Why Are So Many Christians So Un-Christian?

Lorca said:
This what it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

At its most basic: any laws that the govt attempt to force on others, based on religious beliefs, is unConstitutional as it prohibits someone else's free exercise of their faith if they dont agree with it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It means what it says. There will be no state sponsored churches under the constitution and no one will be required to pay duties to such churches which was either of their faith or not of their faith which was the case in Europe.

How can you libertarians sit there and claim that religion is the downfall of America with your religious theocratic fear mongering with your social libertine pals on the left? The country is going down the crap hole and it isn't even close to being a religious country anymore and in fact it's the opposite and anything but that.
 
annata said:
Article VI provides that all state and federal officials "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause ) provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"--meaning that not only no church but no "religion" could be made the official faith of the United States.
Finally the Free Exercise Clause provides that Congress shall not make laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion
http://www.theatlantic.com/national...tion-doesnt-separate-church-and-state/240481/

a nice liberal rag to drive you up the wall of seperation of church and state
Click to expand...


Nothing here indicates a separation of church and state in fact it confirms my previous statements.
 
philly rabbit said:
The founders expected and wanted the American people to continue being a religious and moral people and they DID NOT put up an impregnable wall between church and state. On the contrary, they expected the country's religious moral foundation to sustain the constitution and let the republic nurture and grow on account of it.

Separation of church and state has been perverted by you on the left to leave the impression that government was the moral authority of the country but by no means was this the intention of the founders. They hoped the constitution and the country would continue to be upheld by a religious moral people and they also believed that it was impossible to uphold the constitution by a non religious immoral people.

And I noticed that you could not quote any other founding document stating the separation because there was none including in the constitution's first amendment which I pointed out to you.
Click to expand...


Who are you to claim to know what intention the founders had?
 
annata said:
Jesus understood that religion did not work in the world of politics.
(render unto Caeser what is Caeser's ; render unto God what is God's)

Keep the seperation of church and state the founders wanted, so both religion and politics can work better on their own
Click to expand...

well since we are Governed by the constitution, and those words never appear in the constitution, I would say we just go by the constitution and quit using it to do what it says we shouldn't.
 
Damocles said:
Utter nonsense, truly. Capitalism was alive and well in Jesus' time (see the money-changers), and the Senate found that voting largesse to the masses lent them support....

The reality is, had Jesus felt government force on others to be the proper application of your personal responsibility he had ample ability and knowledge to do so.

And again, Jesus would have healed them of their addiction and told them to sin no more, there are repeated examples of this throughout the Bible. The Christians, using government as you so desperately want them to, would be more in line with the "heal the problem" track of Jesus if they work to heal the addiction, not simply give them money to spend.
Click to expand...

If you think the Roman Empire was capitalist you are so far out of your tiny mind that you will never get back to the padded cell. What are you woofling on about 'government' for? Socialism is sharing, not obeying the rich who own governments man!
 
Last edited:
iolo said:
If you think the Roman Empire was capitalist you are no far out of your tiny mind that you will never get back to the padded cell.
Click to expand...

????....which industries did the Roman government own?........barrel making?.......ox-yoking?......I will grant you circuses, but I understand even the various gladiators were the slaves of competing trainers......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????....which industries did the Roman government own?........barrel making?.......ox-yoking?......I will grant you circuses, but I understand even the various gladiators were the slaves of competing trainers......
Click to expand...

Are you really out of your mind? The Roman Empire was pre-capitalist, you nit! Capitalism developed in the Renaissance period, after feudalism, and the Roman Empire was before even feudalism. American ignorance really is breath-taking!
 
iolo said:
You were there, doubtless, so it is not surprising that your mind is not what it was.
Click to expand...

Tell me why your American leftist cousins want to start taxing the churches in America and therefore create state sponsored churches and at the same time claim that a mythical wall of separation of church and state exists between the American people and their government, a government that is SUPPOSED to represent them and not rule them.

How does the government requiring churches to pay duties to it from the pockets of church members sustain a separation of church and state? Unless you're going to deny that you on the left don't want the churches to start paying duties to the government because I already know that you do.

The left wants to start taxing churches in order for the government to control the speech within the church and from the pulpit and it doesn't get any more un-American than that. The churches were part of the meeting places in America along with the taverns and other town meeting places where Americans could discuss things like resistance to government without any governmental interference or monitoring.
 
philly rabbit said:
Tell me why your American leftist cousins want to start taxing the churches in America and therefore create state sponsored churches and at the same time claim that a mythical wall of separation of church and state exists between the American people and their government, a government that is SUPPOSED to represent them and not rule them.

How does the government requiring churches to pay duties to it from the pockets of church members sustain a separation of church and state? Unless you're going to deny that you on the left don't want the churches to start paying duties to the government because I already know that you do.

The left wants to start taxing churches in order for the government to control the speech within the church and from the pulpit and it doesn't get any more un-American than that. The churches were part of the meeting places in America along with the taverns and other town meeting places where Americans could discuss things like resistance to government without any governmental interference or monitoring.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but I'd guess that some of your churches are so far from being religious bodies that their profits should be taxed. Over here private schools (which they call 'public') are counted as charities, despite the fact that they are profitable businesses, and quite a few people - particularly those who are kept out of Oxford and Cambridge to let their products in - get a bit waspish about the matter. Some of your mega-churches sound to be good business, but it's not a subject about which I'm informed, fair play, whereas I do have passably informed views on your Founding Fathers.
 
iolo said:
I don't know, but I'd guess that some of your churches are so far from being religious bodies that their profits should be taxed. Over here private schools (which they call 'public') are counted as charities, despite the fact that they are profitable businesses, and quite a few people - particularly those who are kept out of Oxford and Cambridge to let their products in - get a bit waspish about the matter. Some of your mega-churches sound to be good business, but it's not a subject about which I'm informed, fair play, whereas I do have passably informed views on your Founding Fathers.
Click to expand...

Whether you think that or not, once government gets into judging the validity of religions that way they violate the 1st Amendment. Let other nations pretend they know the "True" path to God without us.
 
Damocles said:
Whether you think that or not, once government gets into judging the validity of religions that way they violate the 1st Amendment. Let other nations pretend they know the "True" path to God without us.
Click to expand...

Well, what if an oil company, say, defined itself as a religion? It seems to me that you are very loose with the word.
 
iolo said:
Well, what if an oil company, say, defined itself as a religion? It seems to me that you are very loose with the word.
Click to expand...

Is this logical fallacy really your argument? Reductio ad Absurdum may be fun, but it isn't an argument. It seems to me that you aren't really here to have a conversation, what is your purpose here?
 
philly rabbit said:
Wrong. It means what it says. There will be no state sponsored churches under the constitution and no one will be required to pay duties to such churches which was either of their faith or not of their faith which was the case in Europe.

How can you libertarians sit there and claim that religion is the downfall of America with your religious theocratic fear mongering with your social libertine pals on the left? The country is going down the crap hole and it isn't even close to being a religious country anymore and in fact it's the opposite and anything but that.
Click to expand...

Kinda conveniently glossing over the 'prohibiting the free exercise of....' part, which laws based on a specific religion's beliefs could do.
 
Damocles said:
Is this logical fallacy really your argument? Reductio ad Absurdum may be fun, but it isn't an argument. It seems to me that you aren't really here to have a conversation, what is your purpose here?
Click to expand...

You think that big capitalist firms don't make tax-plans, or that big 'religions' don't do big business? The Church commissioners over here are very big business indeed. There is nothing of a reduction ad absurdum about it. Do you suppose religious organisations are somehow outside the society in which they exist? If so, you are a very naïve fellow. There are businesses, particularly in Nigeria but also in other countries, that promise to see to it that you get big profits if you give them lots of money, and they are called churches. You are a bit full of yourself, aren't you? Why?
 
Lorca said:
Kinda conveniently glossing over the 'prohibiting the free exercise of....' part, which laws based on a specific religion's beliefs could do.
Click to expand...

Are we now living in a social libertine paradise of individual liberty in post Christian America?

Or is America now on life support?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top