DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Christian Nationalism

re-posting for emphasis.
Good to see that others stayed awake in American Civics class.

That for some reason gets lost in the daily discussion. We are a country founded on freedom of choice of religion. What the Right has done to this country is criminal.

The cookoo MAGA world doesn’t give two craps on the manner our fore fathers constructed our constitution. They use it as toilet paper.

And even Civics classes are on the decline. It's never been what people do know that causes harm. It's what people don't know......

The need for better civics education is clear. Only seven states require a full year of civics instruction in high school; 13 states have “no requirement at all.” The federal government spends $50 per student on STEM education each year, but only five cents per student on civics, down 90 percent since 2000.

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/3907255-getting-to-yes-on-civics-education/

Civics today is taught with guns.

I am not an originalist, nor a strict constitutionalist. To me those are code words, dog whistles to the Evangelical right.

I get in trouble for saying that the constitution is not the bible. It was designed to be amended. That in of itself is proof that the founders knew that sentiments would change over the course of time.

I still boil at the Alito pontifications on 18th century medical pregnancy theory as part of the Dobbs decision. That is all one need to know about the person to realize that he is not credible.

Cue up... We don't need no education, we don't need no thought control.

Well, I don’t think any Justice (aside from maybe Alito nowadays) would say that the Constitution wasn’t designed to be amended. Even Scalia mentioned that to change the Constitution is within Congress’ and the states’ power. The big heartburn is the two schools of thought in determining how to interpret the Constitution, between text/framer intent and the “living/breathing” approach.

That being said, Alito went way off the rails in the Donna decision. If Scalia had come back from the dead and wrote the decision himself, I think it would have looked apples and oranges different from the approach that Alito used. He was all over the far reaches of the galaxy in overcoming stare decisis.

I'm not sure "not founded as a Christian nation" is entirely true. References to God were all over. It seems to me it was more of a case of they took God as a given, but didn't want the government to dictate the earthly trappings. In Europe, there was a lot of discord between the various "sects" of "Christianity" at the time. Protestant vs Catholic, etc. Similar persecution was happening here (particularly re: Quakers) and they wanted to nip that in the bud, so to speak. Many of the Framers were deists, and believed in personal relationships with "God" rather than formulaic ritual. They didn't want the influence of religious organizations (Catholic church, etc) to inhibit men from following their consciences.

Many of the Framers thought the personal relationship with God and how that worked shouldn't be dictated by any one creed/orthodoxy/"system of faith and worship" which an official "government sanctioned" "religion" would inevitably result in/tend towards.

It was a "Christian nation" when founded, they just didn't want the Government to be involved with dictating the "flavor(s)" of "Christianity." Nation and government are two separate things. They didn't want a Theocratic government. They didn't want to get rid of God. They wanted the government dictating as few choices as possible.

I'm not sure how much they even considered religions outside of "Christianity" when debating "religious freedom." There was plenty to argue about within "Christianity."

It was a "different world." (Narrower/more "isolated"?)

$.02 semi-tangent, but then my brain works in tangled tangents.

It just seems that if one wants to make an argument based on what the Framers intended, those intentions should be more fully depicted. Though, honestly, I think the world has changed in ways they could never have anticipated, so basing decisions now on their intentions is probably not the best way to consider the topic, and issues should be more fully explored.

Can you show anywhere God is mentioned in the constitution other than at the end? "the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.”

The only thing mentioned in the constitution is about freedom of religion. Not that any one religion has any more power than any other. They didn't want to get rid of God which is why every religion is protected. And if they had intended on any religion being a part of our government or laws it would have been stated in the constitution.

So God is now a reserved as a Christian deity?

I am sure that the Christian nation line of reasoning was kept out of the constitution for the exact reasoning that you provided. Colonial settlers were persecuted for their religious beliefs and left Europe for religious freedom offered in the new world.

A far more logical explanation is that government/legal concepts were mirrored after European models, but the fact is that democracy as structured by the founders was a radical departure from anything that existed at that time. That includes no "state recognized religion" or the "separation of church and state" as it became known as. The Founders were the "loony lefties" of their time.

It is clearly stated that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It is a pretty easy statement to understand. Now that include all religions, not just the Christian ones.

The "founded Christian nation" concept is false pseduo logic. The founders knew that if they cracked that door someone would try to wormhole their way into it. The only anecdote that can be used to rationalize the pretend concept is that the founders happened to be Christian. But even they knew that had problems.

No law means no law and you have to accept it for what it means. And that means any belief of God, not just the Christian ones.

where? These generalized statements are getting old. Considering they are easily proven false.

I never specified in the Constitution. I'm talking more their personal correspondence about the Constitution. Those can give more insight into the intentions of the Framers than the document itself.

link

link

link

link

link

Your limited understanding would seem to overlook a depth of complexity. My assertion is that the intent of the Framers is not as simple and unanimous as some would like you to believe. It also overlooks the (now) "state's" constitutions. It is a complex topic that you've apparently been told a (perhaps not entirely representative) simplification of.

I never said anything about God being reserved to Christianity now. As I clearly stated, it was a different time/"world."

"Now that include all religions, not just the Christian ones." Indeed, now it does. I'm not sure the Framers envisioned non-"Christians" wanting to join their foundling nation. The Islamic Barbary Pirates were still taking Christian slaves in the 1700s.

In the early days, the power of the federal government was much less than now. The states had a lot more differentiation and "power."

As an example:

link

And you don’t think that the founders knew about the Maryland experiment may have been a consideration in the drafting of the first amendment? That is an exhibit for the wisdom of the founding fathers.

I can accept that premise that the founding fathers knew that by stating no law meant that the country would be just as accepting of non Christian religions as well as the more prevalent Christian ones and ultimately determined that would be acceptable in a country that was founded based in part on the premise of religious freedom.

I will state again, it is a false pseudo logic that cannot hold its own against evidence and scrutiny. The founders wanted religion out of government. No law still means no law.

I think there is a discussion at the end of 1787 as to why the constitution could not be adopted until the Bill of rights were incorporated. This was a requirement for passage as these rights were indeed the principals that everyone could agree were essential to the future of the country. The constitution was viewed as flawed without the Bill of rights.

The Founders couldn't agree on religion and so wanted the federal government to be unable to dictate to everyone. It doesn't say no one shall make laws. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." They were pro local government and didn't want an all powerful federal government reminiscent of a king.

You can accept the premise based on what? Some State Courthouses still displayed the 10 Commandments in the 2000s. There were many laws prohibiting certain acts on the "Sabbath" (i.e, liquor laws.)

I won't say the country was more divided than it is now back then, but I will say it was divided along more different lines. The different colonies held different beliefs and their members didn't want to be forced to all be the same. Yet, they were all dominantly some flavor of "Christian."

The Founders were men, not all-knowing superheroes. I think you've mythologized them and give them too much credit as far as what all their ideas encompassed and what their motivations were. You appear to be applying modern interpretations ("stories"/"narratives") and ignoring historical context.

Sometimes people try to make things more complex than they are. The constitution made it plain that everyone has religious freedom. One would hope that also means freedom from religion as well. Nowhere is there any indication that a single religion or set of religious beliefs control our laws or inflict its beliefs on society. So you keep trying to make it sound differently than that all you like. You seem to do your best in your attempts to muddy the waters on things that are as clear as spring water.

That's what I keep telling people about how they couldn't envision the modern weapons of today when they wrote the second amendment and nobody seems willing to listen to that either.

My point is and remains that the founders DID agree on religion, and we have amendment 1 clause 2 as proof.

The "no law" statement is simply a shortened reference, and that should be understood. I quoted the amendment language earlier and that should have been apparent.

The bigger point is that when it comes to Christian nationalism movement, as presented today, the whole premise is a false narrative, psuedo logic and exactly what the Founders wanted to avoid at all cost. They knew based on their own experience that mixing religion and governmental law would significantly encumber the new country as they were witness to all the contention and conflict that was created by various religious beliefs and practices in their own time. So even though they may have followed a type of Christianity, the also knew that having the government be a partner in the establishment of laws regarding religion was a path to be avoided at all costs. So they made it clear.

The premise that I refer to is the Christian nationalism concept that "this country was founded as a Christian nation" is something that I do not believe to be true. If accepted this opens a pandora's box that the founders intended to be closed, locked and the key thrown away. If you want to amend the constitution then fine, open the box at your own peril.

I don't mind references to any religion, I just don't want any laws associated with a particular belief.

Again, I do not follow originialist or strict constitutionaist beliefs, so with that comes the belief that the constitution was created by people who knew that the document was flawed, but an attempt to establish a new and untried form of government, and set a path towards a more perfect union which is in of itself an explicit recognition of its imperfection.

Yeah but they wrote letters to each other! I mean they didn't put any of it into the constitution or anything because obviously they didn't want their "feelings" to be in the founding documents of our nation. But still.

Yeah, more than letters, there were the federalist papers (written by Madison, Hamilton and Jay) that discussed and used to advocate the passage of the constitution.

Madison and Hamilton had different philosophies, but the did agree on the need for passage. For example, Hamilton did not want a Bill of Rights.

Sausage making even back then.

It seems they were a prime example of why bipartisanship, aka compromise, works. It seems odd to me that the very people who claim they wish to uphold the constitution and tell us how wise the founding fathers were hate the idea of using that principal today. If not for that we would now have comprehensive immigration laws. Somehow they feel ignoring the example our forefathers set and believe being a "do nothing congress" is a better way of running the country.



At least they got the "marching as to war" part right.

Warning Signs of a Cult
1. The leader is always right.
2. Criticism of the leader or questioning the leader is considered persecution.
3. Anything the leader does is justified no matter how harmful it may be.
4. The leader is the only source of the truth, everybody else is lying.
5. Followers must be blindly devoted to the leader and never question him.
6. The members won't recognize they belong to a cult.

Hmmmmm, wonder if we could get rid of the parties on the grounds that they've effectively become organized religions.

Claiming that both parties meet all of those same guidelines is not being honest.

(.pdf link)

I think part of our "disagreement"/misunderstanding is you seem to be more focusing on the Federal government and its literal construction specifically, and I'm looking more broadly at the "nation" in general and the historical/"lived" context and how that relates to the document(s.) You seem overly focused on the first part of what I quoted. I'm just trying to acknowledge the second half (and that first half has an "interesting" definition of religion.)

Claiming that parts of both parties do not meet all of those same guidelines is not being honest.

forbearance; a refraining from the enforcement of something (such as a debt, right, or obligation) that is due.

Hmmmm....

So now you're trying to parce it into the chicken McNugget theory. "Parts are parts". You do realize that a chicken breast is much larger than the chicken wing don't you?

I tend to agree. The Christian right, not you specifically, has been trying to break down separation of church and state with this “Christian nation” pseudo logic and I will do my best to make the concept of separation of church and state "rock solid".

In this area, I believe the language and intent is clear and supported by facts.

Again I have no issue with acceptance of religion as part of everyday life and cultural practice, but I disagree with its place in government or law.

Nope but the cult party could and should.

Warning Sign No. 6 is in full effect I see.

Yes it is, blindly following a convicted felon. Believing the words of a pathological liar. Full effect indeed.

The other thing that makes you know your in a cult is Projection. The Cult of Trump always seems to say that whatever they do is what they accuse others of actually doing.

Example: Trump did everything he could to weaponize the DOJ against is foes, now he's accusing the Dems of doing that. That boy and his sheep need to remove their heads from their own backsides

I've never heard the left say Biden is wrong about anything. They've defended everything he's done for 3 and half years now


Anyone that disagrees with Biden or any of the lefts policies is considered a maga traitor and should be executed


Biden's been given a free pass on everything.


Biden has lied a bunch and has never been called out for it. One of his latest one, he's out there telling everyone inflation was 9% when he took office.


Biden is not allowed to be question. Question or criticize Biden and the response is "but Trump, but J6, but convicted felon" Anything to deflect from questioning Biden.


The left follow Biden without question. I doubt they would acknowledge this.

Thanks for confirming democrats are also in a cult.

Thats the problem we currently face, both sides think their party is perfect and the other side is evil. Until people wake up and realize both parties are bad, things will continue to get worse.

Everyone but the blind can see the huge contrast. Even you.

Yippee, here comes one of the trump cult members. Trump gaffs are much better and funnier than poking jabs at Biden’s age and speech impediment.

Example….Trump just challenge Biden to take the cognitive test trump aced then immediately got his doctor’s name all mixed up.

Yeah... He said Ronnie Johnson (Magic Johnson's cousin without AIDS) when he meant Ronnie Jackson, the forgotten member of the Jackson 5.

The Ten Commandments must be displayed in Louisiana classrooms under requirement signed into law

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Louisiana has become the first state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom under a bill signed into law by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry on Wednesday.

The GOP-drafted legislation mandates that a poster-sized display of the Ten Commandments in “large, easily readable font” be required in all public classrooms, from kindergarten to state-funded universities. Although the bill did not receive final approval from Landry, the time for gubernatorial action — to sign or veto the bill — has lapsed.

Opponents question the law’s constitutionality, warning that lawsuits are likely to follow. Proponents say the purpose of the measure is not solely religious, but that it has historical significance. In the law’s language, the Ten Commandments are described as “foundational documents of our state and national government.”

The displays, which will be paired with a four-paragraph “context statement” describing how the Ten Commandments “were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries,” must be in place in classrooms by the start of 2025.

The posters would be paid for through donations. State funds will not be used to implement the mandate, based on language in the legislation.

The law also “authorizes” — but does not require — the display of the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance in K-12 public schools.

Similar bills requiring the Ten Commandments be displayed in classrooms have been proposed in other states including Texas, Oklahoma and Utah. However, with threats of legal battles over the constitutionality of such measures, no state besides Louisiana has had success in making the bills law.

Legal battles over the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms are not new.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law was unconstitutional and violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The high court found that the law had no secular purpose but rather served a plainly religious purpose.

Louisiana’s controversial law, in a state ensconced in the Bible Belt, comes during a new era of conservative leadership in the state under Landry, who replaced two-term Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards in January.

The GOP also has a two-thirds supermajority in the Legislature, and Republicans hold every statewide elected position, paving the way for lawmakers to push through a conservative agenda during the legislative session that concluded earlier this month.

https://apnews.com/article/louisian...ssrooms-571a2447906f7bbd5a166d53db005a62

Well if we’re forcing the ten commandments onto school walls, I think we should include displays of all the other nonsensical beliefs like Santa and the Easter Bunny.

I guess this is better than lining the paths to schools with atheists nailed to crosses… but that’s most likely in the project 2025 agenda buried on page 684.

Look at it this way. Louisiana is ranked 47th in education. If they can’t read what’s posted in the school how can it hurt? Put the 10 commandments up, write an essay as to why cheese is our true God, post the preamble to the Gettysburg address, or the ingredients list on a Monster energy drink, it won’t matter to the illiterate slack jawed yokels that fill the school halls.