Who does not believe in freedom of choice in religion?

[ppp]

??? May be you need to seriously think about the origination of law. Law always comes from one's religion, widely defined. A person's religion is known by their law. Law doesn't emerge from a vacuum, but from principles, which will be based on atheism or belief in some philosophy, or from some spiritual belief. You sit there sneering at religion, but laws based on religious belief have led to just and open societies; and laws based on atheist principles have led to grossly unjust societies.

Christianity in the United States has always been a bitter opponent of social reform. Women's rights, labor rights, same sex marriage, interracial marriage, trans right, and yes, even slavery. Christianity consistently fights against social reforms until the majority of the populace changes, then claims that the reform was a Christian initiative the entire time. Pfui.

And yes, I know that Christians like to give credit to Christianity for abolition. But Christianity supported and indulged in the practice of slavery for more than 1,500 years. It was the tiny pocket of Quakers who were pushing the entire rest of Christendom. And they got very little traction until the Industrial Revolution occurred and slavery was no longer as economically advantageous.

 

[eik]

Christianity in the United States has always been a bitter opponent of social reform. Women's rights, labor rights, same sex marriage, interracial marriage, trans right, and yes, even slavery. Christianity consistently fights against social reforms until the majority of the populace changes, then claims that the reform was a Christian initiative the entire time. Pfui.

A treaty of peace and friendship between the United States and Tripoli that was approved by George Washington explicitly stated: “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…”

I think you'll find Christianity has had little influence on a predominantly deist form of government that from the start was opposed to giving Christianity any preferences. Deism can be extremely hostile to Christianity. But I would agree that Christian concern has possibly impeded "social reform," but why shouldn't it? May be the majority didn't want to live in a society of homsexuals and divorce on demand.

What you term "social reform" others would call, "the march toward the exclusion of Christianity from all forms of public life and public law."

You're so bigotted against Christianity yourself, it's hardly worth debating with you.

And yes, I know that Christians like to give credit to Christianity for abolition. But Christianity supported and indulged in the practice of slavery for more than 1,500 years.

Since you can't or won't distinguish deism from Christianity, or state religion from personal religion, then you are a discreditable witness.

The governments of both the UK and USA have been predominantly deist, not Christian, since the second half of the 18th century and in the colonial United States of America from the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The last properly Christian governor of the UK was Oliver Cromwell back in the 1650s, long before the UK slave trade started.

It was the tiny pocket of Quakers who were pushing the entire rest of Christendom. And they got very little traction until the Industrial Revolution occurred and slavery was no longer as economically advantageous.

The substantial impetus came from the 1787 first meeting of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade bringing British Quakers and Anglicans together to form an effective movement which resulted in abolition first in the UK.

 

[ppp]

But I would agree that Christian concern has possibly impeded "social reform," but why shouldn't it? May be the majority didn't want to live in a society of homsexuals and divorce on demand.

Let's not abridge the list. Christianity opposed women's rights, labor rights, same sex marriage, interracial marriage, trans rights, and the abolition of slavery. You ask why Christians should not want to oppose these things. As opposition to them is antibliblical, I suppose that they should. Fortunately, most Christians are more moral than that book. Not exactly a high bar to beat.

You're so bigotted against Christianity yourself, it's hardly worth debating with you.

But I would agree that Christian concern has possibly impeded "social reform," but why shouldn't it? May be the majority didn't want to live in a society of homsexuals and divorce on demand.

And yet, between the two of us, you are the only one who has lauded the legal marginalization of others based upon personal preference.

Since you can't or won't distinguish deism from Christianity, or state religion from personal religion, then you are a discreditable witness.

Please stop lying for Jesus.

The substantial impetus came from the 1787 first meeting of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade bringing British Quakers and Anglicans together to form an effective movement which resulted in abolition first in the UK.

And yes, I know that Christians like to give credit to Christianity for abolition. But Christianity supported and indulged in the practice of slavery for more than 1,500 years. It was the tiny pocket of Quakers who were pushing the entire rest of Christendom. And they got very little traction until the Industrial Revolution occurred and slavery was no longer as economically advantageous.

Christianity does not get credit for being slavers for 1500 years, then abolishing the practice once slavery stopped lining Christian pockets with money.

At best, you can credit the small minority of Christians who ignored the Bible and opposed the practice. They did a good thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Confessions? I hear some here don't believe in it.... Come out come out wherever you are..

You can also just name one from the last 1000 years and that way safely divert attention from yourself.

I assumed you didn't, actually.

 

[eik]

Please stop lying for Jesus.

No, you're the one whose lying. It really is necessary to distinguish deism from Christianity, and personal from state religion. Christ never taught Christianity as a State religion, so stop talking about it as if it was.

As to politics and the State, let me repeat the evidence:

A treaty of peace and friendship between the United States and Tripoli that was approved by George Washington explicitly stated: “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…”

Washington was the convention president that began, on May 14, 1787.

Why are you blaming Christians for defects in the US government which was an enterprise of deists? The government of the US under the constitution is not and never has been a Christian government.

And yes, I know that Christians like to give credit to Christianity for abolition. But Christianity supported and indulged in the practice of slavery for more than 1,500 years. It was the tiny pocket of Quakers who were pushing the entire rest of Christendom. And they got very little traction until the Industrial Revolution occurred and slavery was no longer as economically advantageous.

No evidence that "Christianity supported and indulged in the practice of slavery for more than 1,500 years."

Christianity does not get credit for being slavers for 1500 years, then abolishing the practice once slavery stopped lining Christian pockets with money.

At best, you can credit the small minority of Christians who ignored the Bible and opposed the practice. They did a good thing.

You wouldn't know Christianity if you saw it, as you seem to be intent on labelling every criminal who has ever lived in the last 2000 years as a Christian, so I'll leave you to defame Christ and Christians at your will.