle east? Sure...whatever...

the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.The fact that this "moral decline" has happened shows that democracy has benefitted the American people.

I support an ideology of Fascism called the Third Position.Oh, yes, I think I've seen this position in the Kama Sutra. It's where one person is bent over and grabbing their ankles, and another stands behind them.

A very small percentage of them had slaves, and yes racial slavery is bad, but at least it was soon going to be abolished peacefully.What would have caused this to happen, and why do many of the statements of secession from the states mention that they are seceding because of slavery?

I cannot tell them not to sleep together; that is correct. They can go ahead, and the State has no jurisdiction in preventing them. However, it does have the jurisdiction to protect marriage.Protecting marriage would be to make it equal for everyone.

To say that Hitler was a Christian or that his policies were supported by Christian principles offends me.The definition of a Christian is someone who believes in Christ, and Hitler certainly did.

All men are created straight.Except for the ones who were created gay and bisexual.

Personally I think the US should become a Christian Republic. All of our fundie nut-jobs can migrate over to America and the UK can take in all of the atheists (90% of the american scientific elite and 50% of american scientists in general). Oh, and obviously we'd take all of the minority religions as well.

In conclusion: we kick out the nutters and get some of the world's leading intellectuals in return. It's perfect. Admittedly it's not so great for the people in the US but you can't win them all...

One problem with that plan: There isn't enough room on that rock for all of us.

We'd have to go somewhere else. Like Canada, eh?

Well... No, they are not logical. They have nothing to do with science and everything to do with Faith. Faith is not logical. Sorry.
I'd say anything that makes sense is logical, whether or not something is wrong or right. Evolution is indeed logical, but it's also wrong. I feel that Creation is more logical because it answers more questions and doesn't have any gaps in its thinking.

What the fuck are you "protecting" marriage from? How the hell are you harmed by two gay men getting married? You aren't. Marriage isn't. Families aren't. Marriage in the church is a religious institution and you are free to insert your doctorine of hate into that. Marriage in the government is completely different. It is not a religious institution, and if it is then the government needs to get out of it, now.
You need not use unnecessary words like "fuck." The traditional family is damaged by the infiltration of homosexuals. Children need a mother and a father to be raised properly; it hurts them.

So? All they have is quotes without evidence. I can do the same thing. Show me the trait that makes someone a person. Show me that a fetus has it the moment it is conceived. You can't. The trait that makes someone a person is the ability to think for themselves. A fetus cannot do that until the 3rd trimester.
Can't you find this stuff on the Internet yourself? I don't need articles to prove my point. It's self-evident. But I can just keep feeding them to you: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0004.html

Right... Seriously. Fine. Don't trust your high school. Trust college teachers. Trust private historians. Trust the history channel. They'll all tell you the same thing.
That's because they have adopted the government-funded propaganda that comes straight from public school.

There may or may not have been a right to secede
The right to secede for good causes is self-evident. The Declaration of Independence seceded the independent States from England, so why can't the South secede from a tyrannical North?

I notice you conveniently ignored my statements about the Founding Fathers. Conceding that point?
No, I deleted that stuff when I was responding to the first part and forgot to see the rest of the stuff that you said. However, it doesn't seem relevant to the debate.

What would have caused this to happen, and why do many of the statements of secession from the states mention that they are seceding because of slavery?
Reading the many declarations of secession/independence of each particular state, it seems that although slavery was an unfortunate factor, it was outweighed by many other reasons.

Protecting marriage would be to make it equal for everyone.
Marriage isn't just some thing with which you can play freely. It was created by God as in the Bible. You can't just steal the God's marriage for your own. Marriage is a religious institution created for men and women -- that's how they were supposed to unite as one.

The definition of a Christian is someone who believes in Christ, and Hitler certainly did.
That definition sucks... I'd personally vote to change it. I only think real Christians are Christians.

Except for the ones who were created gay and bisexual.
No one was created gay or bisexual. Their experiences have made them feel that way.

No actually, none of those things is true. Do you actually even understand Evolution? Because... If you did, you would know that it is the ONLY logical conclusion from the evidence we have. Clearly you are given only to spouting the propoganda you have been fed.


-snip-

I have just finished reading a book called "Why is a Fly not a Horse?", subtitled "Dimentacare Darwin" (forget Darwin in Italian), by Giuseppe Sermonti. (from the back cover)Dr. Sermonti is retired Professor of Genetics at the University of Perugia; he discovered genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces. He is chief editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, one of the oldest still-published biology journals in the world, and he has published seven other books.

The prologue of the book is titled "Evolution is dead!"

He is not an American, nor a Christian Fundamentalist. He is a respected Italian biologist.

His book, which is full of scientific facts not usually taught in standard biology classes, shows the utter inadequacy of Darwinism/neo-Darwinism in explaining biological origins and diversity.

A wonderfully written, quite interesting book.

And his conclusion is that Evolution is not the only logical conclusion from the evidence we have, that in fact, it is not a viable conclusion at all.

And no, you don't have to formulate a replacement theory to falsify an existing theory. That is for those whose minds have been opened by embracing the fact that the old theory has been falsified.

Personally I think the US should become a Christian Republic. All of our fundie nut-jobs can migrate over to America and the UK can take in all of the atheists (90% of the american scientific elite and 50% of american scientists in general). Oh, and obviously we'd take all of the minority religions as well.

In conclusion: we kick out the nutters and get some of the world's leading intellectuals in return. It's perfect. Admittedly it's not so great for the people in the US but you can't win them all...

a nation of the damned?

AWESOME!

hehe

Christianity is the problem in america, not homosexuality and pornography, which do no harm to anyone. Only by truly seperating church and state, instead of the sham we have now, can America ever turn things around.

What about the girls who appear in the graphic videos? Do you say that they are not harmed in some way? If not, then we disagree. Being objectified on a screen does not sound like a recipe for good mental health. What about the many marriages which suffer because one of the partners enjoys such media? Some people say that this type of thinking is moralistic, but if you think about it, we all gravitate toward people we consider moral.

Imagine. If I become a star athlete or a great surgeon, I will be admired and kids will want to be like me and my family will be proud, etc. But if I make millions from owning a burlesque night club, my family (who are not that religious) would think that I am trashy, and I would not be nearly as beloved even though I have achieved the same economic standing. Even if I donate a lot to charity, I would still be seen as somewhat of a hypocrite if I made my money in the flesh industry.

Think about your ideal self. Most people, when thinking about how they want to be, envision their most moral self, otherwise we would not have to justify doing the wrong thing. I realize we won't meet that standard, but just thinking about that makes one realize that there is something inherently negative in what we call "immoral" behavior.

I dont know what England can do though. The far right are more troublesome than the immigrants they despise. Islam seems to be the main problem though, not a lack of national identity. If we just secularise the world everything will be alright.

Once again, we must think of what people's natural inclinations are. People are naturally inclined to believe in God. Of these, many also desire God to have a role in their lives. Earlier, I posted a reply about why we should not have a state religion, because that will be putting secular people in an unacceptable state. Equally, we should not have an enforced secularization, because that will be putting religious people in an unacceptable state. Though I admit I don't really know what you mean when you say, "secularise the world".

Reading the many declarations of secession/independence of each particular state, it seems that although slavery was an unfortunate factor, it was outweighed by many other reasons.Perhaps those other reasons were just, but protecting slavery was not, and if the war had been fought over slavery, the war would have been just.

Marriage isn't just some thing with which you can play freely. It was created by God as in the Bible. You can't just steal the God's marriage for your own. Marriage is a religious institution created for men and women -- that's how they were supposed to unite as one.Marriage predates the Bible.

That definition sucks... I'd personally vote to change it. I only think real Christians are Christians.And what do you consider a "real Christian" to be?

No one was created gay or bisexual. Their experiences have made them feel that way.Then why wouldn't they just have other experiences to make them feel as though they weren't gay or bisexual? Why would somebody choose to be gay or bisexual?

No. All countries of thwe world should have no-state religion if they have a religion followed by less than 75% of their people. If above do what you want.

amen! And that's one thing I'm proud of... our diversity.
Yep. To make this a Christian state would be horrible. It would, in effect, make America old-fashioned and obsolete and spur the rise of Western Europe and Asia.

Then why wouldn't they just have other experiences to make them feel as though they weren't gay or bisexual? Why would somebody choose to be gay or bisexual?
I don't know if this is a rhetorical question to prove the other guy wrong, but I'll assume it isn't.
I think that no one chooses to be gay or bisexual. They just feel it, based on the experiences, and genetics (if those studies are proven true; however, so far they have not been). Then again, this information may be innacurate because I am not either and so you should ask someone who really is gay/bisexual.

Perhaps those other reasons were just, but protecting slavery was not, and if the war had been fought over slavery, the war would have been just.
Yes, but it was not fought over slavery. Lincoln, unfortunately, just didn't care about the slaves.

Marriage predates the Bible.
Biblical marriage does not, though.

And what do you consider a "real Christian" to be?
That is an essay question.

Then why wouldn't they just have other experiences to make them feel as though they weren't gay or bisexual? Why would somebody choose to be gay or bisexual?
My mom and dad go to a church, and they once had me go into an OWL class. There, people were encouraged to "explore their sexuality," which is a code-phrase for becoming gay if they randomly wanted to. Society isn't discouraging homosexuality enough, and homosexuals are encouraging it. Homosexuals aren't born; they are recruited.

Regardless of whether you think America should become a Christian State, it is clear to all of us that the USA is at a crossroads and much needs to change.

I am not an American myself.

However, as I am from England, I know the problems of the English Nation can be solved by a process of reviving English Nationhood and the rebirth of our own heritage and culture.

However the Americans are not of any particular racial or ethnic grouping, they are multitude of them.

Given the American Nation lacks any common cultural heritage or racial grouping, the only thing that holds the USA together is their Christian Faith.

Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all share the Christian Faith.

Given that, prehaps a Chritian governmental system, say similar to the system of Islamic law and government in Iran, would be beneficial to the American Nation.

It is clear, with all the corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife, uncertain economic future and the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.

Prehaps the Law of the Holy Scriptures is the answer for the USA.

Debate!

No, separation of church and state! Although I wouldn't mind seeing all the muslims exported...

But still, separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of this country.

I say NO, because even though i am a christian I feel that there is a good reason for the seperations of church and state. We can't FORCE people to follow christianity. If we need to do something we should work within the system of the republic we have now.

The separation of church and state means that the state may not establish a state religion, which is what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment also declares. It means nothing else. If Roy Moore wants to display the Ten Commandments as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, that is his religious freedom, and it does not violate other people's rights.

It should be noted that the "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It's a Jeffersonian principle: the "wall of separation between church and state." It did not mean that the government is a secular entity.

Given the American Nation lacks any common cultural heritage or racial grouping, the only thing that holds the USA together is their Christian Faith.

Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all share the Christian Faith.

Given that, prehaps a Chritian governmental system, say similar to the system of Islamic law and government in Iran, would be beneficial to the American Nation.

It is clear, with all the corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife, uncertain economic future and the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.

Prehaps the Law of the Holy Scriptures is the answer for the USA.

Debate!
WHAT ABOUT US ASIANS??? Not all of America is White, black, or hispanic. Some of those that are one of those are not Christian. A large part of Native Americans, Whites, and Asians are not Christian. ANY religion that has a large moral foundation can solve the moral decline. It would NOT be beneficial. And since when is homosexuality part of the moral decline? Because it says so in the Bible? Does it even say it in the bible (just wondering)?

Yes, but it was not fought over slavery. Lincoln, unfortunately, just didn't care about the slaves.True.

Biblical marriage does not, though.So allow homosexuals to get a government marriage. The Bible doesn't have a monopoly on marriage.

That is an essay question.Fair enough.

My mom and dad go to a church, and they once had me go into an OWL class. There, people were encouraged to "explore their sexuality," which is a code-phrase for becoming gay if they randomly wanted to. Society isn't discouraging homosexuality enough, and homosexuals are encouraging it. Homosexuals aren't born; they are recruited.Homosexuality existed even when society was putting homosexuals to the stake. Furthermore, you seem to be confusing sexual behavior with sexual orientation.

If Roy Moore wants to display the Ten Commandments as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, that is his religious freedom, and it does not violate other people's rights.It violates other people's rights by being a state recommendation of religion, which violates religious freedom.

And since when is homosexuality part of the moral decline? Because it says so in the Bible? Does it even say it in the bible (just wondering)?
Genesis chapter 19 is the story of Sodom and Gorah, where homosexuality is clearly established as one of the sinful moral declines that resulted from the incident at the Garden of Eden.

Genesis chapter 19 is the story of Sodom and Gorah, where homosexuality is clearly established as one of the sinful moral declines that resulted from the incident at the Garden of Eden.

The story of Lot is hardly a good ethical code is it? A man who God regards as virtuous offers a mob his two virgin daughters to be raped in order to spare his angelic visitors.

Oh, and if you'd read past the homosexual conotations of the city's name then you'd know that Sodom's crime was not homosexuality, but inhospitality.

One problem with that plan: There isn't enough room on that rock for all of us.

We'd have to go somewhere else. Like Canada, eh?

Meh, we can share you out between Canada and the rest of Europe, we're not greedy. :)

Genesis chapter 19 is the story of Sodom and Gorah, where homosexuality is clearly established as one of the sinful moral declines that resulted from the incident at the Garden of Eden.

Is that a joke? I see you didn't actually read the story.

The story of Lot is hardly a good ethical code is it? A man who God regards as virtuous offers a mob his two virgin daughters to be raped in order to spare his angelic visitors.

Oh, and if you'd read past the homosexual conotations of the city's name then you'd know that Sodom's crime was not homosexuality, but inhospitality.It's odd how people misinterpret the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, isn't it? The Bible says nothing about the gender of the angels that the men wanted to have sex with. Furthermore, if the men were homosexuals, then why would Lot have offered his daughters to them?

a nation of the damned?

AWESOME!

hehe

Cool huh? It'll be one neverending party! :p

This goes against everything the US stands for.

Biblical marriage does not, though.

Um, seriously, you're kidding, right?

That is an essay question.

Not if you understand the Bible.

My mom and dad go to a church, and they once had me go into an OWL class. There, people were encouraged to "explore their sexuality," which is a code-phrase for becoming gay if they randomly wanted to. Society isn't discouraging homosexuality enough, and homosexuals are encouraging it. Homosexuals aren't born; they are recruited.

May I have some evidence of this please? Is it the beatings and persecutions that is so seductive? Is is it the denial of rights? Could you turn gay? I know I couldn't. What makes you think anyone else coud?

This goes against everything the US stands for.
Errr just like forbiding secession does? :p

So allow homosexuals to get a government marriage. The Bible doesn't have a monopoly on marriage.
But allowing them to get a gov't "marriage" would still destroy the traditional, righteous family.

Homosexuality existed even when society was putting homosexuals to the stake. Furthermore, you seem to be confusing sexual behavior with sexual orientation.
Well, I think sexual behavior influences sexual orientation. Straight men don't sleep with gay men just for the hell of it....

It violates other people's rights by being a state recommendation of religion, which violates religious freedom.
There is nothing in the Constitution which protects people from being recommended a religion. A recommendation is just advocacy. The state is not bearing the sword in recommending that religion, so it's not a threat. The justice can display what he wants.

The story of Lot is hardly a good ethical code is it? A man who God regards as virtuous offers a mob his two virgin daughters to be raped in order to spare his angelic visitors.

Oh, and if you'd read past the homosexual conotations of the city's name then you'd know that Sodom's crime was not homosexuality, but inhospitality.

I'm gonna have to settle on troll. I don't believe someone can honestly make these arguments. The misunderstanding of the text of the bible. The misspellings that simply have to be intentional. The obvious and clear adherence to a stereotype. I'm telling you this kid is trolling.

But allowing them to get a gov't "marriage" would still destroy the traditional, righteous family.
Civil union and marriage are not the same. Civil union is a contractual relationship in the end, but not of a religious authority. Contractual relationships are fundamental to human liberty. Ergo, you have no right to bar two humans from entering one.


Well, I think sexual behavior influences sexual orientation. Straight men don't sleep with gay men just for the hell of it....
You are mistaken. Some (especially horny ones) do. Either way, sexual orientation is so far believed to be a matter of genetics, as is argued by Dr LeVay. Such studies are inconclusive, though so far evidence points strongly to sexual orientation being innate. You cannot simply choose to be homosexual.

But allowing them to get a gov't "marriage" would still destroy the traditional, righteous family.The traditional family is one where children are raised by an extended family. The nuclear family is relatively recent.

Well, I think sexual behavior influences sexual orientation. Straight men don't sleep with gay men just for the hell of it....No, sexual orientation influences sexual behavior. Furthermore, there are plenty of instance where straight men will sleep with gay men. The straight men would still be straight, though.

There is nothing in the Constitution which protects people from being recommended a religion. A recommendation is just advocacy. The state is not bearing the sword in recommending that religion, so it's not a threat. The justice can display what he wants.The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. It is impossible to have freedom of religion with the government telling you what religion to believe.

Every country should convert and become a Christian republic!

Not if you understand the Bible.
Any number of constructions can be drawn on what a good Christian is with the Bible as a basis. According to Jesus, it is he/she who respects his/her fellow human being and is tolerant of all. Fusionists who think the New Testament applies concurrently with the Old Testament will have different views entirely. There is no objective answer, unless you consider Christ's to be as such. Even proverbs such as Turn the other cheek are misinterpreted; Christ meant it in the context of standing up for yourself and demanding respect when confronted. Most people think it is a form of passive submission.

Every country should convert and become a Christian republic!

Or not...

Um, seriously, you're kidding, right?
Sometimes I say silly things.... :S

Not if you understand the Bible.
I just prefer to take my time answering questions like what was asked.

May I have some evidence of this please? Is it the beatings and persecutions that is so seductive? Is is it the denial of rights? Could you turn gay? I know I couldn't. What makes you think anyone else coud?
My personal experiences are evidence for me. Perhaps you couldn't, but a Catholic boy has tried to see my privates before, and I know that my sister is getting more and more queer because of my church, her friends, and movies like "Brokeback Mountain."

Im thinking a need to start secular seperatist movement because the US is becoming a Christian state. Im thinking I'll move to a state, gain a followship and break away. If they dont let us peacefully, we must fight to the death for freedom. Just think of it, a country where you can have has much porn, gay sex, abortions, and stem cell research you can handle! Whos with me?! viva la revolution!

The traditional family is one where children are raised by an extended family. The nuclear family is relatively recent.
And, in any case, studies have proven that homosexuals raising families does not damage the institution, but rather helps them integrate within societal norms. Thus it actually brings about the exact opposite effect to that preached by religious (and even secular) conservatives.

I'm gonna have to settle on troll. I don't believe someone can honestly make these arguments. The misunderstanding of the text of the bible. The misspellings that simply have to be intentional. The obvious and clear adherence to a stereotype. I'm telling you this kid is trolling.

The sad thing is that he's not even a particuarly funny troll. :(

This thread Fails!

Im thinking a need to start secular seperatist movement because the US is becoming a Christian state. Im thinking I'll move to a state, gain a followship and break away. If they dont let us peacefully, we must fight to the death for freedom. Just think of it, a country where you can have has much porn, gay sex, abortions, and stem cell research you can handle! Whos with me?! viva la revolution!
Seceding is not a fight. The Government will crush you outright. It is a slow and gradual process, one that actually is down so slowly and tactfully that the Government would be wrong in crushing it. Then, when it reaches critical mass, the Government implodes, and secession is viable.

And by the way, weren't you a major fan of the US Government just a while ago?

But allowing them to get a gov't "marriage" would still destroy the traditional, righteous family.

Uh-huh. The 'traditional' family that did not exist for most of human history and certainly was not the most popular throughout human history. The 'righteous' family that when it was considered a completely religious institution commonly involved , physical, emotional and sexual abuse, mysogony, treating women like property, inspired shows like who wants to marry a millionaire and the very sacred marriage of Brittany to her friend that lasted a whole day, people in the military marrying in order to get paid more, people marrying for citizenship, people marrying to not embarrass their family (pregnancy), people marrying because they were 'promised, etc. I think you've got bigger problems than two loving people who ACTUALLY want to spend their lives together.

Well, I think sexual behavior influences sexual orientation. Straight men don't sleep with gay men just for the hell of it....

According to you, they do. You claim that straight men are recruited into homsexuality. Now, of course, we agree with you. Straight men do not generally sleep with gay men AT ALL. The insinuation as to otherwise is simply ignorant of the nature of sexuality.

There is nothing in the Constitution which protects people from being recommended a religion. A recommendation is just advocacy. The state is not bearing the sword in recommending that religion, so it's not a threat. The justice can display what he wants.

I totally agree, as long as you skip over the first amendment, you don't know anything about precedence and you don't read the federalist papers.

And, in any case, studies have proven that homosexuals raising families does not damage the institution, but rather helps them integrate within societal norms. Thus it actually brings about the exact opposite effect to that preached by religious (and even secular) conservatives.There's that, too.

According to you, they do. You claim that straight men are recruited into homsexuality. Now, of course, we agree with you. Straight men do not generally sleep with gay men AT ALL. The insinuation as to otherwise is simply ignorant of the nature of sexuality.
So desperate men who want to be blown or something and see a pretty guy nearby would never engage oral sex with him? Some do.

Sometimes I say silly things.... :S


I just prefer to take my time answering questions like what was asked.


My personal experiences are evidence for me. Perhaps you couldn't, but a Catholic boy has tried to see my privates before, and I know that my sister is getting more and more queer because of my church, her friends, and movies like "Brokeback Mountain."

I got news for you, you don't get 'more and more queer'. Your sister has a sexuality. Brokeback Mountain may make her feel more comfortable telling you about it, but that sexuality was set before she begins to show any signs of that sexuality. Your ignorance of this is not evidence for your case, but evidence againsts accepting your arguments.

You are mistaken. Some (especially horny ones) do. Either way, sexual orientation is so far believed to be a matter of genetics, as is argued by Dr LeVay. Such studies are inconclusive, though so far evidence points strongly to sexual orientation being innate. You cannot simply choose to be homosexual.
If it's inconclusive, it's not fact. I have, however, experienced so-called "straight" boys jumping into my bed at a music camp, trying to pull off my shirt. Their soul has been corrupted by the influence of homosexuals, causing them to act randomly and crudely.

The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. It is impossible to have freedom of religion with the government telling you what religion to believe.
There is a distinction to be made between the gov't elite expressing their religions and the gov't telling you what religion to believe. If the gov't literally told you to believe in God, that might be a violation of religious freedom. But if people in gov't are telling you what they believe, as is the case when a judge displays the Ten Commandments, no harm is done.

Given that, prehaps a Chritian governmental system, say similar to the system of Islamic law and government in Iran, would be beneficial to the American Nation.

It is clear, with all the corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife, uncertain economic future and the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.
This is a really awful idea. Iran is a perfect example of why no country should implement religious law.

You think that Iran doesn't have corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife (well, maybe not this one, but I prefer that to no dissent at all - if anything America needs more party strife!), uncertain economic future and moral decline? (Killing gays and women for being who they are is not moral.)

Thus I shall simply say, 'God No', suggest that something more than Christianity keeps Americans together (Patriotism, love of the country and not a religion etc)
Definitely. American Patriotism transcends even more bounds than Christianity, for it unites people of all religions and most political persuasions.

No it is not, please don't use the 'arguement' put forward by communists/liberals and those who follow the immoral path that somehow the USA is already a theocratic system.
The equating of communists with liberals makes me suggest that you have spent too much time learning about religion and not enough learning about economics.

The U.S. is becoming increasingly theocratic, because the balance of power shifting more and more towards far-right conservative evangelists who give the Bible and their twisted political agenda precendence over the Constitution.
America has had periods like this before, which were way more conservative, yet it never turned into an outright theocracy. I doubt it will happen this time.

Now, for those of you who arent from the U.S., remember this. The constitution mandates seperation of church and state. End of story

There is nothing more to say.
I agree with the principle, but I don't think the US Constitution ever uses that phrase.

Well, I certainly think the US should just give up the pretense and admit that it is already a Christian theocracy. I'm sick of America pretending to be a free, equal, democratic, secular state, when superstition has so thoroughly hijacked America. Superstition is allowed to over-rule law, order, science, rationality, and any other aspect of reality that the superstitious sheeple want to fuck with. Why pretend any more? America is run by the superstitious, for the superstitious.
I think that you're exaggerating. Look at Iran for a real theocracy... many things happen there that do not happen in America. For example, in America gays are not allowed to get married. In Iran, gays are not allowed to live. Additionally, America is one of the easiest countries to get a divorce or an abortion in.

Besides, in a real theocracy, the religious clergy actually do run the government. In America they merely have a fringe influence.

The United States was founded to preserve and advance the Christian faith, but it was also founded upon religious freedom. Establishing a state religion is prohibited by the first amendment, but I agree that America needs to return to its Biblical/Common-Law foundations and Constitutionally-limited government. Abortion/homosexuality/tyranny/etc. is here because Lincoln and the North invaded the real America (The South) in the 1860s.
It sucks that the federal government oppressed your right to oppress the blacks, gays, etc, doesn't it?

I'd like to heard how the South is the real America. Most of the original 13 states, including "Sodom & Gomorrah" Massachusetts, are in the North.

But we should not be a secular state. Secularism is what diminishes liberty, because only the Bible holds the answer to liberty, freedom, and justice for all.
For all Christians, you mean.

Erm, at the most recent election just under 50% of the population rejected that kind of representative. The majority of Americans may be Christians, it doesn't follow that they are also conservatives.

Bush surely is not a "Christian constitutional conservative", he's way too moderate for that.

Dividing the south, the northeast, and the west into three seperate countries would greatly improve the country(ies.)
No it wouldn't. It might enable greater social homogeny, but it would be an economic disaster. The Christian areas and the secular areas needs each other to stay prosperous.

I also don't share your moral relativism. Having a South which punishes its gay citizens (for example) is not acceptable at all.

No, the Bible simply isn't up to running a modern technological society, if nothing else. Of course, as an anarchist, I'm biased, but I really can't see any reason would this would be a good idea. I mean, people like me would be burned at the stake; all my favorite hobbies would be banned (except maybe for music, but I'd have to divert my plans to do Christian music instead); and it would put the US at a severe disadvantage in terms of science and technology (imagine space travel by a nation that makes flat earth official doctrine).
Excellent post. All non-Christian music would probably be banned (see Iran). If they went even more extreme, all music could be banned (see the Taliban).

Hey! As long as foreigners are giving advice on how others should run their country, I have a proposal for you!

STFU!
Does this principle of yours extend to countries whose governments are committing genocide (hey it's their country, who are we to tell them what to do?), or only to America?

So desperate men who want to be blown or something and see a pretty guy nearby would never engage oral sex with him? Some do.

Straight men do not generally sleep with gay men AT ALL.

See, it's important that you read ALL the words. And what you describe is certainly the exception, not the rule.

I personally have gone for very long times without sex. I was never tempted to put my penis in the mouth of a man. In fact, at one particularly desperate time, I was lamenting my situation and I had a gay man offer. I told my reaction was the best evidence I'd ever gotten that I am straight. If a woman had said that to me no matter what she looked like, my shorts would have been jumping (I was fairly young at the time). But when a fairly attractive man said it to me, I felt nothing, but the urge to be nice in turning him away.

If it's inconclusive, it's not fact. I have, however, experienced so-called "straight" boys jumping into my bed at a music camp, trying to pull off my shirt. Their soul has been corrupted by the influence of homosexuals, causing them to act randomly and crudely.
The case for sexuality being innate, or genetic even, is stronger than that for Evolution being a viable theory. It is fact so far that it is innate. The why is what has not been answered conclusively. So no, no one is corrupting those already homosexual boys. Music camp? Please, where do you think most gay boys go? Are you completely clueless? :rolleyes:

I totally agree, as long as you skip over the first amendment, you don't know anything about precedence and you don't read the federalist papers.
Are stare decisis or the Federalist papers in the Constitution? The first amendment is, but you've interpreted it incorrectly.

See, it's important that you read ALL the words. And what you describe is certainly the exception, not the rule.

I personally have gone for very long times without sex. I was never tempted to put my penis in the mouth of a man. In fact, at one particularly desperate time, I was lamenting my situation and I had a gay man offer. I told my reaction was the best evidence I'd ever gotten that I am straight. If a woman had said that to me no matter what she looked like, my shorts would have been jumping (I was fairly young at the time). But when a fairly attractive man said it to me, I felt nothing, but the urge to be nice in turning him away.
And if a woman had offered the same to me, I would have denied flatly. So I guess that is a fair indicator that I am completely gay.

Seceding is not a fight. The Government will crush you outright. It is a slow and gradual process, one that actually is down so slowly and tactfully that the Government would be wrong in crushing it. Then, when it reaches critical mass, the Government implodes, and secession is viable.

And by the way, weren't you a major fan of the US Government just a while ago?
Im a major fan of America and our way of life, not right-wing christian influences. btw, I do like your ideas for secession.

Im a major fan of America and our way of life, not right-wing christian influences. btw, I do like your ideas for secession.
I see. Then it makes more sense.

Outright secession is idiotic you see. It has to be done methodically. I'll send you a TG.

I agree to the "Kindly get the hell out of my country"

Any number of constructions can be drawn on what a good Christian is with the Bible as a basis. According to Jesus, it is he/she who respects his/her fellow human being and is tolerant of all. Fusionists who think the New Testament applies concurrently with the Old Testament will have different views entirely. There is no objective answer, unless you consider Christ's to be as such. Even proverbs such as Turn the other cheek are misinterpreted; Christ meant it in the context of standing up for yourself and demanding respect when confronted. Most people think it is a form of passive submission.

Christ makes the requirements for being a Christian fairly simple and clear (I would argue that many Christians tend to skip over those passages because they require them to be more gentle and respectful of their fellow man regardless of their beliefs), however, we can leave that for another thread.

If it's inconclusive, it's not fact. I have, however, experienced so-called "straight" boys jumping into my bed at a music camp, trying to pull off my shirt. Their soul has been corrupted by the influence of homosexuals, causing them to act randomly and crudely.Or, it could be that sexuality isn't as black-and-white as you'd like to believe.

There is a distinction to be made between the gov't elite expressing their religions and the gov't telling you what religion to believe. If the gov't literally told you to believe in God, that might be a violation of religious freedom. But if people in gov't are telling you what they believe, as is the case when a judge displays the Ten Commandments, no harm is done.People in government telling you what they believe by putting the 10 commandments on government building is literally telling a person what they should believe. The judge is free to express his religion in private, or in public as much as he wants, as long as it isn't in the context of him doing his job.

The case for sexuality being innate, or genetic even, is stronger than that for Evolution being a viable theory. It is fact so far that it is innate. The why is what has not been answered conclusively. So no, no one is corrupting those already homosexual boys. Music camp? Please, where do you think most gay boys go? Are you completely clueless? Lol. I didn't notice the part about music camp until now.

Christ makes the requirements for being a Christian fairly simple and clear (I would argue that many Christians tend to skip over those passages because they require them to be more gentle and respectful of their fellow man regardless of their beliefs), however, we can leave that for another thread.
Indeed he does, and I agree with you on that. Which was my point anyway. The meaning of being a real Christian is twisted by many who try and interpret the Bible in various alternative ways, such as the OT superseding the NT. Anyway, as you said, best left for another debate.

Secularize the world? What happened to religious freedom? Secularism is tyrannical.
Secularism is not about outlawing religion. It's about governing without bias to any particular religion. I think that religion should be personal, not in the government. But everything that I hate about politicised religion can be explained by this:

Image (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/911wtcreutersitaly.jpg)

The United States was founded to preserve and advance the Christian faith.

No, it wasn't.

Bad start, I'm afraid.

Are stare decisis or the Federalist papers in the Constitution? The first amendment is, but you've interpreted it incorrectly.

Stare decisis was an innate expectation. It wasn't put in the US Constitution because like many other things it was expected to be understood as a natural part of law. It's a part of our system that is so innate that it's not even mentioned. There are many such things which is why we have a ninth amendment. It's not possible to encode all things in law. Intent and spirit of law is very much important to the application of law. The federalist papers make such intent very easy to analyze. Stare decisis is a part of what the people were agreeing to when the US Constitution was ratified. Without it, our entire system of law becomes fairly random and the checks and balances break down to the point of judges being the only real power in government. But of course, you knew that, yes?

Secularize the world? What happened to religious freedom? Secularism is tyrannical.

The irony of a person arguing secularism is tyrannical... who also (one assumes, if the entire thing is not a troll charade) believes in the concept of God, and Heaven?

Let's think about it for a second... what would you say, was the political model closest to the 'leadership' in the Biblical 'Heaven'?

I'm sorry if somone already mentioned this, but the United States is far from the Christian Republic everyone says it is. It is a secular-humanist representative democracy. The removal of church from state, not state from church which is what the writers of the constitution hoped it to mean, has come so far as to place human feelings over what God says. If you don't believe in God: fine, I'm sorry, but fine. If you worship a different God than I: fine, sorry, but fine. I support a Christian Republic because I want to see what I believe is the truth accepted by the civil government just as the truths accepted by agnostics and more moderate atheists are accepted today.

Obviously not...as an American, I want not only my first amendment rights, but also I don't want to have to be a Christian

Forget about global warming. Forget the danger of earth quakes. Forget the possibility of the Earth being hit by a meteor.


Praise the lord...........Kneel to George W. or will it be Pat Robertson??????
We are headed to the dark ages again.............Man will prosper....................He may starve to death, but he will be saved.....................Fuck it all. The American psyce today is no different from the radical Muslims. They all need to be put in a room together. May the stronger faith kill all the others in the name of God. If there is a God, he must be laughing his ass off.................

Marriage isn't just some thing with which you can play freely. It was created by God as in the Bible.
Then why are straight atheists allowed to get married in the eyes of the law?

That definition sucks... I'd personally vote to change it. I only think real Christians are Christians.
You know who you remind me of?

"Stalin wasn't a real communist!"

Earlier, I posted a reply about why we should not have a state religion, because that will be putting secular people in an unacceptable state. Equally, we should not have an enforced secularization, because that will be putting religious people in an unacceptable state. Though I admit I don't really know what you mean when you say, "secularise the world".
What? Not having a state religion, or a state influenced by religion, is secularism (which is not the same as atheism).

Secularise the world = separate religion from politics globally. Things would be a lot nicer without Muslim fundamentalists killing people every week in the name of Allah and the Caliphate.

There, people were encouraged to "explore their sexuality," which is a code-phrase for becoming gay if they randomly wanted to.
No it isn't.

Society isn't discouraging homosexuality enough, and homosexuals are encouraging it. Homosexuals aren't born; they are recruited.
You can't choose to be gay. I have been accepting of gay people for my whole life, though I have never wanted to be gay. The idea of me having sex with another man disgusts me.

The separation of church and state means that the state may not establish a state religion, which is what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment also declares. It means nothing else. If Roy Moore wants to display the Ten Commandments as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, that is his religious freedom, and it does not violate other people's rights.
I don't know who Roy Moore is, but I'm sure that the Supreme Court is not his private property.

The irony of a person arguing secularism is tyrannical... who also (one assumes, if the entire thing is not a troll charade) believes in the concept of God, and Heaven?

Let's think about it for a second... what would you say, was the political model closest to the 'leadership' in the Biblical 'Heaven'?

More importantly, Jesus seemed to be a big advocate of the seperation of church and state. He oftened pointed to the incestuous relationship of the church and the state as a cause for the major corruption of both at the time of his ministry.

Christianity does not really lend itself to theocracy.

Unlike Islam, which has its own system of religious law governing non-moral issues, Christianity only has the Bible, which is somewhat ambiguous.

As a Christian, I have to say that the idea of a theocracy is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The only way to live in a truely free country is to have a government that is not biased by religion. Seperation of church and state protects my rights, period.

the best argument for separation for church and state can be found in part I
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

Didn't we fight one of the bloodiest wars in human history to preserve the Union? America was founded as a dream, as a hope for better tomorrow with faith in humanity, a belief that if left with liberty the best in man would come out. The Union is not perfect, has never been perfect, and never will be perfect, but it has the best chance of being what a nation SHOULD be. We've mistepped at times in the past but always in the sake of benevolence, the belief that we were doing what was best for humanity and not just ourselves. We've, more than any other nation, has struggled for the Jeffersonian ideal that in every heart beats a longing for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While we may not even have that perfected in our own nation, we have done more to advance this cause than any other nation in the world. While founded in the Judeo-Christian tradition, we must realize that it is a nation for all people. We shouldn't dissolve the Union in favor of Christianity but rather allow people to acknowledge this nation's Christian roots at the same time recognizing the changing dynamics of our nations. We are the most patriotic and faithful of the Western nations and as such we must set an example and not let ourselves get ripped apart by the theologic xenophobia that terrorizes such places as Israel, Ireland and the Netherlands. We have freedom of religion not from religion. The government is not supposed to protect us from religion, just not let it interfer in the government with undue influence. I would say that all communities should have the freedom to erect monuments in recognition of their faiths, it is their freedom to do so.

Look, you don't live here, you weren't raised here, so how should you know what holds the Union together? When England was under Oliver Cromwell, there was no freedom of Religion, and he, the government controlled everything (kind of like Facists).
We arent an ethnic group, your right, but we are all AMERICANS.

Someone plaes explain to me how you cannot allow your religious feelings to influence your government position. I really don't understand how that is possible.

All right, I can't be as opinionated as I am and let this one slip by.

Look, the United States of America has, in its Constitution that the president swears to protect and uphold, a little thing called the Establishment Clause. Paraphrasing, it says "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of an official religion". There's no grey area there. This isn't something like abortion, where you can claim it's implied. No, it's in there pretty solidly.

If that isn't enough, Thomas Jefferson - and no, this isn't in the Constitution, but he wrote the thing, so I think it;s got at least some bearing - spoke of a "wall of separation between church and state", noting that when the two are mixed, the church is dragged down. He wrote that in a letter to a religious group.

To elaborate on that, every time religion and government mix the religion is corrupted! Look at Iran and most of the Middle Eastern states. They aren't following true Islam! Look at what happened in Europe when all the Catholics and Protestants decided that there is only ONE right way to reach G-d. Some 30 million dead later, they finally took a break from killing each other. As an American - no, as a Christian - I would fight to the death to prevent my religion from being sullied with the scum that run our country.

If you don't like it, try to change the law. But do it legally, and I will fight you tooth and nail - legally speaking - to stop it. This American Citizen says "NO WAY!"

An American Christian Republic would lead to renewed isolationism. Also quite a few countries would oppose such a Republic, especially in the Middle East. I can't see either the Saudis or the Israelis being to keen to keep working with the United Christian States of America.

Most religious extremism leads to the distortion of what that religion actually stands for. Probably the best example is the Ku Klux Klan, who claimed to be working for a Christian America.

More importantly, Jesus seemed to be a big advocate of the seperation of church and state. He oftened pointed to the incestuous relationship of the church and the state as a cause for the major corruption of both at the time of his ministry.

Indeed.

Personally, I can't think of a better reason for Christians to FIGHT AGAINST 'theocratic government', than the words of Jesus.

That whole "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" thing...

Someone plaes explain to me how you cannot allow your religious feelings to influence your government position. I really don't understand how that is possible.
it is easy to seperate it, there are things that I think are wrong, but I also think it's none of the government's business. The problem really comes into play when you want big government. I would like limited government, there wouldn't really be that many questions that would come up that you would have to think about in a religious sense, because the government wouldn't be so involved in your life.

Indeed.

Personally, I can't think of a better reason for Christians to FIGHT AGAINST 'theocratic government', than the words of Jesus.

That whole "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" thing...

Jesus was speaking to people in a pagan empire. He told them to give what was truly Caesar's to Caesar; because he was king, that meant taxes and the like. The Jews (and we) have to obey the civil authority as long as it doesn't trie to supplant God's authority: the Nazis killing the Jews for example. However, Jesus never says anything about what a government ought to be.

[QUOTE=Clusterfuqe] We have freedom of religion not from religion.QUOTE]

I don't know, I'd say the two go hand in hand. We have the freedom to worship who we please, and we should have the freedom to not worship who we please, if that is our choice.

If on the other hand you simply meant for the atheists and uber-sensitive people of (insert religion/sect/cult here) to stop complaining about a monument of the 10 Commandments erected in a Courthouse, then you're going into uncharted waters, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Do people actually read these or am I wasting my time?

it is easy to seperate it, there are things that I think are wrong, but I also think it's none of the government's business. The problem really comes into play when you want big government. I would like limited government, there wouldn't really be that many questions that would come up that you would have to think about in a religious sense, because the government wouldn't be so involved in your life.

What I meant was: "How do I, who equate abortion with murder in all circumstances, tell someone that simply because I am a senator or whatever, that it is okay for them to have an abortion?" How do I throw my own morals aside like that?

What I meant was: "How do I, who equate abortion with murder in all circumstances, tell someone that simply because I am a senator or whatever, that it is okay for them to have an abortion?" How do I throw my own morals aside like that?
I believe that abortion is murder, I believe it is the killing of a child, I can not let my beliefs spill over onto someone else's choice. I think that sex before marriage causes a lot of problems in the world, I think that people shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, I can not let my beliefs stop someone from having the choice to do that.

understand?

Jesus was speaking to people in a pagan empire. He told them to give what was truly Caesar's to Caesar; because he was king, that meant taxes and the like. The Jews (and we) have to obey the civil authority as long as it doesn't trie to supplant God's authority: the Nazis killing the Jews for example. However, Jesus never says anything about what a government ought to be.

Um, perhaps you should read it again.

What I meant was: "How do I, who equate abortion with murder in all circumstances, tell someone that simply because I am a senator or whatever, that it is okay for them to have an abortion?" How do I throw my own morals aside like that?

You don't. You say I think this is wrong, but since I can't secularly show why, I will allow people to make their own decisions and hope they make the right one. I think a lack of spirituality is wrong, so should I vote against the laws that protect freedom of religion? Of course not. You have no right to force your beliefs on others. If your beliefs are so 'right' it should be easy to make others see that without the force of law.

You don't. You say I think this is wrong, but since I can't secularly show why, I will allow people to make their own decisions and hope they make the right one. I think a lack of spirituality is wrong, so should I vote against the laws that protect freedom of religion? Of course not. You have no right to force your beliefs on others. If your beliefs are so 'right' it should be easy to make others see that without the force of law.
yeah. That's what I meant to say. You are always clearer than I am.....no fair:( :)

What I meant was: "How do I, who equate abortion with murder in all circumstances, tell someone that simply because I am a senator or whatever, that it is okay for them to have an abortion?" How do I throw my own morals aside like that?

Because, if you can't put your own bias aside, you have NO business being a Senator? After all, how can you even pretend to represent your constituents, if you refuse to serve their interests?

I believe that abortion is murder, I believe it is the killing of a child, I can not let my beliefs spill over onto someone else's choice. I think that sex before marriage causes a lot of problems in the world, I think that people shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, I can not let my beliefs stop someone from having the choice to do that.

understand?

No, I don't understand. I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything like that. But, how can you say the muder of an elderly lady is wrong and regulate that through the government but not regulate the murder of an unborn child. Outlawing murder is placing your beliefs on someone else, isn't it? An the unborn child is defenceless: at least the old lady can scream!

No, I don't understand. I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything like that. But, how can you say the muder of an elderly lady is wrong and regulate that through the government but not regulate the murder of an unborn child. Outlawing murder is placing your beliefs on someone else, isn't it? An the unborn child is defenceless: at least the old lady can scream!

Cynical minds might argue that the old lady can scream, because she is 'alive'...

No, I don't understand. I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything like that. But, how can you say the muder of an elderly lady is wrong and regulate that through the government but not regulate the murder of an unborn child. Outlawing murder is placing your beliefs on someone else, isn't it? An the unborn child is defenceless: at least the old lady can scream!
ah, but I can't prove that it's a child can I?

sorry. I will stop being so specific, I don't want to hijack.

Because, if you can't put your own bias aside, you have NO business being a Senator? After all, how can you even pretend to represent your constituents, if you refuse to serve their interests?

That's why I would support a Christian Republic, where persons are elected to rule over the people based on their intelligence, values etc. We live in a representative democracy.

You don't. You say I think this is wrong, but since I can't secularly show why, I will allow people to make their own decisions and hope they make the right one. I think a lack of spirituality is wrong, so should I vote against the laws that protect freedom of religion? Of course not. You have no right to force your beliefs on others. If your beliefs are so 'right' it should be easy to make others see that without the force of law.

Thank you!
This is probably from where my problem understanding came. I believe that secularism is a religion. The idea that man can have any idea or moraltiy that God has not placed there requires faith, doesn't it? In my mind it does. So secularism is either a religion of its own or a denomination of an existing religion, depending on the extremity, in my mind.

That's why I would support a Christian Republic, where persons are elected to rule over the people based on their intelligence, values etc. We live in a representative democracy.

How does your 'Christian Republic' represent me?

Also, I don't know where you live, but here in the States we HAVE a Republic (A Federal Republic, to be accurate).

No, I don't understand. I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything like that. But, how can you say the muder of an elderly lady is wrong and regulate that through the government but not regulate the murder of an unborn child. Outlawing murder is placing your beliefs on someone else, isn't it? An the unborn child is defenceless: at least the old lady can scream!

Because you can show objectively that a murder occurs in the case of the old lady. Show me that their is a person capable of being murdered and you might have an argument there. You can't and you don't.

Thank you!
This is probably from where my problem understanding came. I believe that secularism is a religion. The idea that man can have any idea or moraltiy that God has not placed there requires faith, doesn't it? In my mind it does. So secularism is either a religion of its own or a denomination of an existing religion, depending on the extremity, in my mind.

Since you attribute all ideas and morality to your 'god', of course you would perceive the idea to the contrary as being demanding of faith. But, that is because you start from a biased assumption.

Thank you!
This is probably from where my problem understanding came. I believe that secularism is a religion. The idea that man can have any idea or moraltiy that God has not placed there requires faith, doesn't it? In my mind it does. So secularism is either a religion of its own or a denomination of an existing religion, depending on the extremity, in my mind.

Secularism is the absense of religion. It holds no views on God at all and particularly not the one you are espousing. Because you don't see the difference between secular and atheist does not make it cease to exist. Your mind is wrong. Secularism is not what you're defining it as and it does not hold the beliefs you ascribe to it. Jesus didn't find secularism to be in competition with Christianity. Why would you?

How does your 'Christian Republic' represent me?

Also, I don't know where you live, but here in the States we HAVE a Republic (A Federal Republic, to be accurate).

I live in the US, but I must disagree. And I must admit that I am redefining a word. My skill in linguistics is not proficient enough yet to create one. That republic would not represent you, rather it would rule over you. Still, you would have the ability to remove someone from office if they become incompetent. The only difference between a republic and a representative democray (using my definitions) is the mindset of the citizens.

I live in the US, but I must disagree. And I must admit that I am redefining a word. My skill in linguistics is not proficient enough yet to create one. That republic would not represent you, rather it would rule over you. Still, you would have the ability to remove someone from office if they become incompetent. The only difference between a republic and a representative democray (using my definitions) is the mindset of the citizens.

There are words for nearly every type of government one can dream of. If you wish to espouse a type of government particularly one that so clearly violates human rights, perhaps you should do a bit more research on whether it's been thought of before and whether it's been successful.

Regardless of whether you think America should become a Christian State, it is clear to all of us that the USA is at a crossroads and much needs to change.

I am not an American myself.

However, as I am from England, I know the problems of the English Nation can be solved by a process of reviving English Nationhood and the rebirth of our own heritage and culture.

However the Americans are not of any particular racial or ethnic grouping, they are multitude of them.

Given the American Nation lacks any common cultural heritage or racial grouping, the only thing that holds the USA together is their Christian Faith.

Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all share the Christian Faith.

Given that, prehaps a Chritian governmental system, say similar to the system of Islamic law and government in Iran, would be beneficial to the American Nation.

It is clear, with all the corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife, uncertain economic future and the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.

Prehaps the Law of the Holy Scriptures is the answer for the USA.

Debate!

No. No. No.
Either this is a public display of ignorance or an attempt to jerk Americans chains.
THINK ABOUT IT. If America has many people of different ancestery, why not of different beliefs and/or religion?

Guess what? Not only are we multi-ethnic, we're multi-religious.
QFT.

Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all share the Christian Faith.
Who said America is only made up of Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics?
What about those of the above that are Jewish? What about those of the above that are muslim? Islam? What about those in our country of asian descent? Eastern asian descent?

To say that the US is/should be bound together by religion, is complete and utter stupidity. On the other hand, saying that the US could be bound together by beliefs that people should be able to choose their religion (FOR EXAMPLE), would be far more accurate.

This is without a doubt the WORST direction to take the country. It would go against everything this country stands for. Religious rule is BAD, I don't know if you've looked at some of the middle-east theocracies, but anyone who thinks that a Christian theocracy would be better then an Islamic one is lying to themselves. If that ever happened, I would honestly condone a civil war. I, and most americans, are not willing to live under a regime which freely legislates and enforces their own view of morality and doesn't even try to pretend its justified. It would have to opress half its citizens - any non-christians, any non-straights, potentially any non-whites, we already have enough of a problem with bigotry. Anyone left over would have to say goodbye to their civil freedoms. (Oh yeah, wasn't this part of the idea behind the Third Reich?) ABSOLUTELY not. EVER. :headbang:

Secularism is the absense of religion. It holds no views on God at all and particularly not the one you are espousing. Because you don't see the difference between secular and atheist does not make it cease to exist. Your mind is wrong. Secularism is not what you're defining it as and it does not hold the beliefs you ascribe to it. Jesus didn't find secularism to be in competition with Christianity. Why would you?

I never said there wasn't a difference. Secularism is the outcome of an athiest and agnostic spin placed into faiths typically called religions. The result is that everyone assumes that government can make no law that may step on anyone's toes. However, even Jesus did have something against secularism. He came to uphold the law, not part of the law. That includes many of the government regulations in the Old Testament, those that Paul does not specifically say are speaking to cultural issues.

There are words for nearly every type of government one can dream of. If you wish to espouse a type of government particularly one that so clearly violates human rights, perhaps you should do a bit more research on whether it's been thought of before and whether it's been successful.

Whose human rights am I violating? I never even said one would be unable to elect one's own leaders. I merely said the aim would not be "to have one's voice heard." The aim would be to be ruled by just, loving, intelligent, wise, moral persons. There are very few of those. And I am not a political scientist, nor do I desire to be one. If there is a name for the system of government I am promoting, I am not surprised I don't know it, though I would be happy to learn.

I never said there wasn't a difference. Secularism is the outcome of an athiest and agnostic spin placed into faiths typically called religions. The result is that everyone assumes that government can make no law that may step on anyone's toes. However, even Jesus did have something against secularism. He came to uphold the law, not part of the law. That includes many of the government regulations in the Old Testament, those that Paul does not specifically say are speaking to cultural issues.

No, it isn't. The people who invented secularism primarily were not atheist or agnostic. They were interested in protecting their religious belief from the government corruption of beliefs they'd seen in the past. Many of the original colonists were fleeing corrupt government enforced religions. Secularism is the result of the effect of power on religion and how important it is that this corruption not reach our souls.

He came to uphold spiritual law. You'll notice he did not require help from the government to do so. The use of law in case you are referencing has nothing to do with governmental activity in any way. He actually went against governemental enforcement of spiritual law. Do you need examples or can you think of a couple for yourself? Certainly, you wouldn't be making this argument unless you are VERY well versed in the Bible, no? Also, I notice that you don't recognize that Jesus accused much of OT 'law' of being the rules of man. I also notice that you miss the fact that Jesus succinctly summarized the law for us. A law that is very easy to live by and a law that you violate by denying people religious freedom.

(Oh yeah, wasn't this part of the idea behind the Third Reich?) ABSOLUTELY not. EVER. :headbang:

No! No! No! Hitler hated the Church! Those churches that would not fall into sin with him, he planned to exterminate after the Jews. And those churches were the traditional ones, the ones not giving into the demands of society.

Whose human rights am I violating? I never even said one would be unable to elect one's own leaders. I merely said the aim would not be "to have one's voice heard." The aim would be to be ruled by just, loving, intelligent, wise, moral persons. There are very few of those. And I am not a political scientist, nor do I desire to be one. If there is a name for the system of government I am promoting, I am not surprised I don't know it, though I would be happy to learn.

You don't believe freedom of religion is a human right? And elected leaders is not enough. If the leaders are not bound by rules that protect human rights, then only the way of excercising those rights within the bounds of the discretion of the majority will be available. This is a problem and a clear violation of human rights. Would you consider it a violation of your human rights if you were forced to live under a Muslim government?

i hope this is a joke.

if not, why do you (threadstarter) suppose that a christian nation would be any more competent then a secular one?

No, it isn't. The people who invented secularism primarily were not atheist or agnostic. They were interested in protecting their religious belief from the government corruption of beliefs they'd seen in the past. Many of the original colonists were fleeing corrupt government enforced religions. Secularism is the result of the effect of power on religion and how important it is that this corruption not reach our souls.

He came to uphold spiritual law. You'll notice he did not require help from the government to do so. The use of law in case you are referencing has nothing to do with governmental activity in any way. He actually went against governemental enforcement of spiritual law. Do you need examples or can you think of a couple for yourself? Certainly, you wouldn't be making this argument unless you are VERY well versed in the Bible, no? Also, I notice that you don't recognize that Jesus accused much of OT 'law' of being the rules of man. I also notice that you miss the fact that Jesus succinctly summarized the law for us. A law that is very easy to live by and a law that you violate by denying people religious freedom.

The colonists were fleeing corrupt governments. I will admit that theocracies are very easily corrupted. However, so is democracy.

I am versed in the Bible, though I wouldn't say very well. Jesus never said only the spiritual laws to my knowledge. If you know where he did, please give the verse so I may be corrected. The human laws he went against were the laws of the Pharises, not the Law. They had become such legalists that they went against the spirit of the Law. They focused more on obeying laws than a relationship with God.

Yes, Jesus said the greatest law was love. However, I must point to that saying that disgusts everyone: Love the sinner, hate the sin.

You don't believe freedom of religion is a human right? And elected leaders is not enough. If the leaders are not bound by rules that protect human rights, then only the way of excercising those rights within the bounds of the discretion of the majority will be available. This is a problem and a clear violation of human rights. Would you consider it a violation of your human rights if you were forced to live under a Muslim government?

I never said citizens would not have freedom of religion. Allowing someone to believe in which God he or she chooses (or no God) is freedom of religion. This can be in a Christian government. There is a difference between not allowing someone to have a faith other than Christianity and having the supreme law of the land be a very nondenominational form of Christianity.

I never said citizens would not have freedom of religion. Allowing someone to believe in which God he or she chooses (or no God) is freedom of religion. This can be in a Christian government. There is a difference between not allowing someone to have a faith other than Christianity and having the supreme law of the land be a very nondenominational form of Christianity.

no because then i as an atheist taxpayer would be paying money to support a religous entity, in a sense forced church donation. fuck that.

plus you set up a system very succeptable to imposing christian based morals when no government has the right to do so.

Would you consider it a violation of your human rights if you were forced to live under a Muslim government?

I'm not sure. I'm leaning towards yes, because I would not be allowed to have my own beliefs. Again, there is a difference between not allowing opposing beliefs to exist, and having a government based on the principles of one religion.

no because then i as an atheist taxpayer would be paying money to support a religous entity, in a sense forced church donation. fuck that.

plus you set up a system very succeptable to imposing christian based morals when no government has the right to do so.

I thought that was the idea. To impose Christian morals.
When I'm old enough to start paying taxes, I will have to support government welfare. I don't believe that's right. (I support welfare, but from charity. I believe the government is taking reponsibility away form families and charities by imposing welfare. Yes, they are imposing - Social Security isn't an option.)

The colonists were fleeing corrupt governments. I will admit that theocracies are very easily corrupted. However, so is democracy.

I am versed in the Bible, though I wouldn't say very well. Jesus never said only the spiritual laws to my knowledge. If you know where he did, please give the verse so I may be corrected. The human laws he went against were the laws of the Pharises, not the Law. They had become such legalists that they went against the spirit of the Law. They focused more on obeying laws than a relationship with God.

Yes, Jesus said the greatest law was love. However, I must point to that saying that disgusts everyone: Love the sinner, hate the sin.

I'll help you out. Here is the verse that you should write on your heart. In order to do so, however, you have to apply it to everyone, not just those who believe as you do.

Matthew 7:12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

That means if you would have the freedom to explore your relationship with God and what you believe about Him, you must give everyone the same freedom even those that choose a different path. In the same chapter you will also see the requirement of not judging others.

There is much evidence that you ignore the principles of your savior as you suggest take away the freedoms of others, as you judge them and as you treat as enemies.

Matthew 5:43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Also, to the point you made earlier, here is what Jesus had to say -

Matthew 5:17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Notice the difference. He refers to His Law one way, but because that nuance is absent in our language we simply capitalize it and the laws of men in another way. Jesus didn't just say he fulfilled the Law and the Prophecies but then he summarized them for us and told us how we might follow a good path. Nothing you espouse here evidences that the passage I first cited is written on your heart.

I thought that was the idea. To impose Christian morals.
When I'm old enough to start paying taxes, I will have to support government welfare. I don't believe that's right. (I support welfare, but from charity. I believe the government is taking reponsibility away form families and charities by imposing welfare. Yes, they are imposing - Social Security isn't an option.)

wait why would we want christian morals?

and just because you don't have a choice in supporting welfare doesn't mean you should accept it.

I'm not sure. I'm leaning towards yes, because I would not be allowed to have my own beliefs. Again, there is a difference between not allowing opposing beliefs to exist, and having a government based on the principles of one religion.

You can't have one without the other. Even if it is not the intent, in practice it will become a religion that forces out other religions. This is a corruption of the teachings and of the spirits of men.

No it is not, please don't use the 'arguement' put forward by communists/liberals and those who follow the immoral path that somehow the USA is already a theocratic system.

That is used by the far-left to try and gain public support for their own corrupt cause, for they seek to tarnish the good work of the Christian Faith with a government that is now starting to lack popular support and is SECULAR.

If the USA was a Christian Republic, the Constitution would not exist as it does in it's present form.

How come homosexuality and abortion and pornography are still LEGAL?

Under the Chrisitan Republic, as I would see it one which follows the Holy Scriptures, those sexual deviants would be executed.

But they are not.

Please show me REAL evidence of the USA being a Christian Republic, not just posting far-left propaganda.


Bush, secular? xD You seriously woke up on the wrong side of the nuthouse this morning; have you taken your medication yet? :upyours:

I thought that was the idea. To impose Christian morals.
When I'm old enough to start paying taxes, I will have to support government welfare. I don't believe that's right. (I support welfare, but from charity. I believe the government is taking reponsibility away form families and charities by imposing welfare. Yes, they are imposing - Social Security isn't an option.)

You ignore evidence to the contrary. Welfare did not always exist and people were allowed to starve to death. History tells us differently than your claims. You can still have charity. You can still raise up the poor and the meek. If you are not doing so now, I say your claim is an excuse to not even cover the most basic of needs for those that need it.

I'll help you out. Here is the verse that you should write on your heart.

I'm going to sound like a jerk in saying this, but that is not my intent. You don't know me (I don't think). Therefore, you are assuming that my stand on a Christian republic means that I want to kill or at least persecute everyone who thinks differently than I. That is not the case. I try to be very warm and loving to everyone. There are of course those who are a little harder to love and those who are a lot harder to love. That doesn't change the fact that the natural outcome of believing that the Bible is the word of God and is therefore perfect (though yes, the translations from Greek and Hebrew sometimes cause problems). If God's law is the perfect law why should governments not be modled after it? Thank you though for the verses for me to think about.

You ignore evidence to the contrary. Welfare did not always exist and people were allowed to starve to death. History tells us differently than your claims. You can still have charity. You can still raise up the poor and the meek. If you are not doing so now, I say your claim is an excuse to not even cover the most basic of needs for those that need it.

I did not say that it welfare was practiced by those who ought to practice it: families and charities. I merely said that was where the responsibility lies.

That's why I would support a Christian Republic, where persons are elected to rule over the people based on their intelligence, values etc. We live in a representative democracy.
It's not that democratic if only Christians can be elected.

I'm going to sound like a jerk in saying this, but that is not my intent. You don't know me (I don't think). Therefore, you are assuming that my stand on a Christian republic means that I want to kill or at least persecute everyone who thinks differently than I. That is not the case. I try to be very warm and loving to everyone. There are of course those who are a little harder to love and those who are a lot harder to love. That doesn't change the fact that the natural outcome of believing that the Bible is the word of God and is therefore perfect (though yes, the translations from Greek and Hebrew sometimes cause problems). If God's law is the perfect law why should governments not be modled after it? Thank you though for the verses for me to think about.

I assume no such thing. I KNOW that in practice your government will bastardize my religion and harden the hearts of those who are unrepresented by it. I KNOW that all that is required for persecution to exist is the unequal recognition of the beliefs of others.

The government was modeled after it until a young man stood up and spoke out about it started a new way of practicing our religion. He was a charismatic leader and a peaceful man. He felt that the message was strong enough to render the rule of law in spreading or supporting it unnecessary. That young man was named Jesus Christ and you spit in his face when you act as if a government that does not allow free worship but instead raises one particular interpretation of a religion above all others would not corrupt his teachings. That government itself is a corruption and I would be standing it's doors protesting as loudly as my voice allows the damage it does to my religion.

Your lack of faith is not mine. I do not support you inability to have faith in His teachings. I do not support your willingness to subjugate the ways of Jesus. His message was clear and you twist it to your means. I needn't explain to you what is wrong with doing so.

They'll have to grow their own pope, which of course means Pope Wars.

I like the way you think. All shall perish in the papal wars. Starting Fall 2006 in the 8pm slot on Fox News.

Thomas Jefferson once said 'The Seperation between Church and State was to protect the Church from the State but to protect the State from the Church'.

I think that is still a very valid point and if you don't think so read a history book, perhaps the sections about the Spanish Inquistion, and Witch hunting in America.

It's not that democratic if only Christians can be elected.

Are there anarchists who are elected? I'm not aware of any, but I'm sure there's one some where. Socialists and communists are elected, though not so much since the Red Scare and the Cold War. Non-Christians could be elected. Opposing view points would be allowed. It is our reponsibility to change what we think is wrong: governemnts, societies, opinions, etc. It is our duty to fix what is broken. So if there ever is a Christian republic, the secularists had better be trying to oppose it, much to the grief of persons like me.

I did not say that it welfare was practiced by those who ought to practice it: families and charities. I merely said that was where the responsibility lies.

So fix it. The abolition of welfare does nothing to encourage charity. Charity has not dropped off since the creation of welfare and I challenge you to show otherwise. Charity was not able to prevent the starvation of adults and children so a better way was adopted. To suggest that going back to a way that has proven untenable is a better way is simply ignoring the facts.

I assume no such thing. I KNOW that in practice your government will bastardize my religion and harden the hearts of those who are unrepresented by it. I KNOW that all that is required for persecution to exist is the unequal recognition of the beliefs of others.

The government was modeled after it until a young man stood up and spoke out about it started a new way of practicing our religion. He was a charismatic leader and a peaceful man. He felt that the message was strong enough to render the rule of law in spreading or supporting it unnecessary. That young man was named Jesus Christ and you spit in his face when you act as if a government that does not allow free worship but instead raises one particular interpretation of a religion above all others would not corrupt his teachings. That government itself is a corruption and I would be standing it's doors protesting as loudly as my voice allows the damage it does to my religion.

Your lack of faith is not mine. I do not support you inability to have faith in His teachings. I do not support your willingness to subjugate the ways of Jesus. His message was clear and you twist it to your means. I needn't explain to you what is wrong with doing so.

Please don't be angry. If I assumed wrongly, I apologize. I truly do not understand your interpretation of Scipture, then.

There is unequal representation of beliefs already, as it should be. Why are the people outraged when the KKK meet or the NeoNazis meet. I won't say it's good to have unequal representation of ideas, but it has saved us a lot of grief.

i'm still trying to gather the benefits of a christian republic.

so far all i have is "people will prbably be able to practice their own beliefs"

:mad: The Theocracys are a horrible idea first they'd be no freedom of religion. thats why the first europeans came here.The history of the nation has and always will be the freedom of chioce.

So keep america the same (except impeach Bush)

They'll have to grow their own pope, which of course means Pope Wars.
Well you know what they say about Benedict XVI :D

So fix it. The abolition of welfare does nothing to encourage charity. Charity has not dropped off since the creation of welfare and I challenge you to show otherwise. Charity was not able to prevent the starvation of adults and children so a better way was adopted. To suggest that going back to a way that has proven untenable is a better way is simply ignoring the facts.

I'm trying. I encourage people to give to charity and I do myself. My time, my talents and my treasures. I can't show that the giving of welfare has dropped off. That's probably because the persons who give give regardless.

I am not trying to downplay the plight of those who need aid. I am merely saying a change in the mind of society is better than the government stepping in. Will a societal change be harder? Yes. But, what happens when you do everything for someone? That person no longer desires or sees the need to do it him or herself.

i'm still trying to gather the benefits of a christian republic.

so far all i have is "people will prbably be able to practice their own beliefs"

If you are not a Christian, you will see no benefit in a Christian republic. Just as I, a Christian, do not see the benefits of a secular representative democracy. Just as we both probably see no benefit to a Islamic republic.

Please don't be angry. If I assumed wrongly, I apologize. I truly do not understand your interpretation of Scipture, then.

There is unequal representation of beliefs already, as it should be. Why are the people outraged when the KKK meet or the NeoNazis meet. I won't say it's good to have unequal representation of ideas, but it has saved us a lot of grief.

That's not true. We do not stop people from holding beliefs, only acting on them. You mistake unpopular with unequally supported by the government. They are very different. Unpopular allows each individual to choose what they support or do not support, while governmental support makes all people support the views of the majority. This is vastly different and I'm quite sure you can see the difference.

I'm not angry, I'm just educated. The evidence is available to you that your beliefs are dangerous, but you choose not to examine that evidence. I'm not at all fearful that your beliefs will ever become law, but I am shamed by the fact that you use the words of my savior to support your dangerous and, frankly, Bible-defiant ideas. I certainly hope that people can see the personal issues you are using to subjugate the actual teachings and recognize that the errors in your claims are your own and do not evidence flaws in the teachings.

If you are not a Christian, you will see no benefit in a Christian republic. Just as I, a Christian, do not see the benefits of a secular representative democracy. Just as we both probably don't see no benefit to a Islamic republic.


i don't see the benefits of either really but good thing government isn't (or shouldn't be) about benefiting certain group of people.

how exactly will having a secular government hurt you? or, how exactly does having a christian government help you?

If you are not a Christian, you will see no benefit in a Christian republic. Just as I, a Christian, do not see the benefits of a secular representative democracy. Just as we both probably see no benefit to a Islamic republic.

Interestingly, Christ did not see the benefit of a theocratic government even if it is a republic. Hopefully if a Christian Republic is ever realized Christians will point out how the government cannot help but bastardize the teachings just as Jesus did in his day. Hopefully, they will seek to soften those hearts that would be hardened by such a mistake as a Christian Republic. I can think of nothing more Christian than a secular government that allows me to worship without their corruption touching what I hold sacred.

That's not true. We do not stop people from holding beliefs, only acting on them. You mistake unpopular with unequally supported by the government. They are very different. Unpopular allows each individual to choose what they support or do not support, while governmental support makes all people support the views of the majority. This is vastly different and I'm quite sure you can see the difference.

I'm not angry, I'm just educated. The evidence is available to you that your beliefs are dangerous, but you choose not to examine that evidence. I'm not at all fearful that your beliefs will ever become law, but I am shamed by the fact that you use the words of my savior to support your dangerous and, frankly, Bible-defiant ideas. I certainly hope that people can see the personal issues you are using to subjugate the actual teachings and recognize that the errors in your claims are your own and do not evidence flaws in the teachings.

Thank you. Unpopular and unequal are to different things, yes.

If you aren't angry, sorry for assuming you are. But I am also ashamed that you use the words of my Savior to support your views which, in my "subjugation" of Scripture, are overlooking many of the laws in the Old Testament.

I will say however, that you are correct: one can be a Christian and disagree with my political views. Obviously.

I'm trying. I encourage people to give to charity and I do myself. My time, my talents and my treasures. I can't show that the giving of welfare has dropped off. That's probably because the persons who give give regardless.

I am not trying to downplay the plight of those who need aid. I am merely saying a change in the mind of society is better than the government stepping in. Will a societal change be harder? Yes. But, what happens when you do everything for someone? That person no longer desires or sees the need to do it him or herself.

See, you pretend as if you wish to continue charity and the argue against it. You reveal yourself. Don't use Jesus as an excuse to spread your personal ideals.

Thank you. Unpopular and unequal are to different things, yes.

If you aren't angry, sorry for assuming you are. But I am also ashamed that you use the words of my Savior to support your views which, in my "subjugation" of Scripture, are overlooking many of the laws in the Old Testament.

I will say however, that you are correct: one can be a Christian and disagree with my political views. Obviously.

Interesting that you think following the summary that Christ offered is an offense. By what authority do you amend the words of our Savior?

Interestingly, Christ did not see the benefit of a theocratic government even if it is a republic. Hopefully if a Christian Republic is ever realized Christians will point out how the government cannot help but bastardize the teachings just as Jesus did in his day. Hopefully, they will seek to soften those hearts that would be hardened by such a mistake as a Christian Republic. I can think of nothing more Christian than a secular government that allows me to worship without their corruption touching what I hold sacred.

If Jesus was the second person of the Trinity, then He and God the Father both set forth the laws for governing in the Old Testament. These include all the laws in the Pentatuch. Then people which God raised up, the Judges, were made to rule over the whole nation in times of distress. In the absence of Judges outside the Church, all that is left are the laws of the Pentatuch.

Regardless of whether you think America should become a Christian State, it is clear to all of us that the USA is at a crossroads and much needs to change.

I am not an American myself.

However, as I am from England, I know the problems of the English Nation can be solved by a process of reviving English Nationhood and the rebirth of our own heritage and culture.

However the Americans are not of any particular racial or ethnic grouping, they are multitude of them.

Given the American Nation lacks any common cultural heritage or racial grouping, the only thing that holds the USA together is their Christian Faith.

Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all share the Christian Faith.

Given that, prehaps a Chritian governmental system, say similar to the system of Islamic law and government in Iran, would be beneficial to the American Nation.

It is clear, with all the corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife, uncertain economic future and the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.

Prehaps the Law of the Holy Scriptures is the answer for the USA.

Debate!

I'm a conservative, but I have to say no. I dislike any kind of organized religion a la the Vatican (I'm Catholic), and believe that religious bureaucracies can only cause suffering, much like most other bureaucracies. This isn't to say that the government shouldn't comply with commonly accepted morality and acknowledge the culture of the nation- just that a State Church like a Department of Religion would be a catastrophe. It should be the will of the people, who reflect the values of Scripture, rather than just taking what you want from the Scripture via bureaucracy.

Interesting that you think following the summary that Christ offered is an offense. By what authority do you amend the words of our Savior?

I didn't say I found Jesus' words offensive. I said I found you interpretaion flawed. I AM offended at your use of the word subjugated.

I hate to infuriate and leave, but I have other things that need doing. Thank you for an interesting discussion. Thank you Jocabia for interesting points and things on which to meditate and pray.

Biological evolution has too many holes, many of which are gaping holes, to be considered fact. That most scientists accept it does not verify it. For example, it does not explain how thought and feelings evolved. Also, there are some species that defy evolution. I should also point out that evolutionary thinking, in addition to Lincoln's tyranny, has contributed to the moral problems of the 20th century. Hitler could have supported his extermination of the Jews by referring to The Origin of Species by claiming that his people have evolved superior to the Jews. However, America is founded upon the principle that "all men are created equal," which destroys the Nazi concept of racial superiority. Evolutionary thinking has also led Supreme Court Justices to think that the Constitution is an evolving document, which is false. The text has never changed.

Homosexuality: I don't hate homosexuals, but I am wary of the dangers of letting homosexuality spread. It is an immoral lifestyle that corrupts individuals and distorts the image of man and woman. The first amendment should protect the Biblically-founded institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and we should stop homosexuals from trying to get nonexistent rights, like "civil unions," which are "marriages" under another name. I think the best way, however, to stop the spread of homosexuality is not to be so aggressive on them, but instead to simply encourage the role of religion on American life.

Abortion: murder.


A very small percentage of them had slaves, and yes racial slavery is bad, but at least it was soon going to be abolished peacefully. Lincoln had to murder thousands just so slaves wouldn't steal white jobs. He was a bigger racist than most Southerners.


Hick. Good day.

Here is Matthew 6 - In it Jesus argues for a personal spirituality. He tells us to keep our charity secret. Our prayer secret and simple. Our fasting secret. All of our acts of spirit and for our spirit are to be private acts to be kept so secret that even our left hand is unaware of the right.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=6&version=31

That argues against your claims.

In chapter 7, he argues against pushing your spiritual views on others and for the idea of freedom and the respect of the rights of all people.

He also says that the best way to learn about false prophets is to look at the fruit of their teachings. We have seen the fruit of religious governments again and again even those that allow 'free' worship outside of the government religion.

We know that the fruit of a personal relationship is a personal piety and personal effort to please God in all we do. We know that fruit of a public relationship with God is vanity and persecution. Again, the falseness of your teachings are obvious. You'll get no figs from your thistles.

Again, the teachings of Jesus are clear when you do not try to bend them to excuse a lust to control others. They are not for you to put on others but for you to put on yourself. Work on your plank, son. You are in no position to address the dust in the eyes of millions.

I didn't say I found Jesus' words offensive. I said I found you interpretaion flawed. I AM offended at your use of the word subjugated.

I didn't interpret them. I posted them. They meaning of the summary is clear. As are all the teachings of Jesus. Would you have a man tell your children to learn about Islam? Then why would you tell his to learn about Christianity? You would not live in a state run by his religion but you ask that he live in one run by yours. You would not give up your right to worship, but you would take his. If you can find an excuse for this in the teachings of Jesus please quote the words. I would be interested to see them.

If Jesus was the second person of the Trinity, then He and God the Father both set forth the laws for governing in the Old Testament. These include all the laws in the Pentatuch. Then people which God raised up, the Judges, were made to rule over the whole nation in times of distress. In the absence of Judges outside the Church, all that is left are the laws of the Pentatuch.

Yes, the laws that Jesus fulfilled for us. If these men were what they claimed to be and had the authority you claim, then did not Jesus rebel against God when he rebelled against them. Your teachings offer poisoned fruit and this is why the logic does not flow through them. It simply doesn't make sense. They cannot both be infallible when they clashed with one another.

Jesus rebelled because the government was not one of God, but one of man. He fulfilled the role that rabbis fulfilled and made our relationship with God personal. (Shall I quote where he tells us so?) The relationship of man to God was fundamentally different after Jesus came and if you do not recognize this then you completely ignore the teachings of our Savior.

I notice that your fruit does not come from a single quote scripture. Provide the scriptural support for your claims.

Matthew 23: 5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Of course, you are well versed in the culture at the time of Jesus, no? It is very important to understanding exactly what Jesus says here. Care to explain why what he said was so important and so much of a contrast to your claims? I mean given that you wish to interpret the scripture for others and act as a spiritual guide you must have put in a level of effort commensurate with such an eternally important position, no?

Nah I think I'll stick with the whole secular republic deal. If it ain't broke don't try to fix it.

If we do, let me get out first, Okay?

I wrote this before reading the entire thread so some of this may have already been said before.

Questions

Some of them are rhetorical, but i'll let you guys decide.

Also, there are some species that defy evolution.
What species are you refering to that defy evolution? I don't know of any that do that.

If Roy Moore wants to display the Ten Commandments as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, that is his religious freedom, and it does not violate other people's rights.
If he can do this than can someone display the swatstika? Sence it is a hindu religous symbol.

A very small percentage of them had slaves, and yes racial slavery is bad, but at least it was soon going to be abolished peacefully. Lincoln had to murder thousands just so slaves wouldn't steal white jobs. He was a bigger racist than most Southerners.
How much to you is a very small percentage? It can be a very relative turm. Can you prove that Lincoln killed the thousands of blacks?

With knowing that over 450 species on the planet exhibet homosexual behaviors. Doesn't that make homosexuality a natural thing, excluded from being considerd moraly right or wrong?

to stop the spread of homosexuality is not to be so aggressive on them, but instead to simply encourage the role of religion on American life.
The problem is that Christians, much like anyone else, are no strangers to corruption and immorality. Politicians are almost invariably hypocrites whether they are of religious bent or not.
If religion doesn't cause politicians to stop being corrupt, how does adding religion to homosexuals going to get them to be straight.

a nation of the damned?

AWESOME!

hehe
Have you ever thought of what it would be like without a government in control?

People have these grand nationalistic ideas about how "the union" should never be divided, when in fact it's that exactly that is hurting the country.
Is the grand nationalistic ideas or "the union" hurting the country? Or more inportant is it people who do not think about what they say or at all?

Whoever was the fachist. Are you one of the people who, at soccer games have the police called just to keep you guys from rushing the field and beating half the players?

Now for my point of view.

Gays should just be left alone. Gays dont hit on straight people. So there is no direct effect to you. If you are hit on maybe thats a sign. The only way you should be able to tell other people how to act, is if it has more then a moral issue with you.

Evolution is actually very plausable if you actually read all the facts about it. Intelligent Design and Creation are also plausable, but they rely more on faith then on fact, but that doesn't make a incorrect theory. You never know if they can all be wrong, it could just be aliens doing it.(I think its evolution)

Abortion needs to be on sercomstance. If theres an actual problem with it then you can get it aborted. Rapes should not count as a problem because there's the morning after pill thats at most hospitals.

If you have any problems with my view go boink youself.

If there's a typo, tell me, i'll fix it.

However, as I am from England, I know the problems of the English Nation can be solved by a process of reviving English Nationhood and the rebirth of our own heritage and culture.



What the heck is English nationhodd or culture? Even the term Anglo-Saxon is inherently multicultural, not to mention the early contributions of the Celts, Normans, and others. Now threads of the culture of more recent arrivals have woven their way into the tapestry of English culture. It is a country of one wave of immigration after another. You cannot "revive" English culture and nationhood by turning back the clock, but only by accepting the inevitability of change.

I am not an American myself.

Then why do you care what we do? You seem to be very involved with Englishness. America has nothing to do with that -- unless you have some broader agenda that we should be aware of?


However, as I am from England, I know the problems of the English Nation can be solved by a process of reviving English Nationhood and the rebirth of our own heritage and culture.

However the Americans are not of any particular racial or ethnic grouping, they are multitude of them.

Oh, you know that, do you? Well, okay for you, but it still has nothing to do with us, especially considering that in that same quote you point out why it has nothing to do with us.


Given the American Nation lacks any common cultural heritage or racial grouping, the only thing that holds the USA together is their Christian Faith.

We don't have a common Christian faith.


Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all share the Christian Faith.

No, they don't. Have you ever been to the States?


Given that, prehaps a Chritian governmental system, say similar to the system of Islamic law and government in Iran, would be beneficial to the American Nation.

Right, because things are going so swimmingly in Iran. Unlike athiest communist China which is no way poised to be the next super-power. Nope, Iran is definitely the model to follow, if you're in the market for oppressive totalitarian regimes. :rolleyes: (Free clue: Now is not the optimal time to ecourage Americans to emulate fundamentalist Muslims. We're at war, you know. I don't like it, but it's a fact.)

It is clear, with all the corruption, lies, dishonesty, party strife, uncertain economic future and the moral decline of America with abortion/homosexuality/pornography etc... and the high crime rate, that democracy has failed the American people in every way possible.

That's a pretty strong slant you've got there, friend. You sound like a used car salesman. You know what -- why don't you go resolve all those same issues in Merrie Olde Englande and then come back and tell us Americans how we should run our business. Do that, and we might even forget that we decided over 200 years ago that we don't care what the English think.

Prehaps the Law of the Holy Scriptures is the answer for the USA.

No more so than they have been for any other country.

All men are created straight.


Rubbish. It would be like saying everyone is born equal while forgetting about the various medical conditions that exist that say "No. Not everyone is born equal"


Most elite Republicans are not true Christians, and the same goes for the blind Republican cheerleaders, like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. The Bible does not justify invading other countries. The sword may only be used in self-defense.


You haven't said anything about bombing medical buildings and killing doctors, marginalize (and kill) people based on skin color, sexual orientation, oppress women and promote a patriarchal system. And making a Christian theocracy won't solve anything. People still run the system. And the Vatican back then when it was a real power had a tendency to do things like invade a couple of nations when they felt like it.

A Christian government also gave us the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials.

You want a perfect Christian government? Go petition god to run it or you'll just end up with a return to the dark ages.

But is it good for the Jews? :p

Name me a theocracy that isn't totalitarian/evil/warmongering/terrorist-funding. (apart from Vatican City) Any names? Any at all?

Prehaps the Law of the Holy Scriptures is the answer for the USA.
Not while I still breathe will I let a slave morality like that dominate me.

I'd rather live in the USSR.

United States of Scientologist Republicans

Seriously I'd rather be dead.

I would go down fighting before I ever lived in a theocratic nation.
Theocracy doesn't offer freedom of anything. It is tyranny.

I'd rather live in the USSR.

United States of Scientologist Republicans

Seriously I'd rather be dead.

What he said and stuff...

I live in the US, but I must disagree. And I must admit that I am redefining a word. My skill in linguistics is not proficient enough yet to create one. That republic would not represent you, rather it would rule over you. Still, you would have the ability to remove someone from office if they become incompetent. The only difference between a republic and a representative democray (using my definitions) is the mindset of the citizens.

You disagree? What do you disagree with?

The USA is a 'Federal Republic'... and it neither seeks your support or your permission for that. It was founded SPECIFICALLY as a Republic, rather than a Democracy.

It was also founded specifically on the premise of government being intended to represent the people, rather than 'rule over' them. Indeed, the 'war of independence' was effectively a policy statement to the effect.

What you describe might be better termed a Rational Christian Autocracy... but I see no reason why it would be a 'good thing'.

I never said there wasn't a difference. Secularism is the outcome of an athiest and agnostic spin placed into faiths typically called religions.

No, secularism is a mechanism for enabling different belief systems to interact.

Jesus was a 'secularist'. (The whole 'render unto' argument).

It is our duty to fix what is broken.

Actually, it is not.

Re-read your Bible. A strict literal reading heavily reinforces the idea of Christians staying out of politics completely, although most people have such a lax grasp of their scripture that they don't realise.

Christians are told to remain 'separate' from the rest of society, and Jesus distances religion from government in his insistence on differentiating between that which is Caesar's and that which is God's.

If Jesus was the second person of the Trinity, then He and God the Father both set forth the laws for governing in the Old Testament. These include all the laws in the Pentatuch. Then people which God raised up, the Judges, were made to rule over the whole nation in times of distress. In the absence of Judges outside the Church, all that is left are the laws of the Pentatuch.

Those laws only applied to Israel....

*Religious Crap*
My opinion of you gets lower and lower each day you know.

Name me a theocracy that isn't totalitarian/evil/warmongering/terrorist-funding. (apart from Vatican City) Any names? Any at all?

Why is Vatican city excluded from the list?