Maher on Christmas & Republicans Recanting the Separation of Church and State.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Always beware of those who profess the need for religion while,,, absolutely refusing to practice Jesus' simple message of love.

Jesus, His message, are real.  Religion is a fraud.  When religions seek worldly power,,, hypocrisy is revealed.

The power of Jesus that we need to cultivate is love.  Control should not be a goal.  Whether you view the issue as theological or, political,,, the answer should be obvious.

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by icanthearyou

[Aufan59 62]

On 12/15/2023 at 7:19 AM, I_M4_AU said:

The issue there is where there is a void of constructive thought allows for destructive thought.  What we are seeing today.

Case in point:

 

 

The smart thing about the Satanic Temple is that it uses Christian mythology, so Christians can’t simply dismiss it as being fake or imaginary.

 

They actually are a very compelling religion. 

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

7 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

The smart thing about the Satanic Temple is that it uses Christian mythology, so Christians can’t simply dismiss it as being fake or imaginary.

 

They actually are a very compelling religion. 

Can an anti-religion be a religion?  It seems they are based on a mockery of Christianity with no real worship of a central figure as they do not worship the devil or Satan.

 

[auburnatl1 4,914]

8 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

The smart thing about the Satanic Temple is that it uses Christian mythology, so Christians can’t simply dismiss it as being fake or imaginary.

 

They actually are a very compelling religion. 

What a nice and well thought out holiday sentiment.

[Aufan59 62]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Can an anti-religion be a religion?  It seems they are based on a mockery of Christianity with no real worship of a central figure as they do not worship the devil or Satan.

 

There are thousands of religions, and only one true one, Christianity.  Thus 99.9%+ are made up, so religion is only limited by what can be imagined.

 

They are not a mockery of Christianity.  They are a counterbalance to those who think Christianity should be the state religion.  And the theists can’t simply dismiss the religion as imaginary, as Satan is a critical character in their beliefs too.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

7 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

There are thousands of religions, and only one true one, Christianity.  Thus 99.9%+ are made up, so religion is only limited by what can be imagined.

 

They are not a mockery of Christianity.  They are a counterbalance to those who think Christianity should be the state religion.  And the theists can’t simply dismiss the religion as imaginary, as Satan is a critical character in their beliefs too.

It appears the following is mainly in the US which would indicate an anti-Christ religion and a mockery.  One could convince themselves it is a counterbalance, but so is atheism.  

[Leftfield 2,598]

31 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

One could convince themselves it is a counterbalance, but so is atheism.  

Curious as to your meaning on this?

[Aufan59 62]

50 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It appears the following is mainly in the US which would indicate an anti-Christ religion and a mockery.  One could convince themselves it is a counterbalance, but so is atheism.  

Do you even know their beliefs?  It is clearly a counterbalance, not a mockery.  

 

If Christians can do something due to their beliefs, then other religions can and should as well.  That is the counterbalance.

 

Regardless, why would it matter if it were simply a mockery?  Why would this make their religion invalid?

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

27 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Regardless, why would it matter if it were simply a mockery?  Why would this make their religion invalid?

Because it is like a petulant teenager balking at their parents control.  Based on something that they believe will strike a nerve with their parents and hurt them deeply.  It seems they exist to be the center of *freedom from religion* and therefore made up.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

57 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Curious as to your meaning on this?

Is not Atheism not believing in God?  This belief counters Christianity.

[Leftfield 2,598]

14 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is not Atheism not believing in God?  This belief counters Christianity.

I guess my question is, do you feel that atheism exists only as a means to counter Christianity? Your original statement seemed it could be implying that and I wanted to be sure of your intent.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

Just now, Leftfield said:

I guess my question is, do you feel that atheism exists only as a means to counter Christianity? Your original statement seemed it could be implying that and I wanted to be sure of your intent.

No, parts of the world have not heard of Christianity and would, therefore, be considered atheists.  Atheists are not organized as a religion or movement to my knowledge, but seem to follow a more *freedom from religion* approach.

[Leftfield 2,598]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, parts of the world have not heard of Christianity and would, therefore, be considered atheists.  Atheists are not organized as a religion or movement to my knowledge, but seem to follow a more *freedom from religion* approach.

Thank you.

I would point out, though, that someone not knowing about Christianity does not necessarily mean they are Atheist. They may have other religious beliefs.

[Aufan59 62]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Because it is like a petulant teenager balking at their parents control.  Based on something that they believe will strike a nerve with their parents and hurt them deeply.  It seems they exist to be the center of *freedom from religion* and therefore made up.

Almost every religion is “made up”.  There are thousands of religions and only 1 can be true, thus the others were “made up”.

 

This is not a valid reason to claim someone’s religion is invalid.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

Almost every religion is “made up”.  There are thousands of religions and only 1 can be true, thus the others were “made up”.

 

This is not a valid reason to claim someone’s religion is invalid.

Maybe I should say it is not a serious religion instead of invalid.  Happy Festivus

[Aufan59 62]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Maybe I should say it is not a serious religion instead of invalid.  Happy Festivus

It is a very serious religion.  First of all, why does that matter?  Second of all who are you to judge another’s religion as not serious?  What if I said Christianity can’t be serious, as it’s based on Mary not wanting to admit to Joseph that she laid with another man.  A whole religion based on the cover up of an affair can’t be serious, can it?

 

The Satanic Temple is serious and necessary, as the evils of Christian theocracy is preventing people from getting medical care.  The Satanic Temple is a counter balance to Christian evil, with tenants of bodily autonomy that Christian evil is trying to strip from us.  They are not a mockery, they are necessary.

 

The Satanic Temple boils down to…If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 12/17/2023 at 8:57 AM, Leftfield said:

Curious as to your meaning on this?

Unsurprisingly, he doesn't know the difference between "atheism" and "anti-theism".

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 12/15/2023 at 10:48 PM, DKW 86 said:

They did absolutely acknowledge a Supreme Being. Many were also Masons and basically rejected the role of a Savior Christ and failed back to works.

We had Catholics, Anglicans, Quakers, Puritans, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. Exactly whose theology are you gonna base the Nation on? When we elect A Catholic King of the White House are we going to see the Feds go all Jesuit on the rest of us? 

No, the thinking of a sane man should point toward sane rational thought that is based on a steady forward motion for the nation. 
Are we as people grounded in the faith? Yes
Were the fore fathers also grounded in 20+ different denominations of faith? Yes
But were we founded based on a theocracy model? No.

 

What evidence do you have that the Framers maintained a separationist view?

[DKW 86 7,423]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What evidence do you have that the Framers maintained a separationist view?

It's in the First Amendment 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I submit that "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" also includes atheists, agnostics, and those that dont care that that they dont care. IOW that what anyone's religious beliefs or lack thereof shall not be infringed nor legislated.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 12/16/2023 at 9:26 AM, homersapien said:

Simple questions. No "point" involved.

So, can we assume by your evasion you don't believe "the framers maintained a separationist view"?

Also, can we assume you think our perceived, deduced or assumed religious beliefs of the various founders takes precedent over what is actually written in our constitution?

I do not believe the Framers maintained a separationist view. Our first President, our first Congress, and our first Court certainly didn’t.  I provided multiple examples supporting my position. No one has provided anything to the contrary. 

Assume what you want; chase rabbits too. But I posed the question, buddy boy.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

It's in the First Amendment 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I submit that "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" also includes atheists, agnostics, and those that dont care that that they dont care. IOW that what anyone's religious beliefs or lack thereof shall not be infringed nor legislated.

Have you ever thought of submitting that the Framers were instead concerned with preventing the establishment of a national church? And, do you know how many years passed before the Establishment Clause was applied to state governments?

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I do not believe the Framers maintained a separationist view. Our first President, our first Congress, and our first Court certainly didn’t.  I provided multiple examples supporting my position. No one has provided anything to the contrary. 
 
Assume what you want; chase rabbits too. But I posed the question, buddy boy.

Well, thanks for your public honesty, as disturbing as it is.

It only goes to show that the threat of a theocracy remains relevant in our country, even in the 21st century.

Here's hoping that all who think as you do are as open about it.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

28 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, thanks for your public honesty, as disturbing as it is.

It only goes to show that the threat of a theocracy remains relevant in our country, even in the 21st century.

Here's hoping that all who think as you do are as open about it.

Why does it make you feel so uncomfortable to acknowledge that the Framers did not maintain a separationist view?

If you posit that the Framers did maintain a separationist view, then point me to what you believe supports your position. Can you reconcile your position with, for example, the concluding words of the Presidential oath added by Washington, or the phrase Marshall chose to open Supreme Court sessions with, or the manner in which our First Congress chose to begin legislative session, or our First Congress's decision to enact legislation for paid chaplains in the house and senate, or Washington's first Thanksgiving Proclamation, or the language our First Congress chose when it reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, or the First Amendment's according religion special constitutional protection? 

 

[DKW 86 7,423]

6 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Have you ever thought of submitting that the Framers were instead concerned with preventing the establishment of a national church? And, do you know how many years passed before the Establishment Clause was applied to state governments?

https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/thomas-jefferson-and-religious-freedom/

Thomas Jefferson has been closely associated with religious freedom for more than two centuries. In the first Supreme Court case addressing the religion clauses of the First Amendment, Reynolds v. United States, the Court unanimously agreed that Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Freedom “defined” religious liberty and “the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.”^[1]

Jefferson’s commitment to religious freedom grew from several inter-related sources.

For Jefferson, an Enlightenment rationalist, reason had to govern in all areas, including religion. “For the use of … reason… every one is responsible to the God who has planted it in his breast, as a light for his guidance, and that, by which alone he will be judged,” Jefferson explained.^[2]  His declaration to Benjamin Rush that “I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man,” was made in the context of religious freedom: any government effort to control religious beliefs was “tyranny over the mind of man.”^[3]

Politically, Jefferson believed that the new nation required complete religious freedom and separation of church and state. Many historians note that the broad diversity of ethnicities and religions in the thirteen colonies meant that religious freedom was necessary if the union was to be successful. This is true, but for Jefferson the political necessity of religious freedom went further. Before the Revolution, Virginia had an official church – the Church of England – and dissenters from that Church (primarily Presbyterians and Baptists) were discriminated against and seriously persecuted. This deeply disturbed Jefferson. Later in life, Jefferson referred to the early battles in this conflict as “the severest contests in which I have ever been engaged.” Ultimately, this political controversy resulted in the adoption of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, one of the three items that Jefferson wished to have preserved on his grave marker.^[4]

Jefferson saw religious freedom as essential for a functioning republic. Without religious freedom and a strict separation of church and state, “kings, nobles, and priests” threatened to create a dangerous aristocracy. As Peter Onuf explains, “Jefferson defined the old regime as an unholy alliance of ‘kings, nobles, and priests’ that divided the people in order to rule them. Jefferson’s Bill for Religious Freedom, … [made] possible the progressive development of that ‘entire union of opinion’ that alone could guarantee the survival of republican government.”^[5]

 

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by DKW 86

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

On 12/17/2023 at 8:54 AM, I_M4_AU said:

Because it is like a petulant teenager balking at their parents control.  Based on something that they believe will strike a nerve with their parents and hurt them deeply.  It seems they exist to be the center of *freedom from religion* and therefore made up.

 

Do you believe there should be some sort of official 'test' to determine who's religious beliefs are sincere and "real", and who is just making it up or having other motivations? Do you agree with DeSantis that the Satanic Temple should be stripped of their religious recognition by the government?