Should Christians have their own country? (Buddhists, Jerusalem, Muslim, marriage)

[TheCaliforniaBear]

Originally Posted by noland123

Hey California Bear why do you think it is called the (United) States of America.? Why are you making the country divisive? You know the saying"United We stand,Divided We Fall".

I agree with you. I want to see people unite. I think that the best way to do this is to change the system. Let people with different idealogies and different mindsets live in places with different rules that suit them well.

The USA needs to go back to it's roots and start to resemble what it was in Washington or Jeffereson's day. Right now we have a federal government that is too big and powerful. Individual states should be able to make their own rules with much more freedom.

If the federal government is here to stay. Then we should divide the country up.

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by TheCaliforniaBear

Individual states should be able to make their own rules with much more freedom.

That's pretty much what a group of Southern states thought in the 1840s and 50s. It led to a little contretemps that was, at the very least, somewhat divisive...

So you're advocating another civil war to split the country up into groupings that meet your particular standards? If that's the case, I'm announcing right now that I'm a conscientious objector.

[AxisMundi]

Originally Posted by TheCaliforniaBear

I agree with you. I want to see people unite. I think that the best way to do this is to change the system. Let people with different idealogies and different mindsets live in places with different rules that suit them well.

The USA needs to go back to it's roots and start to resemble what it was in Washington or Jeffereson's day. Right now we have a federal government that is too big and powerful. Individual states should be able to make their own rules with much more freedom.

If the federal government is here to stay. Then we should divide the country up.

The Fed isn't some faceless gesalt juggernaught that eats up Rights for dinner, and then small children for desert.

The Fed is the individual States, and We the People as well, in the Senate and House respectfully.

It is, indeed, the States and We the People who have allowed the Fed to become overly large, and it is the States and We the People who are the only one's who can fix it.

In the eras of the honored gentelmen you mentioned, interstate travel was accomplished by only a few. Even as our Nation surged westward, interstate travel was accomplished by a relative handful of hardy souls who took months to travel across the Nation in search of a better life.

Today, no one thinks twice about hopping in their car, aboard a train, or onto a plane and travelling anywhere across the continent. In a half hour I can be in another State (enjoying a huge break in sales taxes incidentally). In about 15 minutes I can be in another Nation altogether.

IMHO we actually need to standardize quite a few laws between States.

However, dividing up the Nation would only serve the negative, I personally see nothing positive. It would create even more decisiveness and conflict, opening even deeper chasms between political and religious affiliations, for one major example.

Yes, I do indeed wish this Nation's citizens to return to the mentalities of our Founders, selectively, of course.

One of those ideals we need to bring back?

The inherent thinking that we are Americans first and foremost, not Christians, not Republicans, not Democrats, not white or black, but citizens of this Great Nation first and foremost.

[khminh]

Originally Posted by lovesMountains

Excuse me, but since over 75% of Americans are Christian I think it would be simpler to move you other 25% somewhere else

Actually, it's not a bad idea. Since non Christians are Americans too, the majority of Christians should share a few states with them.

As a gay man (a minority) and a Vietnamese (also a minority), I am fine to live in a state with a small size like Netherlands. Fundamentalist Christians can have 48 states. I think that 2 states should be enough to house non Christians. In that way, the conflicts are minimal. I don't have to worry about any assault from homophobic groups. My mind can have peace as well.

I never stop Christians from voicing their opinions about LGBT people. I have no interest in arguing back at them. However, it is exhausting to keep hearing them talking about me as if I commit the worst crime ever even though I have had zero criminal record.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by khminh

Actually, it's not a bad idea. Since non Christians are Americans too, the majority of Christians should share a few states with them.

As a gay man (a minority) and a Vietnamese (also a minority), I am fine to live in a state with a small size like Netherlands. Fundamentalist Christians can have 48 states. I think that 2 states should be enough to house non Christians. In that way, the conflicts are minimal. I don't have to worry about any assault from homophobic groups. My mind can have peace as well.

I never stop Christians from voicing their opinions about LGBT people. I have no interest in arguing back at them. However, it is exhausting to keep hearing them talking about me as if I commit the worst crime ever even though I have had zero criminal record.

I remember when I began my formal education in college. I was an eager first semester freshmen with all those 101 courses. Naturally, one of the required classes was US History 1 (101) though I actually wanted something more advanced. At any rate, one day we talked a little about the philosophy of history and one topic that came up is whether or not we truly learn from history. At the time, I thought we did, but my professor was quick to disagree and give me plenty of examples of how we seem to keep repeating the same old cycles no matter HOW bad they were.

And here we are again, repeating things like the forced migration of Native Americans and the infamous trail of tears. Or the Long March in China whereby the loyalists to Mao Zedong walked thousands of miles into the Chinese hinterlands. Or the ethnic cleansing of the Baltic states, the religious cleansing of ISIS, and countless other times when people attempted to make a nation homogeneous in some way or another. It doesn't mattr if it's based on ethnicity, religion, culture, or whatever else. The results are almost always horrific.

[TRANSPONDER]

They shure as **** can't have mine.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by TheCaliforniaBear

The Muslems have their own countries in which the Quran is the law of the land. Such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The Jewish people have Israel.

Should we give fundamental Christians their own land? That way, they can live with the Bible as the law of the land. They can live the way that they want to in their "Christian paradise", and they will not bother everyene else with their relgious views?

Christians in the USA especially, are obviously not happy with the direction society is headed. Why don't we give them their own land? Let's create an Israel for them. I think they need a place where they can live their lifestlyle away from everyone else.

Christians have their own country. According to Paul they are citizens of the Kingdom of the heavens and basically are alien residents in every Country as dual "citizenship" is a no - no, can't serve two masters.

[khminh]

Originally Posted by Shirina

I remember when I began my formal education in college. I was an eager first semester freshmen with all those 101 courses. Naturally, one of the required classes was US History 1 (101) though I actually wanted something more advanced. At any rate, one day we talked a little about the philosophy of history and one topic that came up is whether or not we truly learn from history. At the time, I thought we did, but my professor was quick to disagree and give me plenty of examples of how we seem to keep repeating the same old cycles no matter HOW bad they were.

And here we are again, repeating things like the forced migration of Native Americans and the infamous trail of tears. Or the Long March in China whereby the loyalists to Mao Zedong walked thousands of miles into the Chinese hinterlands. Or the ethnic cleansing of the Baltic states, the religious cleansing of ISIS, and countless other times when people attempted to make a nation homogeneous in some way or another. It doesn't mattr if it's based on ethnicity, religion, culture, or whatever else. The results are almost always horrific.

I know what you are saying. I think the problem is that Christians don't have an outlet to express their discrimination. That is why they like to shame people who don't share the same their religious vies discreetly. That is not healthy in my view. As a gay man and an ethnic minority, I am totally for "discrimination" if that option is available. I'm talking about business here.

If I have a political power, I would make all secular and Christian business have specific policy put in front of their stores. I would want to see which group they like to exclude and which activity they wouldn't accommodate. I know it sounds horrible. However, it would prevent a lot of headaches.

I don't like political correctness, nor do I want retaliation. If a Christian feels uncomfortable to serve me because I'm gay or a white person doesn't want to deal with me because I'm Vietnamese, I need to know before I walk into their store. I won't boycott or make a lawsuit. I would just walk away and find another store. In return, if a Christian sees "no proselytization please", "no good news sharing please", "religious discussion is not welcome" sign in front of my property, I need him/her to respect my wish and go away.

Unfortunately, gay people keep using lawsuit to threaten Christians while Christians are afraid to express their discrimination. In my opinion, both groups need to back off. If they want to coexist, I think there are only two ways to resolve this conflict

1/ Christians need to have the option to announce to the public which groups or activities they can provide service to. If they clearly say that they don't cater gay wedding or treat gay patients, LGBT people should back off and let them be. If they don't specify their policy, they need to provide service to LGBT groups.

2/ Christians have their own land where they establish their own law. They cannot do missionary work in a non Christian countries. In return, non Christian countries cannot go to Christian countries and give flyer about other religions.
If Christians want to live in a non Christian land, they cannot wear a cross or show the Bible in public
If non Christians want to live in a Christian land, they cannot bring contraceptives, cannot have a gay partner, only talk about Jesus and not any other religious figures, pray with other people in a meeting, etc.

Either option is fine by me. I'm tired of hearing news about this cultural clash between LGBT and Christians, and I'm just an outsider of those news. I can't imagine how hard it is for both groups.

If gay and Christians are willing to compromise, I'm all for option 1. I really don't mind discrimination as long as it is clearly shown. However, I know that Christians don't have the courage to express their discomfort and gay people won't sit back with discrimination. Therefore, option 2 seems viable to me.

[zthatzmanz28]

I vote to give the evangelicals Detroit...

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

Well now, the Church is based in Vatican City. Does that suggest a potential location for the Christians' own country?

The Vatican IS its own country.