What part of Christianity isn't compatible with the US Constitution...

John Dickenson, founding father
Religion and governments are certainly different things, instituted for different ends, the design of one being to promote temporal happiness, the design of the other, to procure the favor of god and thereby the salvation of our souls. While these are distinct and apart, the peace of society is preserved,and the end of both are satisfied. By mixing them together, feuds, animosities and persecutions have been raised which have deluged the world in blood and disgraced human nature.
Yeah, the founders were actually trying to separate the church and state to save the country, They saw the dangers of religion getting inside the government, It would have the ability to cause strife and conflict, which would be detrimental to the emerging nation. That fear has proven to still exist. Religion causes conflict and should be held at arm's length from the governing process.
 
Last edited:
Dark Soul said:
That opinion is not shared by most.

By the New Testament.
Click to expand...

Then it depends on your interpretation. For example, the New Testament warns against worshiping idols. Some people interpret that to mean we're supposed to prevent other people from worshiping idols, which would contradict freedom of religion.
 
StoneByStone said:
Then it depends on your interpretation. For example, the New Testament warns against worshiping idols. Some people interpret that to mean we're supposed to prevent other people from worshiping idols, which would contradict freedom of religion.
Click to expand...

Some are idiots. Government nor religion can stop that.
 
The US Constitution and the Sermon on the Mount are very different sorts of documents with very different purposes, so it seems odd to talk about 'compatibility'. I suppose the Constitution is a desperate attempt to defend individual freedoms under capitalism, whereas the Sermon is the beginnings of socialism and a true humanity to replace class oppression, so they could just about compared, on a good day..
 
iolo said:
The US Constitution and the Sermon on the Mount are very different sorts of documents with very different purposes, so it seems odd to talk about 'compatibility'. I suppose the Constitution is a desperate attempt to defend individual freedoms under capitalism, whereas the Sermon is the beginnings of socialism and a true humanity to replace class oppression, so they could just about compared, on a good day..
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. Socialism is compulsory, Christianity is voluntary. Big difference.
 
Dark Soul said:
How ironic. I'll remind you of the thread title:

What part of Christianity isn't compatible with the US Constitution...

You, like all the other libs here, have failed to back up that claim, you stupid asshole ignoramus loser fuck. :rofl2: :lolup:
Click to expand...

I’ll give you the same answer, dumbfuck.

The part of Christianity that wants prayer in school. You know, that establishment of religion thing, stupid shit?
 
Dark Soul said:
The premise of your question is wrong. Where does the Bible require that prayer be required, and creationism taught, in public schools?

You can type s l o w e r but you still can't spell, dumbfuck. :rofl2: :lolup:
Click to expand...

:lolup:

You can’t even comprehend your own question, loser.:rofl2:
 
Religion, while completely illogical, isn't the problem.
Theocracy is the problem.
Only a perfectly secular government can be a truly democratic one.

As for the constitution, the founders themselves didn't think it was perfect.
They made it changeable and specifically charged us with the responsibility of always seeking a "more perfect union."
 
NiftyNiblick said:
As for the constitution, the founders themselves didn't think it was perfect.
They made it changeable and specifically charged us with the responsibility of always seeking a "more perfect union."
Click to expand...

Agreed. The problem is that parts of the Constitution are routinely ignored, or "changed" by methods not amenable to the process mandated by it.
 
countryboy said:
Utter nonsense. Socialism is compulsory, Christianity is voluntary. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Christianity is taught to children who do not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. It is absolutely not voluntary. I was forced to go to church and catechism classes when I was a kid. It was not voluntary.
There is no socialism, so hard to be compulsory. Just like no capitalism. All countries are mixes.
 
Nordberg said:
Christianity is taught to children who do not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. It is absolutely not voluntary. I was forced to go to church and catechism classes when I was a kid. It was not voluntary.
There is no socialism, so hard to be compulsory. Just like no capitalism. All countries are mixes.
Click to expand...

Looking at religion that way, it's hard to say it's not child abuse. Especially with religions like Christianity and Islam.
 
Nordberg said:
Christianity is taught to children who do not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. It is absolutely not voluntary. I was forced to go to church and catechism classes when I was a kid. It was not voluntary.
There is no socialism, so hard to be compulsory. Just like no capitalism. All countries are mixes.
Click to expand...

Having rules as a kid is not "force", its parenting. Are you also "forced" not to run with scissors, or play with matches?

Are you a practicing Catholic today?
 
iolo said:
The US Constitution and the Sermon on the Mount are very different sorts of documents with very different purposes, so it seems odd to talk about 'compatibility'. I suppose the Constitution is a desperate attempt to defend individual freedoms under capitalism, whereas the Sermon is the beginnings of socialism and a true humanity to replace class oppression, so they could just about compared, on a good day..
Click to expand...

The Christian's talking point answer to this is that Jesus was talking about charity, not the government redistributing wealth against the people's will.
Weak AF, but that's the argument.
 
countryboy said:
Having rules as a kid is not "force", its parenting. Are you also "forced" not to run with scissors, or play with matches?

Are you a practicing Catholic today?
Click to expand...

The difference is that with religion, kids are given rules that don't make sense, taught things that aren't true, and some of those things involve fear taken way too far.
It took me to adulthood to realize just how lucky I was to have parents who were very mildly religious and I now see many of my friends as having been abused children through religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top