Michael Flynn - US must have only one religion

[Aldebaran]

I found this one. I thought it had some interesting discussion and posters. I'm reconsidering that position.

I'll try to be more interesting, whatever that is.

 

[Aldebaran]

Since this thread isn't about what BLM authors may or may not have said/meant I'm going to take your comments as, yet another, attempt at distraction.

Flynn is hardly an "unknown author". He's a former member of the White House Cabinet and a former adviser to a President. He has strong associations with Trump including receiving a Presidential pardon.



As I've already said; whether or not Flynn can pass laws is immaterial.

Your veiled references to Climate Change policies are also totally off topic and yet another attempt at distraction.

OB

I can't help if you're easily distracted by what I write. I've found that if I don't elaborate on what I mean by what I'm saying right off the bat, I get arguments made that claim I'm not being clear, and then I have to explain everything further in later posts. Best to get it all out at the beginning. But whatever.

 

[Bradskii]

In this case, I highly doubt anyone is going to pass any laws banning all but one religion...

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.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I found this one. I thought it had some interesting discussion and posters. I'm reconsidering that position.

Don't get discouraged -- with a few inconsequential exceptions, the signal-to-noise ratio around here is pretty good.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

The worse part is that he's not just an "ex National Security Advisor" -- he's a disgraced convicted felon whose only appeal is that 1. he is beloved of an ex Caesar, and 2. He's promising power and glory to the church members... and they're lapping it up.

Someone must have crossed Romans 16:18 out of their Bibles... possibly with a sharpie.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Your opinions on the specifics of his statement about one God would be interesting.

Do you agree with him?

While this was not addressed to me, I'll be honest with you, I do and I'll explain why.

The further we get away from a people who, in majority, understand and practice the Christian faith (under any non-theocratic umbrella) the further away we get from understanding various intents of the founding fathers such as "one nation under God" and what that means in truth.

Our freedom comes from God, and the government was established to protect that God-given freedom - not dole it out.

We get ever closer to losing our essential freedoms because being "under God" means understanding the difference between God's responsibility to man and governments responsibility to man. These essential responsibility roles are historically lost in atheist led governments and usually end in socialist/communist ideals; ideals which are anathema to a truly free society.

This doesn't mean I think we need to force belief on anyone, but it does mean that I believe that if God doesn't move through our nation touching hearts, we will eventually lose America as a free nation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Don't get discouraged -- with a few inconsequential exceptions, the signal-to-noise ration around here is pretty good.

I'm sticking around for a while, but I'm glad I came armed to the Mos Eisley Cantina.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I was thinking this side thread was far off topic, then I remembered the content of Flynn's speech ...

The further we get away from a people who, in majority, understand and practice the Christian faith (under any umbrella) the further away we get from understanding various intents of the founding fathers such as "one nation under God" and what that means in truth.

"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.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I was thinking this side thread was far off topic, then I remembered the content of Flynn's speech ...



"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.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government laying its foundation on such principles"

The idea has always been there from the beginning, and knowing what is Gods portion and what is governments is essential to retaining the freedom the founders intended.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It sounds like what you're saying is the same as I was saying in the past about BLM and other activist book authors writing stuff about "white fragility" and about what they call systemic racism and things like that.

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

 

[childeye 2]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government laying its foundation on such principles"

The idea has always been there from the beginning, and knowing what is Gods portion and what is governments is essential to retaining the freedom the founders intended.

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

 

[cow451]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government laying its foundation on such principles"

The idea has always been there from the beginning, and knowing what is Gods portion and what is governments is essential to retaining the freedom the founders intended.

Point out where “Christ” is noted in the Constitution. Many of the founders were diests. The “Creator” is a generic term.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government laying its foundation on such principles"

The idea has always been there from the beginning, and knowing what is Gods portion and what is governments is essential to retaining the freedom the founders intended.

And yet, while Romans tells us that all governments are instituted by God, whereas Jefferson points out that their powers come from the consent of the governed.

God's portion gets smaller and smaller.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government laying its foundation on such principles"

The idea has always been there from the beginning, and knowing what is Gods portion and what is governments is essential to retaining the freedom the founders intended.

Good move. Quoting a deist (probably, who would later edit the bible with a blade to remove the supernatural bits) as edited by an atheist (at most Franklin was weak deist with atheist tendencies) using deist language (Nature's God, etc.) that could befuddle most Christians ("Creator"). That's a strong case for Christian origins (not!) of American revolutionary rhetoric.

The elites of the revolutionary period were more secular than any period in American history other than perhaps today. (Their elites were more open about it on the whole.) American religiosity increased after independence, fluctuated there after, and only recently has had a prolonged decline.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The elites of the revolutionary period were more secular than any period in American history other than perhaps today.

I think 1890-1920 was also a pretty secular era. President Taft was a Unitarian who didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. Not that he shouted it from the rafters (though a few preachers did) but such a thing would not fly today.

 

[childeye 2]

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.

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

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think 1890-1920 was also a pretty secular era. President Taft was a Unitarian who didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. Not that he shouted it from the rafters (though a few preachers did) but such a thing would not fly today.

Likewise there were well educated pastors of the Revolutionary period that knew (and opposed) the Enlightenment literature behind the rhetoric of the revolutionary elites. They fought back and sometimes went with the "divine right of kings".

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

There are a lot of ways to bend around that clause. Federal and state governments have done *many* things that violate that clause throughout our history. To get them blocked requires either elected officials that will not do such things or courts that understand the separation of religion and government required by that clause to knock down violating actions.

 

[childeye 2]

There are a lot of ways to bend around that clause. Federal and state governments have done *many* things that violate that clause throughout our history. To get them blocked requires either elected officials that will not do such things or courts that understand the separation of religion and government required by that clause to knock down violating actions.

The problem is partly ambiguous terminology, since the term God is without imagery, and "religion" as used in the Constitution, is pertaining to "imagery". People tend to conflate the two such as when thinking that God is not allowed in our schools. That and the inevitable circumstance where one "belief" opposing another "belief" must end in a judgment or policy where one belief will be favored over another.

 

[Albion]

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

...which Flynn did not advocate.