NationStates

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Western-Ukraine wrote:And who are you to say my opinion is stupid? Is part of your liberal ideology the nonacceptance of opinions not like yours? I hate how people here are like you and just outright laugh at people with remarkably different opinions.

>complains about nonacceptance of opinion
>harps about the "one true religion"

Pot, kettle, yadda yadda you know how this goes.

The one true religion isn't trampling all the other opinions under it. The thing here is that my opinion is as valuable as an opinion of anyone else.

Western-Ukraine wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Not my fault you hold such a stupid opinion.

And who are you to say my opinion is stupid?

I'm Dyakovo.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Ifreann wrote:No it isn't. America has a lot of Christians in it, and obviously that has influenced its culture(to the extent that so large a nation can be said to have a single culture). But so have many, many other things.

It might not. Or it might. And since the Republican party is already trying to make Americans live their lives in accordance with the dictates of their Protestant God I don't see how anyone can believe that if their faith were given official recognition by the supreme law of the land that they would cease in these efforts.

A. Other things are certainly on the rise, but roughly 3/4ths of the country still identify as Christian. Culturally and statistically the country is still Christian, by and large.

There is a difference between the country and the stated religion of the people of the country. There is more to a culture than the stated religion of the people of the country. How many countries in Europe have Christian majorities as large or larger than the US? And yet they are all different in their cultures both from the US and from each other.

B. Who said anything about ceasing? I'm saying they wouldn't have anymore grounds than they already do. They're not gonna cease so long as they still have breath.

I find it just as hard to believe that having won so great a victory as establishing Christianity as the official religion of the US that they would fail to capitalise upon it, whatever form that victory took.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Murkwood wrote:"National Religion" is a meaningless term. It's more symbolic than anything.

exactly.

um, no not exactly...it would mean that public schools would have Bible learning compulsory, mandatory minimum attendance in churches and would directly and deliberately promote bias towards Christian groups in any office or position.

Dyakovo wrote:

Western-Ukraine wrote:And who are you to say my opinion is stupid?

I'm Dyakovo.

How about you think of a better answer to my question Dvakovo?

Knockturn Alley wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
exactly.

um, no not exactly...it would mean that public schools would have Bible learning compulsory, mandatory minimum attendance in churches and would directly and deliberately promote bias towards Christian groups in any office or position.

England, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland beg to differ.

Western-Ukraine wrote:This is really some good news from Americas. It's great to see so many Republicans are defending the only true religion. A national religion is never troubling in any way. As long as it doesn't end up in lynching of minority religions it is all fine.

It would turn your religion to shit at probably the same rate it would turn the country to shit.

Murkwood wrote:

Knockturn Alley wrote:
um, no not exactly...it would mean that public schools would have Bible learning compulsory, mandatory minimum attendance in churches and would directly and deliberately promote bias towards Christian groups in any office or position.

England, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland beg to differ.

No one there advocates susidising religious education, prayer in public schools, or banning contraception.

Just as I don't support gun control, I will never support establishment of religion.

Desperate Measures wrote:

Western-Ukraine wrote:This is really some good news from Americas. It's great to see so many Republicans are defending the only true religion. A national religion is never troubling in any way. As long as it doesn't end up in lynching of minority religions it is all fine.

It would turn your religion to shit at probably the same rate it would turn the country to shit.

And how do you know this? How do you define turning to shit?

Western-Ukraine wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:I'm Dyakovo.

How about you think of a better answer to my question Dvakovo?

Why bother?

Western-Ukraine wrote:This is really some good news from Americas. It's great to see so many Republicans are defending the only true religion. A national religion is never troubling in any way. As long as it doesn't end up in lynching of minority religions it is all fine.

That's some damn fine trolling.

Murkwood wrote:

Knockturn Alley wrote:
um, no not exactly...it would mean that public schools would have Bible learning compulsory, mandatory minimum attendance in churches and would directly and deliberately promote bias towards Christian groups in any office or position.

England, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland beg to differ.

Historically, no, they wouldn't.

Dyakovo wrote:

Murkwood wrote:England, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland beg to differ.

Historically, no, they wouldn't.

But this isn't a history lesson. We are talking about modern day.

So then we would have to argue about what brand of religion would get to be our national one. Do you imagine Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists would agree about that? It doesn't seem likely to me.

Or else we would get some bland meaningless generic "Christian" pablum, like the school prayers I used to have to endure. That would serve to drive people away from religion rather than toward it, if you ask me.

Dyakovo wrote:

Western-Ukraine wrote:How about you think of a better answer to my question Dvakovo?

Why bother?

Why bother even discussing things here when you are seemingly not even ready to meet differing opinions?

The Wolven League wrote:

Western-Ukraine wrote:This is really some good news from Americas. It's great to see so many Republicans are defending the only true religion. A national religion is never troubling in any way. As long as it doesn't end up in lynching of minority religions it is all fine.

That's some damn fine trolling.

So having an opinion differing from the common far-left extremist views is now trolling?

Murkwood wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Historically, no, they wouldn't.

But this isn't a history lesson. We are talking about modern day.

See my previous response to that attempted deflection.

Western-Ukraine wrote:

Desperate Measures wrote:It would turn your religion to shit at probably the same rate it would turn the country to shit.

And how do you know this? How do you define turning to shit?

This country is already very divided, this would serve no purpose but to divide it even further.

You can't see why you wouldn't want politics to interfere with your faith?

Western-Ukraine wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:>complains about nonacceptance of opinion
>harps about the "one true religion"

Pot, kettle, yadda yadda you know how this goes.

The one true religion isn't trampling all the other opinions under it. The thing here is that my opinion is as valuable as an opinion of anyone else.

I don't know who told you that, but you have been mislead. We all have every right to hold any opinion we want. But not all opinions are equally valuable. If it were my opinion that the city of London was stolen away by bats in the 19th century and now resides one mile underground in a cavern the size of Europe, on the shore of the Unterzee, just up the river from Hell, and that all evidence to the contrary was an elaborate hoax, that opinion would be completely worthless. Especially in the context of a discussion about just how tits things might go up were the US to establish Christianity as the national religion.

Western-Ukraine wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Why bother?

Why bother even discussing things here when you are seemingly not even ready to meet differing opinions?

But I am ready to meet differing opinions. I'm also ready to dismiss the monumentally stupid ones.

Desperate Measures wrote:

Western-Ukraine wrote:And how do you know this? How do you define turning to shit?

This country is already very divided, this would serve no purpose but to divide it even further.

You can't see why you wouldn't want politics to interfere with your faith?

I don't see what problems the government protecting my religion would bring.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Here's the thing: I'm not concerned about a Constitutional amendment. That's not on the horizon as a real possibility.

What I am concerned about is the passing of laws that subtly favor Christian morality (and not the good "feed the poor" stuff, either, but the anti-LGBT, pro-school prayer nonsense), and the appointment of federal and Supreme Court justices who are willing to interpret the First Amendment in ways favorable to those laws. After that, religion can be used to hide or excuse any amount of bigotry, sexism, homophobia, and other sins against one's fellow human beings.

Amen

Murkwood wrote:

Knockturn Alley wrote:
um, no not exactly...it would mean that public schools would have Bible learning compulsory, mandatory minimum attendance in churches and would directly and deliberately promote bias towards Christian groups in any office or position.

England, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland beg to differ.

Yet prominent Republicans support those things.
Our societies do not.

Western-Ukraine wrote:

Desperate Measures wrote:This country is already very divided, this would serve no purpose but to divide it even further.

You can't see why you wouldn't want politics to interfere with your faith?

I don't see what problems the government protecting my religion would bring.

Because proponents of your religion in the United States are violent, repressionist, revisionist dicks.

Dyakovo wrote:

Western-Ukraine wrote:Why bother even discussing things here when you are seemingly not even ready to meet differing opinions?

But I am ready to meet differing opinions. I'm also ready to dismiss the monumentally stupid ones.

And just why is my differing opinion so stupid to you? Sure if someone talked about banning religion for good then you would listen with your communist friends but when a real right-wing fundamentalist view is introduced then you just laugh at their opinions.