57% Of Republicans Want Christianity As National Religion

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Saying that Christianity is so weak that it can't survive without state sponsorship is still un-Biblical.

En totalum yes, as Mathew 16 clearly states. But in a certain regional Area? not at all. After all the Middle east way back when Christianity was a veritable force. Now it's practically wiped out. The Syriac Orthodox Church is most likely not going to exist in another 100 years.

Was this due to it losing state influence, or was it based on other factors?

[Idzequitch]

Do you believe that Christianity will fail without official state sponsorship?

It may.

How much confidence would you put in a religion that requires the approval of a government (A government which is 1,700 years its junior, no less) to survive?
If a religion needs the support of the government to survive, then that religion should die, not act as a parasite, sucking the life out of the government.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

En totalum yes, as Mathew 16 clearly states. But in a certain regional Area? not at all. After all the Middle east way back when Christianity was a veritable force. Now it's practically wiped out. The Syriac Orthodox Church is most likely not going to exist in another 100 years.

Was this due to it losing state influence, or was it based on other factors?

Both. Muslim pre-crusade expansion conquered much of the Byzantine Empire. As well as Mongol conquest bringing Islam to other Christian Regions. Those Churches have survived in those regions, have severely diminished as a result. The Syriac Church has all but wasted away, and the Assad v DAESH, conflict will most likely be the final death blow. The Syrian Christians will most likely leave and Syria will remain totally Muslim.


Edit: Fair warning, Constantinopolis might possibly come in here and tell me everything I know is wrong so ::Shrug::

[Aethrys]

Just over half of all Republicans should be considered enemies of humanity, and by extension America, then.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Just over half of all Republicans should be considered enemies of humanity, and by extension America, then.

.. I really can't put into words a proper description of this statement. It isn't positive...

[Idzequitch]

Just over half of all Republicans should be considered enemies of humanity, and by extension America, then.

Overreaction much? Look, yes it's silly. No, it doesn't call for anything as drastic as you suggest. Honestly, your suggestion only takes credibility away from the reasonable arguments here.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Just over half of all Republicans should be considered enemies of humanity, and by extension America, then.

And this is why I don't come onto NSG anymore. Card-carrying Republican Catholic here.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Just over half of all Republicans should be considered enemies of humanity, and by extension America, then.

And this is why I don't come onto NSG anymore. Card-carrying Republican Catholic here.

Because people occasionally say boneheaded shit?

I'm surprised that you log on to the internet at all in that case.

[UED]

As a buddhist i say no.

[Aethrys]

Just over half of all Republicans should be considered enemies of humanity, and by extension America, then.

.. I really can't put into words a proper description of this statement. It isn't positive...

I agree, having more than half of one of the two main political parties in America openly confessing their desire to destroy the Union and replace it with a theocracy is a very negative thing.

Just over half of all Republicans should be considered enemies of humanity, and by extension America, then.

Overreaction much? Look, yes it's silly. No, it doesn't call for anything as drastic as you suggest. Honestly, your suggestion only takes credibility away from the reasonable arguments here.

... What am I suggesting exactly? That those who wish to impose an oppressive theocratic worldview on others are in opposition to human liberty? I'd hardly call that suggestion drastic.

Just over half of all Republicans should be considered enemies of humanity, and by extension America, then.

And this is why I don't come onto NSG anymore. Card-carrying Republican Catholic here.

... You're clearly on NSG. Or posting telepathically I guess. Also, cool. Enjoy your political and religious freedoms. But if you count yourself among that 57%, kindly cease and desist your support for the trampling of the constitution.

And this is why I don't come onto NSG anymore. Card-carrying Republican Catholic here.

Because people occasionally say boneheaded shit?

I'm surprised that you log on to the internet at all in that case.

Just gonna ignore the flame bait like a mature individual.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because people occasionally say boneheaded shit?

I'm surprised that you log on to the internet at all in that case.

Just gonna ignore the flame bait like a mature individual.

Eh?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

.. I really can't put into words a proper description of this statement. It isn't positive...

I agree, having more than half of one of the two main political parties in America openly confessing their desire to destroy the Union and replace it with a theocracy is a very negative thing.

Overreaction much? Look, yes it's silly. No, it doesn't call for anything as drastic as you suggest. Honestly, your suggestion only takes credibility away from the reasonable arguments here.

... What am I suggesting exactly? That those who wish to impose an oppressive theocratic worldview on others are in opposition to human liberty? I'd hardly call that suggestion drastic.

And this is why I don't come onto NSG anymore. Card-carrying Republican Catholic here.

... You're clearly on NSG. Or posting telepathically I guess. Also, cool. Enjoy your political and religious freedoms. But if you count yourself among that 57%, kindly cease and desist your support for the trampling of the constitution.

Because people occasionally say boneheaded shit?

I'm surprised that you log on to the internet at all in that case.

Just gonna ignore the flame bait like a mature individual.

I didn't see it as flamebait, nor was that a flame.

[Aethrys]

I agree, having more than half of one of the two main political parties in America openly confessing their desire to destroy the Union and replace it with a theocracy is a very negative thing.



... What am I suggesting exactly? That those who wish to impose an oppressive theocratic worldview on others are in opposition to human liberty? I'd hardly call that suggestion drastic.



... You're clearly on NSG. Or posting telepathically I guess. Also, cool. Enjoy your political and religious freedoms. But if you count yourself among that 57%, kindly cease and desist your support for the trampling of the constitution.



Just gonna ignore the flame bait like a mature individual.

I didn't see it as flamebait, nor was that a flame.

Of course not. But now that I've pointed that out we have the option to have a meaningful, and civil discussion, assuming there are individuals interested in such a thing. As an aside I will avoid addressing similar one off statements as part of an effort by myself to prevent unnecessary escalation.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I didn't see it as flamebait, nor was that a flame.

Of course not. But now that I've pointed that out we have the option to have a meaningful, and civil discussion, assuming there are individuals interested in such a thing. As an aside I will avoid addressing similar one off statements as part of an effort by myself to prevent unnecessary escalation.

You're right. Calling over half of all Republicans enemies of humanity was meaningful and civil as fuck.

[Aethrys]

Overreaction much? Look, yes it's silly. No, it doesn't call for anything as drastic as you suggest. Honestly, your suggestion only takes credibility away from the reasonable arguments here.

... What am I suggesting exactly? That those who wish to impose an oppressive theocratic worldview on others are in opposition to human liberty? I'd hardly call that suggestion drastic.

Of course not. But now that I've pointed that out we have the option to have a meaningful, and civil discussion, assuming there are individuals interested in such a thing. As an aside I will avoid addressing similar one off statements as part of an effort by myself to prevent unnecessary escalation.

You're right. Calling over half of all Republicans enemies of humanity was meaningful and civil as fuck.

If you believe that subverting human liberty is not a crime against humanity I would love to hear your explanation why.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

.. I really can't put into words a proper description of this statement. It isn't positive...

I agree, having more than half of one of the two main political parties in America openly confessing their desire to destroy the Union and replace it with a theocracy is a very negative thing.

Overreaction much? Look, yes it's silly. No, it doesn't call for anything as drastic as you suggest. Honestly, your suggestion only takes credibility away from the reasonable arguments here.

... What am I suggesting exactly? That those who wish to impose an oppressive theocratic worldview on others are in opposition to human liberty? I'd hardly call that suggestion drastic.

And this is why I don't come onto NSG anymore. Card-carrying Republican Catholic here.

... You're clearly on NSG. Or posting telepathically I guess. Also, cool. Enjoy your political and religious freedoms. But if you count yourself among that 57%, kindly cease and desist your support for the trampling of the constitution.

Because people occasionally say boneheaded shit?

I'm surprised that you log on to the internet at all in that case.

Just gonna ignore the flame bait like a mature individual.

your snark fails. That statement you wrote, those words in that particular order, was probably the dumbest thing I've heard, and hanging around NSG that's saying a lot.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

... What am I suggesting exactly? That those who wish to impose an oppressive theocratic worldview on others are in opposition to human liberty? I'd hardly call that suggestion drastic.

You're right. Calling over half of all Republicans enemies of humanity was meaningful and civil as fuck.

If you believe that subverting human liberty is not a crime against humanity I would love to hear your explanation why.

Wanting a national religion is hardly a subversion of human rights. Me thinks thou doth try to hard.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

... What am I suggesting exactly? That those who wish to impose an oppressive theocratic worldview on others are in opposition to human liberty? I'd hardly call that suggestion drastic.

You're right. Calling over half of all Republicans enemies of humanity was meaningful and civil as fuck.

If you believe that subverting human liberty is not a crime against humanity I would love to hear your explanation why.

Well, this is weird, since I've actually been disagreeing with the idea of a national religion of any sort, but okay.

First, "Crimes Against Humanity" has a specific definition.

Second, I don't see the governments of England and Sweden, both of which have national churches, as being enemies of humanity.

[Aethrys]

If you believe that subverting human liberty is not a crime against humanity I would love to hear your explanation why.

Well, this is weird, since I've actually been disagreeing with the idea of a national religion of any sort, but okay.

First, "Crimes Against Humanity" has a specific definition.

Second, I don't see the governments of England and Sweden, both of which have national churches, as being enemies of humanity.

other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury.

I'd say supporting forcibly imposing a theocracy in contravention to the supreme law of the land and the wishes of the general populace qualifies.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well, this is weird, since I've actually been disagreeing with the idea of a national religion of any sort, but okay.

First, "Crimes Against Humanity" has a specific definition.

Second, I don't see the governments of England and Sweden, both of which have national churches, as being enemies of humanity.

other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury.

I'd say supporting forcibly imposing a theocracy in contravention to the supreme law of the land and the wishes of the general populace qualifies.

Why don't people understand that a National Religion does not constitute a theocracy?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Well, this is weird, since I've actually been disagreeing with the idea of a national religion of any sort, but okay.

First, "Crimes Against Humanity" has a specific definition.

Second, I don't see the governments of England and Sweden, both of which have national churches, as being enemies of humanity.

other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury.

I'd say supporting forcibly imposing a theocracy in contravention to the supreme law of the land and the wishes of the general populace qualifies.

Again, like those horrifying theocracies in England and Sweden? And if they imposed it, it would have to be with majority approval, so they're not talking about forcibly ramming it down the throats of the general populace. Finally, if they did this through a Constitutional amendment that revoked the establishment clause, then it wouldn't be against the supreme law of the land.

However, again, I'm against such a thing.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I'd say supporting forcibly imposing a theocracy in contravention to the supreme law of the land and the wishes of the general populace qualifies.

Again, like those horrifying theocracies in England and Sweden? And if they imposed it, it would have to be with majority approval, so they're not talking about forcibly ramming it down the throats of the general populace. Finally, if they did this through a Constitutional amendment that revoked the establishment clause, then it wouldn't be against the supreme law of the land.

However, again, I'm against such a thing.

Why do people not understand that the Establishment Clause doesn't need to be repealed?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Again, like those horrifying theocracies in England and Sweden? And if they imposed it, it would have to be with majority approval, so they're not talking about forcibly ramming it down the throats of the general populace. Finally, if they did this through a Constitutional amendment that revoked the establishment clause, then it wouldn't be against the supreme law of the land.

However, again, I'm against such a thing.

Why do people not understand that the Establishment Clause doesn't need to be repealed?

Repealing the bit that says that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion seems advisable if one wishes to establish a national religion.

[The United Lands of Ash]

Even as a right leaning, Christian person I don't like the idea of religion combined with the state. While the US was built on Christian principles the separation of church and state was clear. Putting those two together just lets the more wackjobby types in religion into power and truth be told I'd rather not have the American Inquisition.

If one religion is enforced no one can truly worship freely, not even the supported religion. You would live in fear that the supported religion would be thrown aside. If you let the government take one thing they're never giving it back and it's one step toward taking something else.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Why do people not understand that the Establishment Clause doesn't need to be repealed?

Repealing the bit that says that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion seems advisable if one wishes to establish a national religion.

No if they repeal the Establishment clause then holy balls there will be a string of religious based laws like you have never seen. Ten Commandments on every street post. Monuments to Jesus on every national park. 10 hours mandatory prayer in schools a Day. The free exercise clause would be all but lame.

If you keep the Establishment Clause and have a National Religion amendment. You get your religion and the Gov't still can't step on your rights.