Religious Nationalism in the US

[Kenny]

I don't recall any scripture that advocates freedom or social equality. The bible is misogynistic, homophobic, pro-slavery... very oppressive and autocratic.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male norfemale: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:26
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Genesis 1:27 ESV​

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Acts 17:26 ESV​

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Acts 10:34 ESV​

So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,

 

[Kenny]

Kentucky's Constitution

Interesting excerpt from my state constitution:

Section 5 Right of religious freedom.
No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or
denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical
polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to
the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister
of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he
may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person
shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or
disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case
whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.
Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised
September 28, 1891.

Which is correct... there was a definite effort not to institute a single denomination as a state imposed belief system. That is very biblical.

But to say it was separation of church and state it would not include:

5. The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed by the Legislature the most solemn appeal to God.​

One does not appeal to God if there is a separation

And the original constitution said:

III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious societies or modes of worship.​

If it was meant to be "secular" - why have it? And just which "Almighty God" do you think they had in mind? Zeus or the Spaghetti Monster?

 

[Kenny]

I think "plagiarized" is too strong a word. It's fine for philosophers' ideas to be plagiarized. Jefferson loved Locke's ideas, and his contemporaries knew that Jefferson was often invoking Locke in his speeches and in the Declaration of Independence.

It would kinda be like me making a post here on RF that started with "To be or not to be. That is the question." Even if I don't credit Shakespeare when I say that, it's hardly plagiarism. Everyone knew where I got the quote, and no one is going to accuse me of passing it off as my own.

The enlightenment philosophy (from which liberalism sprang) was just as concerned with tearing down old Christian dogmas as it was formed from a backdrop of Christendom.

I think any modern Christian should take a long look at Locke's theories on separation of church and state. Locke didn't just see the state being corrupted by Christianity's influence.

LOCKE SAW CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM AS A THREAT TO CHRISTIANITY ITSELF.

As in, the more nationalistic that Christianity becomes, the more it betrays Jesus Christ and what he stood for.

I'm not saying Locke was right or wrong here, but anyone who defends Christian nationalism ought to take a good hard look at Locke's arguments.

Again.. how many quotes do you want?

 

[Kenny]

Well, there is that pesky establishment clause of the first amendment.

Which is "freedom OF religion" and not "freedom FROM religion"... and, yes, it is a pesky Amendment for those who don't like religion

 

[Kenny]

Massachusetts, 1780​

Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration: “I . . . do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected.”

 

[Kenny]

Pennsylvania, 1776​

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

 

[Kenny]

Maryland, 1776​

That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.

 

[Kenny]

Delaware, 1776​

Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit: “I, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

 

[Kenny]

And then you want to say it wasn't based on the Christian faith?

NAY, I say, thou villainous knaves, thou base notorious knaves and scurvy fellows!

 

[Father Heathen]

Which is "freedom OF religion" and not "freedom FROM religion"... and, yes, it is a pesky Amendment for those who don't like religion

Ah, so then you didn't read the establishment clause. Go do so.

 

[Kenny]

Ah, so then you didn't read the establishment clause. Go do so.

You will have to establish exactly what you are saying other than what you just posted and not a modern interpretation.

EDIT:

Or you can read up the historicity thereof:

Reclaiming Religious Liberty by Restoring the Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” —U.S. Constitution, Amendment I, Clause 1 (Establishment Clause) Religious liberty is currently at a crossroads in America. Values and virtues that long enjoyed almost universal respect are now openly despised and reviled by...

www.heritage.org

 

[Father Heathen]

You will have to establish exactly what you are saying other than what you just posted and not a modern interpretation.

EDIT:

Or you can read up the historicity thereof:

Reclaiming Religious Liberty by Restoring the Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” —U.S. Constitution, Amendment I, Clause 1 (Establishment Clause) Religious liberty is currently at a crossroads in America. Values and virtues that long enjoyed almost universal respect are now openly despised and reviled by...

www.heritage.org

Garbage link. Christendom has long enjoyed power and privilege in the west. Pretending to be a victim just because people's rights and freedoms have been freed from its slimy tendrils is a rather pathetic display.

Try a more critical, objective approach.

Also ask yourself, why is it so important to your faith to control others or to tear them down? Does that really bring people to Jesus?

 

[Kenny]

Garbage link. Christendom has long enjoyed power and privilege in the west. Pretending to be a victim just because people's rights and freedoms have been freed from its slimy tendrils is a rather pathetic display.

Try a more critical, objective approach.

Also ask yourself, why is it so important to your faith to controll others or tear them down? Does that really bring people to Jesus?

Bias and your "has long enjoyed power and privilege" validates my position of your bias.... you may want to read a more object report

"Also ask yourself, why is it so important to your faith to controll others or tear them down?" - Really? Isn't that what you are doing?

 

[Father Heathen]

"Also ask yourself, why is it so important to your faith to controll others or tear them down?" - Really? Isn't that what you are doing?

Nope. I believe you should have the right to believe, say, and practice whatever you want.
My problem is when people act upon their beliefs in ways that victimize or deny rights and freedom for others.

There is a difference between "I'm a muslim, therefore I shall not eat pork." and "I'm a muslim, therefore you shall not eat pork."

You eating a pork chop doesn't make Muslims victims, correct?

 

[Kenny]

Nope. I believe you should have the right to believe, say, and practice whatever you want.
My problem is when people act upon their beliefs in ways that victimize or deny rights and freedom for others.

There is a difference between "I'm a muslim, therefore I shall not eat pork." and "I'm a muslim, therefore you shall not eat pork."

I am of the position that your faith is your own and I respect your right as a free-will spiritual agent to hold that position. No control, no force feed, just freedom.

Eat pork, don't eat pork or be a vegetarian if it floats your boat.

 

[Father Heathen]

I am of the position that your faith is your own and I respect your right as a free-will spiritual agent to hold that position. No control, no force feed, just freedom.

Eat pork, don't eat pork or be a vegetarian if it floats your boat.

So why then won't conservative christians leave LGBT folk alone and let them live their lives in peace?

 

[Kenny]

So why then won't conservative christians leave LGBT folk alone and let them live their lives in peace?

Are they going to their homes and picketing?

 

[Kenny]

So why then won't conservative christians leave LGBT folk alone and let them live their lives in peace?

I remember a conference called Acquire the Fire for young people being held in California. The lines for entrance had to be protected as the outside was lined with all types of people that included LGBT - as they cursed, tried to get a hold of the young people et al.

 

[Father Heathen]

I remember a conference called Acquire the Fire for young people being held in California. The lines for entrance had to be protected as the outside was lined with all types of people that included LGBT - as they cursed, tried to get a hold of the young people et al.

What exactly was "Acquire the fire"? And what do these anecdotes have to do with legislation?

 

[Kenny]

What exactly was "Acquire the fire"? And what do these anecdotes have to do with legislation?

You mentioned "leave them alone"... but it was a one way street statement. Stay on track please.