Michael Flynn - US must have only one religion

[Albion]

Of course, the person who wrote those words was not speaking in favor of a theocracy which Michael Flynn is alluding to.

.
...which Flynn also did not allude to or advocate.

 

[Albion]

"one nation under god" is from the pledge of allegiance which comes from the late 19th century, not the "founding fathers" period.

Even worse, the "under god" part is a 1950s interjection into the phrase "one nation indivisible" that was a counter apologetic to the secessionist nonsense that lead to the Civil War.

Partly true only. The concept of our country being under God and of our rights being God-given IS from our founding fathers. The words *One nation" come from the Pledge and date from the late 1800s, while the "under God" part was added in the 1950s. .

 

[childeye 2]

.
...which Flynn also did not allude to or advocate.

Michael Flynn: “If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion,".

Mr. Flynn is clearly advocating for our country to be "under God", and he is associating that with having one religion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

.
...which Flynn also did not allude to or advocate.

Interesting how a man with nothing to say or offer can get so many Christians to cheer him on with nothing but hot air and doubletalk.

If such an amateur can get a church eating out of his hand, imagine how successful the AntiChrist will be?

 

[Albion]

Michael Flynn: “If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion,".

Mr. Flynn is clearly advocating for our country to be "under God", and he is associating that with having one religion.

You were editorializing. You claimed that he advocated that our country become a theocracy, but there is nothing at all in his remarks that say this or even come close to it. Look at the wording you yourself quoted here.

 

[childeye 2]

You were editorializing. You claimed that he advocated that our country become a theocracy, but there is nothing at all in his remarks that say this or even come close to it. Look at the wording you yourself quoted here.

Michael Flynn: “If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion,".

Respectfully, I said he was advocating for being one nation under God. I then said that he's alluding to a theocracy when he says we have to have one religion. That is to say I chose the word "allude" because he did not directly advocate for a theocracy. Are you suggesting that Mr. Flynn does not envision that Government officials would be setting policy based on the one religion that the entire nation believes in including themselves?

 

[Albion]

Michael Flynn: “If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion,".

Respectfully, I said he was advocating for being one nation under God. I then said that he's alluding to a theocracy when he says we have to have one religion.

Okay, and I pointed out that the second of those has no basis in fact. It's illogical of you to claim otherwise.

Are we set now?

 

[childeye 2]

Okay, and I pointed out that the second of those has no basis in fact. It's illogical of you to claim otherwise.

Are we set now?

I respectfully disagree. It's perfectly reasonable that a nation with one religion would have government officials setting policy based on that religion.

 

[Aldebaran]

This is where we're at. An ex National Security Advisor and Trump supporter says that America should be a theocracy - and it wasn't long ago that that proposal would have been the start of some political joke. Now you consider it merely 'highly doubtful' it could actually happen.

Does it really even matter? This is America, not Australia. Be more concerned about this country taking the fast lane into Marxism under current leadership rather than comments from someone from the former administration making a statement about religion.

 

[Aldebaran]

Wow. You don't like how people are using the First Amendment, and neither does Michael Flynn.

If that's your concern, start a new thread about me and what I like/don't like.

 

[Albion]

I respectfully disagree.

That's fair, although I don't quite see how you could, unless it's just a pride thing.

A Theocracy is a government run according to the beliefs and policies of a certain religion and usually implies as well that clergy will have a strong hand in the running of it. Nothing in the "One Nation Under God" slogan (which he didn't invent but which has been used by Americans for a long time and without controversy) points to a theocracy.

And that's independent of the fact that you are simply intuiting that such a thing is what Flynn might have had in the back of his mind even though he didn't say it.

Nor does his comment about us needing to get together on one religion. That makes a little more sense, but it could also mean several other things that are much more feasible. The theocracy theory is just a non-starter.

 

[Aldebaran]

Proof that Mr. Flynn is moving in opposition to the first amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

And they haven't, and Flynn never caused them to, or introduced legislation for it, or even say they should.
Stating his opinion isn't moving in opposition to the first amendment. He's simply using his rights under it, and the Left is throwing a fit about it.

 

[durangodawood]

...Stating his opinion isn't moving in opposition to the first amendment.....

Correct. He's merely stating that he thinks the first amendment is ill conceived.

 

[Albion]

Correct. He's merely stating that he thinks the first amendment is ill conceived.

He didn't say that, either.

 

[Aldebaran]

Correct. He's merely stating that he thinks the first amendment is ill conceived.

What if he would have spray painted it on the side of a building and started throwing bricks at passing motorists? That seems to be more acceptable of a way to make a statement under the first amendment these days.

 

[durangodawood]

What if he would have spray painted it on the side of a building and started throwing bricks at passing motorists? That seems to be more acceptable of a way to make a statement under the first amendment these days.

Its the content at issue here, not the form of communication.

 

[Bradskii]

Does it really even matter? This is America, not Australia. Be more concerned about this country taking the fast lane into Marxism under current leadership rather than comments from someone from the former administration making a statement about religion.

Yes, it does matter. What would have been monstrously outrageous and howled down by both sides of the political divide not so very long ago now prompts a comment such as 'Does it really even matter?' Comments like Flyn's have to be called out. Vigorously. This will NOT become the new normal.

 

[childeye 2]

That's fair, although I don't quite see how you could unless it's just a pride thing.

I'm just saying that a nation with one religion would set policy according to that religion.

A Theocracy is a government run according to the beliefs and policies of a certain religion and usually implies as well that clergy will run it.

I agree, with the exception that officials must be called clergy.

Nothing in the "One Nation Under God" slogan (which he didn't invent but which has been used by Americans with pride for a long time and without controversy) points to a theocracy.

I agree, but Mr. Flynn clearly equated that with having one religion. “If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion,".

And that's independent of the fact that you are simply intuiting that such a thing is what Flynn might have had in the back of his mind even though he didn't say it.

It's not clear what's in the back of his mind, it's just that there's no denying the semantics of his chosen words. I don't actually believe that he believes it's possible to have a theocracy here in America. It's more likely political rhetoric.

 

[cow451]

Does it really even matter? This is America, not Australia. Be more concerned about this country taking the fast lane into Marxism under current leadership rather than comments from someone from the former administration making a statement about religion.

President Biden, who won the 2020 free and fair election, is not a Marxist. You are correct to note that Mr. Flynn, a supporter of the defeated EX President, is a really, really insignificant figure and should not be taken seriously.

 

[Albion]

It's not clear what's in the back of his mind, it's just that there's no denying the semantics of his chosen words. I don't actually believe that he believes it's possible to have a theocracy here in America. It's more likely political rhetoric.

or that he's extolling the virtues of a nation not divided into several militant factions no matter what issue comes along. That's us.

Wouldn't it be better if the people were aiming to be of "one accord?" That's most likely what he was thinking. But of course, if he speaks to a group of patriots anywhere or at any time, it is a good bet that he'll be attacked with every ridiculous and extreme allegation that the attackers can think up, whether or not the claims fit the situation.