Politics and Religion

Huckleberry

Hall of Fame
Nov 9, 2004
8,768
17,099
287
Jacksonville, FL

Want to know what Christian nationalism is? It's being ruled by theocrats like Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers: "If you belittle Christ in the halls of power and blaspheme Him by not ascribing to Him glory and authority over the governments that rest upon His shoulders, the scepter you grasp will become the rod that breaks you. Kiss the Son or face the beating."
 

Want to know what Christian nationalism is? It's being ruled by theocrats like Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers: "If you belittle Christ in the halls of power and blaspheme Him by not ascribing to Him glory and authority over the governments that rest upon His shoulders, the scepter you grasp will become the rod that breaks you. Kiss the Son or face the beating."
that last bit sounds just a little gay
 

Florida AG: Florida can establish its own state religion - Establishment Clause only applies to federal government​


Moreover, Uthmeier’s legal opinion argues the First Amendment’s clause preventing the establishment of a particular religion only applies to the federal government, and the states are free to impose their own state religion.
“(The Establishment Clause) did not impose the same restriction on the states. In fact, many states at the Framing had established churches,” Uthmeier wrote.
Also, the First Amendment doesn’t bar the states from “encouraging” religion, especially Christianity, Uthmeier asserts.
“It is clear, then, that the First Amendment did not displace Christianity as the center of the nation’s religious identity. At the Framing, ‘the general, if not universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship,’” Uthmeier wrote, citing the 1833 book ‘Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States’ by Joseph Story.
Uthmeier’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause also claims that while atheists are protected in their beliefs, their actions derived from nonbelief aren’t “privileged” in the same way as those who adhere to a religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg

Want to know what Christian nationalism is? It's being ruled by theocrats like Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers: "If you belittle Christ in the halls of power and blaspheme Him by not ascribing to Him glory and authority over the governments that rest upon His shoulders, the scepter you grasp will become the rod that breaks you. Kiss the Son or face the beating."

I wonder how Jesus multitasks and juggles the many conflicting interests of every country’s governments simultaneously?

*whispers* He doesn’t.

Even if you take every word in the Bible literally Jesus is not an American and doesn’t or wouldn’t play favorites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg and 92tide
NYT gift link

Hegseth Says U.S. Troops Are Fighting for Jesus. The Pope Disagrees.​

In sharp contrast to the Trump administration’s calls for Christian prayers for the war effort, Pope Leo XIV says military domination is “entirely foreign to the way of Jesus Christ.”
power christian bro

sorry-but-power-christian-principal-doesnt-make-sense-v0-vcseerrdb0jf1.jpeg
 
I wonder how they will react if God's plan turns against them?
I always thought it a bit disingenuous that the winning side thanked God for their victory -- whether in war or sports or beauty pageants, etc. Is God always on the side of the winners? What about the losers? Does God love them? I once preached a sermon on a Super Bowl Sunday touting that God does love the losers just as much as the winners. Not a lot of requests for a repeat of that one.

Have a Happy Easter!
 
To the title of this thread, seems to me that "religion is politics in the USA.

Have a Happy Easter celebration...He is Risen...He is Risen indeed!
I would say just the opposite: politics has become America’s most popular religion. I’ve been in many a church and I’ve never seen a zealot quite like today’s modern political activists.
 
Last edited:

Florida AG: Florida can establish its own state religion - Establishment Clause only applies to federal government​


Moreover, Uthmeier’s legal opinion argues the First Amendment’s clause preventing the establishment of a particular religion only applies to the federal government, and the states are free to impose their own state religion.
“(The Establishment Clause) did not impose the same restriction on the states. In fact, many states at the Framing had established churches,” Uthmeier wrote.
Also, the First Amendment doesn’t bar the states from “encouraging” religion, especially Christianity, Uthmeier asserts.
“It is clear, then, that the First Amendment did not displace Christianity as the center of the nation’s religious identity. At the Framing, ‘the general, if not universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship,’” Uthmeier wrote, citing the 1833 book ‘Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States’ by Joseph Story.
Uthmeier’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause also claims that while atheists are protected in their beliefs, their actions derived from nonbelief aren’t “privileged” in the same way as those who adhere to a religion.
This is actually true.
I've mentioned this before, but several states had established (defined as state-funded) religions until the 1830s-1860s: Massachusetts (Congregationalism), Connecticut (Congregationalism), South Carolina (Episcopalian), and the North Carolina constitution to this day denies public office to anyone who denies the existence of God.
In Virginia, the established church was the Anglican church, but by the American Revolution, Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians became so numerous and vociferous, that Madison and Jefferson led the 1786 effort to disestablish the Anglican church and leave the matter up to private conscience.
The Founders denied the federal government to power to establish a religion at the federal level because they could not agree which Christian denomination would be the federally established one.
The XIV Amendment did not extend that to the states. If it had, when the 1875 Blaine Amendment banning state-sponsored religion was introduced, members of Congress would have said, "We already did that when we ratified the XIV Amendment." Nobody made that argument. They just defeated the Blaine Amendment. Courts interpreted that later, substantially changing the meaning of the XIV Amendment by judicial fiat.

And none of that is an endorsement of having an established religion at the state level. It is just that the place to prohibit such would be at the state house (or a state constitutional convention), not the federal Supreme Court.
 
This is actually true.
I've mentioned this before, but several states had established (defined as state-funded) religions until the 1830s-1860s: Massachusetts (Congregationalism), Connecticut (Congregationalism), South Carolina (Episcopalian), and the North Carolina constitution to this day denies public office to anyone who denies the existence of God.
In Virginia, the established church was the Anglican church, but by the American Revolution, Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians became so numerous and vociferous, that Madison and Jefferson led the 1786 effort to disestablish the Anglican church and leave the matter up to private conscience.
The Founders denied the federal government to power to establish a religion at the federal level because they could not agree which Christian denomination would be the federally established one.
The XIV Amendment did not extend that to the states. If it had, when the 1875 Blaine Amendment banning state-sponsored religion was introduced, members of Congress would have said, "We already did that when we ratified the XIV Amendment." Nobody made that argument. They just defeated the Blaine Amendment. Courts interpreted that later, substantially changing the meaning of the XIV Amendment by judicial fiat.

And none of that is an endorsement of having an established religion at the state level. It is just that the place to prohibit such would be at the state house (or a state constitutional convention), not the federal Supreme Court.
Great history, thank you. I've never even considered this before.
 

This Easter, we reflect on the hope and renewal found in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We hope this season provides an opportunity to spend time with loved ones, reflect on God’s goodness, and find moments of rest and renewal.

Happy Easter! He is Risen!

1775424165925.png


Who reflects on it? The Department of Education?
 

Attachments

  • 1775424009050.png
    1775424009050.png
    773.8 KB · Views: 0
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: TIDE-HSV and 92tide
The internixing of politics and religious is quite a dangerous cocktail. Both include sets of beliefs involving articles of faith and the suspension of critical analysis. There is a reason society has ruled that it is best not to discuss politics or religion in polite company.
The separation of the two is not normal for human society.
In ancient China, Confucianism was the state-mandated religion. The Aztecs embraced an official state religion. Arab-muslim society unified the state and Islam. Eastern Orthodox civilization invented what it called caesaropapism, a close marriage between the head of state and the head of church. Only Western Christendom, due to the fracturing of political authority after the fall of the Western Empire, arrived at the separation of church and state (starting with Saint Ambrose forbidding the Emperor from entering the cathedral and receiving communion.
Peter_Paul_Rubens_139.jpg
After the sixteenth century Wars of Religion, the solution was Cujus regio, eius religio (Whose kingdom, his religion or everyone adopts the religion of their ruler). After the massive carnage of the 30 Years' War, Western Christians for the most part agreed to leave religious questions between each individual and God. Not everyone embraces this, but I would accept it as a standard of Western civilization, especially an American one.
Other civilizations did not embrace this, especially Islam.
If the United States continues to import muslim immigrants at the rate of 200,000/year, Americans will eventually see first-hand how "separation of church and state" is not an Islamic tenet. It will be jettisoned as soon as the political power to do so develops.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: crimsonaudio

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads