You’ve made a nontrivial effort to discuss religion in a thread about the role of religion in government.

I wasn’t clear why you wrote all your posts; thus, I asked my question.

If you were offered an option of voting in 2024 for or against a Christian USA, how would you vote?

A) regarding “any attempt” language above—> ridiculous. You’re not going to tell me that “any attempt” is improper. Different people have different ideas, then and now, and you’re no historical expert who can opine that “any attempt” is improper.

B) regarding allowing the FFs to “speak for themselves”- also ridiculous. Documents and people speak for themselves. We, readers & listeners, analyze their meaning. You would like authority to define the FFs’ meaning— again, you’re no expert.

I reject both of your ideas.

I am reminded of a story my dad told me last week, about the song his church choir was singing in practice. It went “Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!” in a robust fashion with nice harmonies. At the end of the song, my dad exclaimed, “this is bullshit! We can’t sing this song!”

Others, including Barbara 1 and Barbara 2, agreed. The song was too militaristic in light of today’s Christian nationalist movement. They decided against singing it for the congregation.

It makes me laugh to think my dad said “bullshit” in church. But what is more vulgar? The Christian nationalist movement seeks to impose their beliefs on others and interfere with other people’s personal relationship with God. In my opinion, that invasion of privacy is far more vulgar than a curse word.

I cannot think of anything more private than a person’s personal belief vis a vis God. It is so arrogant to assume that my relationship with God isn’t good enough because I don’t subscribe to your brand of religion.

 In rebuttal to your "argh, these articles", I would throw out an " argh these bibles and the stories told therin. Or maybe argh these Korans" (sp?).

But lets talk about Miss Cohen, our noted atheist journalist, and her written word that is certainly meant to influence. My reading of her commentary? Sounds good to me! From the linked article she states how the courts have handled the nexus of religion, state and the 1st amendment and how National Prayer day was the work of the Reverend Graham back in the 50's


Pray tell, how does she go wrong here? If Billy were to come back today with the same idea to have a nationally recognized prayer day, would he have expanded his "all creeds" to include maybe Islam? And is her assertion that the courts terms of "ceremonial" and "civic" are used to skirt a strict constitutional ruling to separate church from the state correct? It is safe to assume my Christian faith is a work in progress and that recent Republican culture War legislating efforts are not at all helpful in winning me over.

Since the President is required by law today to encourage all citizens to say a prayer today, I pray to that unknown authority, whoever they be, wherever they are to help you in your response so that I might yet keep a somewhat open mind on this. Hint, argh this atheist does not know shit probably does not make the cut off grade as acceptable. Please feel free to attack her lawyerly "supposedly" and "presume" qualifications.

I would have gone further with my rebuttal on your last post to me, but I honestly cannot comprehend well enough what you have written. Your writing is a few paygrades above my level and I am still working through our FF histories and their written word about governing while also consulting (or is it recognizing?) our Christian higher authority.

Your comment reminded me of this comedy bit:

Understood, that makes sense.


If I have the power (by vote) to transform every citizen in the USA to be a Christian (i.e., every citizen makes an earnest profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior), then I would vote for that. In that sense, we would have a Christian USA.

Still, I don't think that's your question. I think your question is whether this nation should memorialize Christianity (faith in Jesus Christ as its Lord and Savior) in its federal governing documents.

Even if my mass conversion of hearts and minds occurred, then--even then-- I would not vote to memorialize Christianity into the federal governing system. On that path lies danger. I agree with the "distinction" between church and state.

It's not enough for you to be a theist, but that you want to create more non-consentual theists? To what end?

We can take comfort knowing freedom of religion, for now, means freedom FROM YOUR religion.

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

If a conversion included your heart and mind, then--by definition-- it's consensual. Right?

When you come to another person's words with a pre-determined paradigm, then those person's words don't matter much, I guess.

The heart is part of the cardiovascular system. It has no part in cognitive ability (conversion).

Everyone "come(s) to another person's words" with a pre-determined paradigm (sic), even those with mostly-shared views.
Watch the Emo Phillips vid, in its entirety, a few posts up.

Your responses indicate a complete lack of empathy or considerations that there is a segment of the population that does not want to be/think/act like you, eh?

Your words... thoughts... exemplify why 1A is so important.

Do you view yourself as a theist recruiter or evangelist or a modern-day crusader or soldier of god etc?

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

You must be lovely to be around on Valentine's Day.

Christianity is an evangelical religion, and has been since its beginnings. True believers feel that they have the one true religion, their beliefs are the only true beliefs, and everyone around them should convert and think the same way. They have done it violently in the past, but recently they have changed that tactic to working in the realms of politics. What we are seeing now is just a continuation, or escalation, of what they have been doing for a very long time. The temperance movement is an example of pushing your believes on everyone. That didn't go very well for them, and Abortion and religious integration into public schools will suffer the same fate.

You can't really place blame on them, that is simply part of their belief system. It causes problems for those of us that hold different beliefs, and my guess (hope) is it is about to hit a critical point where the masses push back and push back hard. I expect a whiplash affect where we go far left for a while. The sad thing will be the true believers will not understand they did it to themselves when it does happen.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

I'll push back on that a little. I know a good number of "true believers" - I am not an arbiter of anyone's quality of belief, so I take at face value anyone who says they believe - who are not actively evangelical in any way. And who not only respect the wall between church and state as a strong metaphor, not something to nibble around, but actively work to protect it. Because that wall serves to protect religion as much as it serves to protect us from religious nationalism creeping into government. Walls work both ways.

Now is there a current global trend in worldwide governements towards increasing religious nationalism? Absolutely I acknowledge that trend. And it scares me. American-style strongly secular government is, IMO, one of the best ideas in government of all time.

When I think of Luke 9:26, this story makes me sad.

My story makes you sad? Odd choice. You have options here! You can choose to pretend that they’re not glorifying Jesus’ name - or - you can read what I wrote: they don’t want to glorify Christian aggression & militarism.

So, I choose to be happy that the church choir chose to sing a less militaristic song. Did they glorify Jesus? Duh. It’s a church choir, for crying out loud— so every song is Jesus themed. SMH

Buck up, camper. Being a sad sack isn’t fun or funny or likely to attract reasonable people to your church. You need to think about this! Your church is competing against a lot of nice and fun people. If you insist on being militaristic or sad or mean, you’re going to lose. (The same is true for political causes. The amount of energy that gets used up by violence, anger, sadness, meanness has to be considered. That’s why HOPE is such a powerful thing. It GIVES energy.)