Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since our nation was essentially founded on the principle of religious freedom, I consider your statement to be anti-American.
Pardon me, while I roll on the floor laughing at your "consideration."
Quote:
The first settlers, such as the pilgrims, came here to escape Europe, where you had to adhere to a particular church (Church of England in England, Catholic in France or Spain) or be persecuted or killed. The principle of separation of church and state was eventually written into our Constitution. Years later, many people were wary of JFK until he assured them that he would be the President of all Americans, and not govern based on Vatican decrees. No laws should be based on the Bible, or the Koran or any other religious scripture.
Better be cautious about jumping into that pool of historical knowledge, as this paragraph indicates a depth of about one and a quarter inches. As someone who actually wrote about separation of Church and State, I would suggest you study history and the Constitution, before spouting off about it.
Quote:
As for the Bible, it has been used to justify the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, slavery, Jim Crow laws, genocide of the American Indians, the holocaust, the subjugation of women and persecution of gays. As a moral foundation it has been a pretty poor guide, except for the teachings of that Jesus fellow.
Oops, maybe I over estimated your depth. Maybe, if you studied the Scriptures, you would know better than to post something like this.
Some of the people who used the Bible, to justify what the Bible clearly stands against, seem to have about the same understanding of Scripture as you have just demonstrated.
...................... we will have a United States, but it will probably be a "balkanized" version in which there is a sane, conservative USA and an insane, liberal USA.
That is a pretty optimistic prediction.
I think the Leftist (I won't insult true liberals by lumping them into the Leftist Juggernaut) Insurgency has too many strongholds in the Patriot held states. Nashville is a case in point. As conservative and sane as TN is, as a whole, Nashville is a mess of Leftist Insurgency.
Plus, the Leftists will join forces with the puppetmasters, the CCP, and physically attack the Patriots. We can defend ourselves for a time, but we lack the resources (especially secure communications and organization) to defend indefinitely. That means balkanization, as a strategy, is a window that closed, about 15 years ago.
In the end, the confluence of CBDC, AI, and possibly quantum computing, will enslave the vast majority of people in the US, which is why I say that we will end up like a mix of 1984 and Soylent Green. (Although it will probably take closer to 10 years, than 5.)
Since our nation was essentially founded on the principle of religious freedom, I consider your statement to be anti-American.
boy you missed the point of your grade school lessons. IT was founded on the freedom FOR religion, not FROM.
the first ENGLISH settlers were escaping the monarchy ergo church of england and exactly nothing else. and thus ended it.
EVERY single author of our constitution and signer of _whatever_ was a strong adherent to *SOME* christian sect. and it shows.
today, our leaders on the left (and in small cases the right) are not. and it shows.
their worshippers are not. and it shows.
I got a $5 spot right here that says you mork up the definition of 'separation w.r.t church and state' as well...
prove me wrong. I double dog dare you.
related side bar: it is often said, as a defense for atheism or agnosticism, that a person can be moral without religion. meh, I disagree because ultimately on every level, the person with no or diminished religious dogma will revert to selfishly acting in only their interests. and call it moral because they didnt shoot anyone in the head when they did it. religion on the other hands, forces one to act in the interest of others, when stressed (and ya, people fail, but at least the handbook is there)
Harboring the notion that there will never be "scarcity" again on this earth is not only very dangerous, but very naive as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetireinPA
boy you missed the point of your grade school lessons. IT was founded on the freedom FOR religion, not FROM.
the first ENGLISH settlers were escaping the monarchy ergo church of england and exactly nothing else. and thus ended it.
EVERY single author of our constitution and signer of _whatever_ was a strong adherent to *SOME* christian sect. and it shows.
today, our leaders on the left (and in small cases the right) are not. and it shows.
their worshippers are not. and it shows.
I got a $5 spot right here that says you mork up the definition of 'separation w.r.t church and state' as well...
prove me wrong. I double dog dare you.
related side bar: it is often said, as a defense for atheism or agnosticism, that a person can be moral without religion. meh, I disagree because ultimately on every level, the person with no or diminished religious dogma will revert to selfishly acting in only their interests. and call it moral because they didnt shoot anyone in the head when they did it. religion on the other hands, forces one to act in the interest of others, when stressed (and ya, people fail, but at least the handbook is there)
I was going to write pretty much what you have in response to the post you responded to. So, rather, I'll just say "this." And most people do not understand this in the least. Their "freedom of religion" was intended as the freedom to worship as we see fit, which is constantly being attacked by the left; not so much the freedom to not worship, although that is certainly included. What it did not include is one faction preventing the other faction from worshipping at all, or making it overly burdensome to do so.
It will be a mostly-leisure society in which work might not even be required
We already know that would mean a society of aimless people with tremendous rates of suicidal idiation
Leisure/pleasure/hedonism does not lead to fulfillment. Humans need meaning, purpose, and responsibility. Men find that purpose through work and family, and women find it through family and personal relationships. A society filled with aimless no-responsibility pleasure-seeking narcissists would be a dystopian nightmare
We already know that would mean a society of aimless people with tremendous rates of suicidal idiation
Leisure/pleasure/hedonism does not lead to fulfillment. Humans need meaning, purpose, and responsibility. Men find that purpose through work and family, and women find it through family and personal relationships. A society filled with aimless no-responsibility pleasure-seeking narcissists would be a dystopian nightmare
I'm sure that would be the case for some people, but it would be a great benefit for most others. There's no law stating that work must be the only meaning, purpose and responsibility human beings can have. One could even spend their lives, as I mentioned in the other thread I linked in my first post here, completely dedicating their lives to religion. Or spend most of their lives traveling the world. People will be able to create whatever purpose for their lives they want. And if some people do indeed want to work, they will still be able to, but the nice thing will be, they will not be forced into doing some work they don't like just to be able to make ends meet; they will be able to do any work they want. Maybe open a trendy gift shop somewhere, or write code, or do landscaping, or whatever else suits their fancy.
As for women, since they will no longer be needed in the workforce so much, they could indeed spend more time rearing children. Just as important, in a post-work, post-scarcity society, they will no longer feel the pressure to have a "career" in the first place.
That is because your words are reminiscent of the words spoken by some in Germany at that time. Of course, we all know how that turned out.
No. It’s because you are trying to make our current situation appear far more extreme and dire to misrepresent today’s reality. If you were reasonable and objective, you know full well your prediction would have no merit whatsoever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
