Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
.Of course, the person who wrote those words was not speaking in favor of a theocracy which Michael Flynn is alluding to.
"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.
Michael Flynn: “If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion,"..
...which Flynn also did not allude to or advocate.
.
...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.
Michael Flynn: “If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have 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.
Okay, and I pointed out that the second of those has no basis in fact. It's illogical of you to claim otherwise.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.
I respectfully disagree. It's perfectly reasonable that a nation with one religion would have government officials setting policy based on that 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?
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.
Wow. You don't like how people are using the First Amendment, and neither does Michael Flynn.
That's fair, although I don't quite see how you could, unless it's just a pride thing.I respectfully disagree.
Proof that Mr. Flynn is moving in opposition to the first amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Correct. He's merely stating that he thinks the first amendment is ill conceived....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.
Its the content at issue here, not the form of communication.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.
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.
I'm just saying that a nation with one religion would set policy according to that religion.That's fair, although I don't quite see how you could unless it's just a pride thing.
I agree, with the exception that officials must be called clergy.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, 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,".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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?