FYI re the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

[Mike Krailo]

Do you mean like, if you take the vaccine you can't catch covid? How about, you MUST take the vaccine to protect ME? == Biden's words and the action he pushed was firing people who refused to take the emergency use ONLY "vaccine" because they knew they were not in a danger class and that it was safer for them to catch COVID and develop natural immunity. Now, they are pushing this vaccine on infants and there have been no actual long term trials.

Whereas Trump told us that COVID was like a bad flu. For three solid years we have been told that was a lie and here we are in 2024 and it turns out that Trump was actually telling us the truth.

This is a case of denying the truth based on personal perception (ignorance). Were people really dying because others didn't wear masks? Getting to the truth is really hard when views from actual doctors are being suppressed. I believe they were even threatened at one point to loose their medical licenses if they did not go along with the lie's. Had none of those strong arm tactics been employed, we would have gotten closer to the truth quickly instead of causing an inner war between those who believe the lie's and those who are more skeptical and open. lie's can start wars, in fact I would venture to say that nearly every war there has ever been started based on a lie or series of lie's. "The German people are superior to all other races" for example. "We used to own this land, and we want it back and cannot live without it." is another.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The COVID lies caused people to die. Suppressing all use of drugs like hydroxychloroquine, killed people. This was an essentially safe drug. In certain parts of the world, people take it daily as a prophylactic for years without ill effect. And early studies showed it to mitigate the COVID symptoms if taken early enough. But the LIE was pushed because there was billions on the table with the approval of the"vaccine" which the FDA would NOT approve if there were drugs like hydroxychloroquine which could mitigate the symptoms. The drug companies would have been forced to go through actual trials to prove the "vaccine" was A - effective and B - had no long term ill effects. Those trials were never performed and now we are pushing this drug on the most vulnerable among us - our babies.

My daughter and I managed to keep the twins from being vaccinated. Who knows what this "emergency use only" "vaccine" has on fertility over the long term. Think Thalidomide people. And now we are bullying mothers into offering up their most precious babies on the altar of profits for big Pharma.

 

[Mike Krailo]

It's a horrible thing, Pat.

 

[Isaac]

Funny, because back in the days of the founding fathers, stuff like the 10 commandments would hvae been posted all over the place.
We seem to have 'evolved' quite conveniently as to what Religion means huh!

 

[Pat Hartman]

I always looked at the Ten Commandments more as a code of conduct than some religious edict. I don't care what your religious views are, if you live your life according to the Ten Commandments, you are a good person and a credit to the human race. Whether you believe in an afterlife or not, you have done the best you could with this life. If you think you know better, then I'd love to hear what you believe would be a good and moral code of conduct.

 

[ColinEssex]

if you live your life according to the Ten Commandments, you are a good person and a credit to the human race.

That's a good one. Had a good chuckle over that.
Col

 

[GaP42]

A sensible set of rules Immorality of the 10 Commandments?
Also some Improvements / Alternates to the 10 Commandments

 

[Isaac]

By the time of the 14th amendment, no states had established religions, but many religious practices were incorporated into laws. It wasn't until 1947 that the Supreme Court talked about the separation of church and state and not until the 1960's that school prayer was struck down

Well said. There may be some separation that the founder referred to, I just don't think it's what some liberals think it is.
Christianity writ large was absolutely incorporated into the government , the laws, and such.

 

[Isaac]

What income group got the biggest benefit from the Trump tax cut. After it passed he told his rich friends an Mar A Lago "Now your really rich."

I like it when rich people do well. It gives me a lot of opportunities to join them.

 

[Isaac]

You didn't answer the question, So here is the answer:

The law will boost the after-tax incomes of households in the top 1 percent by 2.9 percent in 2025, roughly three times the 0.9 percent gain for households in the bottom 60 percent, TPC estimates. The tax cuts that year will average $61,090 for the top 1 percent — and $252,300 for the top one-tenth of 1 percent.

Your post was emotional, not logical or factual.

Who cares? The tax bracket increasing as wealth increased was never fair anyway. Shouldn't we all pay the same percentage?
that's why it's called a PERCENTAGE! it hurts everyone about the same.

 

[RogerCooper]

Well said. There may be some separation that the founder referred to, I just don't think it's what some liberals think it is.
Christianity writ large was absolutely incorporated into the government , the laws, and such.

You are going a little to far to say that Christianity was incorporated into the government. Neither the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence makes any references to Christianity. (Compare the UK which still has a nominal state religion). While some of the founders where supportive of a complete separation of religion and state (like Jefferson) others were not there yet or willing to force states to end establishment of religion.

 

[Mike Krailo]

You are going a little to far to say that Christianity was incorporated into the government. Neither the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence makes any references to Christianity. (Compare the UK which still has a nominal state religion). While some of the founders where supportive of a complete separation of religion and state (like Jefferson) others were not there yet or willing to force states to end establishment of religion.

While religious liberty for all is a great concept, they didn't have any clue how evil a secular government would become without God being in the highest order of power. After it get's to a certain size, suddenly the religion of secularism itself where anything goes according to itself is the religion of the government by default. It wasn't like this early on as the majority were religious people who attributed the highest authority to God. People did not argue about rights to abort babies, but over 248 years later, it's now largely a Godless entity that shows contempt for those who practice their religious freedoms anywhere near the government and even away from it. Our nation will come under judgement because of this. A large part of the blame goes on leaders in our church's of all denominations for not doing God's will and being more proactive in government.

After 248 years of our secular Godless government experiment, they given us $34.9 Trillion in debt as a gift to our future generations. How do you think that ends? Over 63 million abortions in the US alone since Roe v Wade. How many of these were out of convenience? Anytime you remove God from the plan, you can be assured of ultimate failure in the future.

 

[RogerCooper]

I am not sure what "God being in the highest order of power" means. Lacking direct communications from God, you are relying on human interpreters of God for instructions with all the usual problems of humans.

Debt levels are becoming a problem but it is hard to see secularism as a cause. The US government has been secular for a long time but not until 2013 did the US debt ratio exceed 100% of the GDP, so you hesitate to blame secularism for the budget deficit.

I also don't see any causal mechanism by which secularism generates budget deficits. The cause of the budget deficit is primarily the falling ratio of workers to retirees as the Baby Boom generation retires (and lives longer), exacerbated by debt taken on during the COVID epidemic.

 

[Isaac]

Neither the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence makes any references to Christianity. (Compare the UK which still has a nominal state religion)

I assume you're making this claim by going off of the fact that the word "Christianity" specifically isn't there, but we can all interpret it for ourselves.

If a guy with a bomb in his backpack says "Long live Allah", I don't tell people "Well now, we don't know he was Islamic - he didn't specifically say the ISLAM word"

 

[Mike Krailo]

I am not sure what "God being in the highest order of power" means. Lacking direct communications from God, you are relying on human interpreters of God for instructions with all the usual problems of humans.

Humans elevating themselves above God is not a new thing, angels have done it as well. Wisdom about spiritual things does not come from humans.

 

[Isaac]

Lacking direct communications from God, you are relying on human interpreters of God for instructions with all the usual problems of humans.

And, ignoring God completely, you are relying on humans for the source of all right and wrong with all the usual problems of humans. Which is way worse, as whatever is "right" and "wrong" means nothing more than the trend or fad of the moment - with obvious complete failure over history.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

they didn't have any clue how evil a secular government would become without God being in the highest order of power.

Oh.. you mean in comparison to the Islamic governments that put Allah (God) above all and then proceed to execute gays, Christians, atheists, and uppity women?

Or look at the fictional nation of Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale where God becomes the excuse for brutality towards women. And before you say "But that's just fiction" remember that George Orwell's 1984 is just fiction (regarding bureaucracies and "thought police", or consider Fahrenheit 451 (regarding book burning and suppression of radical information.)

Putting God into government puts Biblically condoned slavery into government. It puts wife-beating (with a rod no thicker than your thumb) back into government.

Sorry, Mike, but... just NO. Emphatically, NO.

 

[Isaac]

Oh.. you mean in comparison to the Islamic governments that put Allah (God) above all and then proceed to execute gays, Christians, atheists, and uppity women?

Not to speak for Mike, but: To answer your question, "No". I highly doubt Mike meant Allah when he said God.
Putting God in parenthesis next to Allah doesn't actually make it so.

 

[Isaac]

Putting God into government puts Biblically condoned slavery into government. It puts wife-beating (with a rod no thicker than your thumb) back into government.

The Bible instructed people how to live among the current times that they lived in. In the Old Testament, mankind did not have the Holy Spirit. They had to live within the construct of some of their baser urges and those were regulated to have some semblance of fairness that mankind could tolerate. In the New Testament it's different, because Jesus came to save us from our sin, rather than having us be content to live in the imperfection of our sin and be under the law.

If you think it's unfair or unreasonable (and I know you really do--you're smarter and better educated than this--), but if you think it's unfair or unreasonable to assume every Islamic person wants Sharia law implemented as the law of the land, then it's equally unfair and unreasonable to assume that when Christians suggest most of our legal basics derive from a Christian viewpoint of humanity, that we also want to implement Old Testament law - which was mostly rules for how to live among the contemporary times. (i.e., if the Hebrews hadn't approached enemies in the same way everyone else did - conquer and make slaves - they'd never have survived. It'd be like telling someone in Prison to just hug everybody).

I have no problem with the Biblically endorsed slavery. In those times, that was how you had to deal with enemies - conquer and enslave.
You don't approach a question of historical behavior without context. Or, you shouldn't.

 

[Mike Krailo]

There were no muslim colonist. Thats just ridiculas to even sugest that. It was merely a difference between denomination of believers in the God of the bible.