- Oct 17, 2009
- 42,997
- 13,622
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
I found this one. I thought it had some interesting discussion and posters. I'm reconsidering that position.
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
In this case, I highly doubt anyone is going to pass any laws banning all but one religion...
I found this one. I thought it had some interesting discussion and posters. I'm reconsidering that position.
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.
Your opinions on the specifics of his statement about one God would be interesting.
Do you agree with him?
Don't get discouraged -- with a few inconsequential exceptions, the signal-to-noise ration around here is pretty good.
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.
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.
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.
Of course, the person who wrote those words was not speaking in favor of a theocracy which Michael Flynn is alluding to."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."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.
"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.
"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.
The elites of the revolutionary period were more secular than any period in American history other than perhaps today.
Proof that Mr. Flynn is moving in opposition to the first amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 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.
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.
Proof that Mr. Flynn is moving in opposition to the first amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
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.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.
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?