NationStates

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
57% of Republicans, which is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of people.

It's not even a fraction of Republicans, but rather people who voted in a Republican Primary.


What makes me laugh is the idea that wanting things that aren't necessarily constitutional is somehow unique to the Republican Party.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
57% of Republicans, which is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of people.

It's not even a fraction of Republicans, but rather people who voted in a Republican Primary.


What makes me laugh is the idea that wanting things that aren't necessarily constitutional is somehow unique to the Republican Party.

Desperate Measures wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
It's not even a fraction of Republicans, but rather people who voted in a Republican Primary.


What makes me laugh is the idea that wanting things that aren't necessarily constitutional is somehow unique to the Republican Party.

who said that?

Dyakovo wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:


God its like running in circles with you.

A. Not a mistake, the vast majority of America has always been some form of Christian, granted it's lower now than it's ever been, but even now it's still overwhelmingly Christian about 75%.

B. On the law, as has been reiterated going on double digits now.

A: Yes, a mistake. If christianity is not culturally homogeneous, then you can't really claim that the US is culturally christian.
B: You mean the law that would be changed by said amendment? That law? So, in other words, you're just pulling it out of your ass.

Knockturn Alley wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
It's not even a fraction of Republicans, but rather people who voted in a Republican Primary.


What makes me laugh is the idea that wanting things that aren't necessarily constitutional is somehow unique to the Republican Party.

Its not just, "not necessarily constitutional" , its plainly unconstitutional as it goes against the part mentioning the separation of Church

Dyakovo wrote:

Busen wrote:This is not unusuall at all and it is a legitime wish. UK, Malta, Greece, Argentina and Norway are among the countries that have christianity as a state religion. Unlike Islam that is an official religion in Saudi Arabia Christianity is a tolerant doctrine to non-Christians and helps democracy which clearly shows the examples of the above mentioned nations.

It is a fact that Protestantism is deeply rooter in the national roots of the USA and it has a lot of influence on the political system of the US, whether the liberals admitted that or not.

Only if you either have no knowledge of the Constitution or don't give a fuck about it.

Dyakovo wrote:

Desperate Measures wrote:who said that?

He did in his head when reading the posts of people criticizing those Republicans that want this.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:A: Yes, a mistake. If christianity is not culturally homogeneous, then you can't really claim that the US is culturally christian.
B: You mean the law that would be changed by said amendment? That law? So, in other words, you're just pulling it out of your ass.

A. Christianity itself is a heterogeneous theology. It is accurate to say that the vast majority of America is culturally Christian, by virtue of being under the umbrella that is the heterogeneous theology that is Christianity. So yes I can, because it's correct.

B. I'm sorry that you don't understand the inter workings of the Constitutional Amendment process, but as I've repeatedly shown, that the Amendment would change the 1st Amendment is an assumption not based in fact.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
A. Christianity itself is a heterogeneous theology. It is accurate to say that the vast majority of America is culturally Christian, by virtue of being under the umbrella that is the heterogeneous theology that is Christianity. So yes I can, because it's correct.

B. I'm sorry that you don't understand the inter workings of the Constitutional Amendment process, but as I've repeatedly shown, that the Amendment would change the 1st Amendment is an assumption not based in fact.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:A: Yes, a mistake. If christianity is not culturally homogeneous, then you can't really claim that the US is culturally christian.
B: You mean the law that would be changed by said amendment? That law? So, in other words, you're just pulling it out of your ass.

A. Christianity itself is a heterogeneous theology. It is accurate to say that the vast majority of America is culturally Christian, by virtue of being under the umbrella that is the heterogeneous theology that is Christianity. So yes I can, because it's correct.

B. I'm sorry that you don't understand the inter workings of the Constitutional Amendment process, but as I've repeatedly shown, that the Amendment would change the 1st Amendment is an assumption not based in fact.

Dyakovo wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
A. Christianity itself is a heterogeneous theology. It is accurate to say that the vast majority of America is culturally Christian, by virtue of being under the umbrella that is the heterogeneous theology that is Christianity. So yes I can, because it's correct.

B. I'm sorry that you don't understand the inter workings of the Constitutional Amendment process, but as I've repeatedly shown, that the Amendment would change the 1st Amendment is an assumption not based in fact.

A: I suggest you read what you wrote, and then think about it a bit as you've just proven my point.
B:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:He did in his head when reading the posts of people criticizing those Republicans that want this.

Yes I did think there's a lot of pot calling the kettle black especially with the whole "Republicans hate the Constitution" As if the Democrats were paragons of Constitutional virtue.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:He did in his head when reading the posts of people criticizing those Republicans that want this.

Yes

I did think there's a lot of pot calling the kettle black especially with the whole "Republicans hate the Constitution" As if the Democrats were paragons of Constitutional virtue.

Gubmint Teat wrote:

Knockturn Alley wrote:
Its not just, "not necessarily constitutional" , its plainly unconstitutional as it goes against the part mentioning the separation of Church

The Constitution does not, anywhere, have the words "Separation of Church and State". It's just not in there.

That being said, it explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", so this entire thread seems moot. Which might explain why it has devolved into a mash-up of "Your politics/religion/viewpoint/country SUCKS"

Dyakovo wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Yes

I did think there's a lot of pot calling the kettle black especially with the whole "Republicans hate the Constitution" As if the Democrats were paragons of Constitutional virtue.

At least you admit now that you just made it up.

Gubmint Teat wrote:

Knockturn Alley wrote:
Its not just, "not necessarily constitutional" , its plainly unconstitutional as it goes against the part mentioning the separation of Church

The Constitution does not, anywhere, have the words "Separation of Church and State". It's just not in there.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Yes I did think there's a lot of pot calling the kettle black especially with the whole "Republicans hate the Constitution" As if the Democrats were paragons of Constitutional virtue.

It's not that Democrats aren't.

Is that the new Republican shift to even farther to the right seems the most intolerant, pathetic, and ill-thought movement in the 21st century.

It's almost as if they revere the GUilded age and Victorian England.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:At least you admit now that you just made it up.

Don't edit my posts.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Gubmint Teat wrote:
The Constitution does not, anywhere, have the words "Separation of Church and State". It's just not in there.

That being said, it explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", so this entire thread seems moot. Which might explain why it has devolved into a mash-up of "Your politics/religion/viewpoint/country SUCKS"

unless an amendment is passed.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
unless an amendment is passed.

And even I as a Christian am opposed to it.

See, the problem with an amendment is that then Christianity and the government will be more intertwined. With how intolerant America has been throughout its history I just don't buy this won't gain them any benefits. I cannot for the life of me see the fucking point of doing it other than fucking people over with their stupid tripe and idiotic intolerance.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Or what? You'll cry?
The entirety of your post is there. I just just spoilered everything after your admission that you were arguing against something that no-one has said.

I forgot common courtesy appears to be beneath you.

Dyakovo wrote:

Gubmint Teat wrote:
The Constitution does not, anywhere, have the words "Separation of Church and State". It's just not in there.

And?