The Project 2025 Psyop .

a reply to: strongfp

Would it surprise you to know that is because states had their own religion?

It's why you still to this day see state names in historic churches.

There was no separation of people from religion, thus the reason I asked if you've ready any founding documents.

a reply to: Degradation33

They are being mocked allong the lines of "chickens for KFC" ... they would be the first to be killed in Gaza if a random group of us were sent to live in Gaza.

It's just that Burning Man attendees are even more oblivious.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well yeah kinda what I said.

No it's not. LOL
You said the opposite. You said:

State Laws can't be unconstitutional however.

Venus? Is that what they call it these days? I call it BS!

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

That's just supporting evidence to keep religion and politics separate.

I don't believe I ever insinuated that people shouldn't have the freedom to practice their religion in the US.

a reply to: strongfp

No, you're saying it's separate from politics. I'm saying it's not, nor has it been.

It's been there all along.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Correct, like I said, state laws can't be unconstitutional.

You're trolling yourself again. 🤣

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Would it surprise you to know that is because states had their own religion?

Probably. I don't know for sure because I missed out on college U.S. History. But I do know that the colonies sure did.

Jamestown was specifically Anglican. Massachusetts was specifically Puritan. Maryland was perhaps specifically RCC.

But what I like is Rhode Island, founded by Roger Williams, co-founder of the First Baptist Church in America in Providence. I will have to look into any documents about that.

Williams has quite the bio; first Anglican, then Puritan; then after exile from Massachusetts Bay Colony, Baptist. I have read some rumors that he may have behaved like a Quaker (those who fear to speak about God as if they were prophets). Further rumored that he sort of became a hermit not speaking much at all before his death.

The whole "Roger Williams Root" thing gets my heathen imagination stimulated. Like:

Saint Roger Williams: Saint not by virtue of having his soul in heaven interceding; but rather, that his body has been integrated through molecular decomposition into the very soil of this great land. He is, atomically speaking, body of our body, and blood of our blood, until the end.

But that's just me who thinks in such ways.

Here is some wikipedia stuff:

Williams was a staunch advocate of the separation of church and state. He was convinced that civil government had no basis for meddling in matters of religious belief. He declared that the state should concern itself only with matters of civil order, not with religious belief, and he rejected any attempt by civil authorities to enforce the "first Table" of the Ten Commandments, those commandments that deal with an individual's relationship with and belief in God. Williams believed that the state must confine itself to the commandments dealing with the relations between people: murder, theft, adultery, lying, honoring parents, etc.[55] He wrote of a "hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world." Thomas Jefferson later used the metaphor in his 1801 Letter to Danbury Baptists.[56][57]

Williams considered the state's sponsorship of religious beliefs or practice to be "forced worship", declaring "Forced worship stinks in God's nostrils."[58] He also believed Constantine the Great to be a worse enemy to Christianity than Nero because the subsequent state involvement in religious matters corrupted Christianity and led to the death of the first Christian church and the first Christian communities. He described laws concerning an individual's religious beliefs as "rape of the soul" and spoke of the "oceans of blood" shed as a result of trying to command conformity.[59] The moral principles in the Scriptures ought to guide civil magistrates, he believed, but he observed that well-ordered, just, and civil governments existed even where Christianity was not present. Thus, all governments had to maintain civil order and justice, but Williams decided that none had a warrant to promote or repress any religious views. Most of his contemporaries criticized his ideas as a prescription for chaos and anarchy, and the vast majority believed that each nation must have its national church and could require that dissenters conform.[citation needed]
Roger Williams- Seperation of Church and State

a reply to: Dandandat3

It's worth bearing in mind that when I said flattering I didn't really mean the individual integrity of the attendees. I meant outwardly flattering.

Like not choosing intentionally derogatory stereotype images of fringe examples for liberals, particularly the LGBT ones.

What about liberal burning man LGBT attendees who are also into playing dress-up, aren't they selectively less off-putting to look at? Especially for the strongest demographic opposition of LGBT normalization.

All it needs to do is look like it could be a liquor ad, or scifi photo shoot, and it's a more culturally acceptable image. You wouldn't even guess everyone pictured is either bisexual or gay. Like a large portion that goes to Burning Man.

To say the responded to image is an amalgam of liberals is as unfair as conveying Republicans as racists and hillbillies with congenital defects. Like taking pictures of rural Appalachia, using southern whitetrash body cam footage, and images of white power rallies to call it a representation of the right.

It wouldn't be fair or appreciated.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Is the US a theocracy? Or is it a nation that follows closely Christiendom in its moral and philosophical standards?

There's a difference. The US doesn't have ab official religion.

a reply to: strongfp

What are those moral and philosophical standards based on again?

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

I know what you're doing.

The US isn't a Christian nation. And of you want to play that game we can whittle down Christiendom to Roman laws with Judeo influences, as seen with the old testament literally tied to most accepted versions of the Bible.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

I know what you're doing.

The US isn't a Christian nation. And of you want to play that game we can whittle down Christiendom to Roman laws with Judeo influences, as seen with the old testament literally tied to most accepted versions of the Bible.

I merely proposed a question.

Where do these principals and values you mentioned come from?

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

I answered you. I've talked to many people like you, and it's all so tiresome.

The US isn't a Christian nation. You know it, I know it. Keep religion out of politics.

a reply to: strongfp

No, I don't know that and it looks like you do not either.


Again, have you read any of the founding documents?

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Code of Hammurabi and before that the Code Ur-Nammu.

Mosaic Law didn't even drop eye for an eye morality until The New Testament.

It's an amalgam of preexisting codes. Like the patriarchal standards pervasive in the Bible? That's all code of Ur-Nammu and later Hammurabi, plus middle assyrian laws. How many shekels to buy a new child bride, replenish your harem, etc.

There is also a great deal of Persian/Zoroastrian ethos in Mosaic law as well. Particularly refining duality of good and evil. The Archaemenid Empire was cool with temples and a new cannon being furthered.

All those weave together. And in time they have trended to secularism. In fact, I'd say THE MAGNA CARTA is more in line with the normal evolution of modern social codes.

The Magna Carta, written in 1215, is considered one of the most important legal documents in the development of modern democracy. It contains two provisions that guarantee the freedom of the church from government authority, which is considered a secular principle. The Magna Carta's first chapter is about early church-state relations and promises that the English church will be free. This principle is considered an ancestor of the American belief in separation of church and state and the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion. However, the Magna Carta's influence on American constitutional development is considered tenuous

But at least factoring in. They had the same damn first section.

The Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, revered the Magna Carta as a symbol of liberty and the rights of the individual against an unjust government. The Magna Carta was an ancient pact that guaranteed individual liberty, and the Founding Fathers valued its representation more than the actual text of the document

It's et al. All preexisting morality and ideas of governance factor in. To say it's explicity Mosaic, which is implied with 10 Commandments posters, is kinda missing on the ethos of our founders IMO.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Have you? I surely will admit I haven't read every word, but I know how to use Google. Has that ever occurred to you that I have the largest source of information at my fingertips?

The constitution doesn't mention anything about Christianity, and the declaration of independence only mentions a divine or God.

a reply to: xuenchen

nevermind

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: rickymouse

Now the Democrats are trying to say that the woman's life can be at stake because she is psychologically unstable

And that's why full term abortion has been legalized in seven states so far.
Abortion activists are happy to pay up to $5,000 for a woman to travel to a state that will abort her fetus, no questions asked.

Maybe the law should include mandatory sterilizations for women who eagerly embrace ending the circle of life.

Removing Roe Vs Wade allowed states to pass full term abortions too, it took away federal restrictions on time. The Democrats are complaining but are enjoying the benefits of that part, demanding everyone should have the right to abort till the last minute. Women when their pregnant get pretty weird sometimes, I know this from being married. They could make a very hasty decision if you piss them off in that state and get angry and kill their unborn child because their husband kept bringing the wrong kind of ice cream home...and the regret from that can bother them for the rest of their life...a boost for the mental health industry. I know women who lost it after having a hysterectomy because their hormones were changed. It lasted for years, but because I got married and moved to a different town a hundred miles away, I got out of touch with the women so I do not know if they eventually straightened out or what happened to them.

I know some women that regret having had an abortion too, talked into it by friends.

The constitution doesn't mention anything about Christianity, and the declaration of independence only mentions a divine or God.

a reply to: strongfp

Just wanted to clarify, the founders said the US constitution was devinely inspired. We were founded a christian nation as such respecting all other religions. The main reason to downplay the religious aspect was not to enter any religous wars. Then in 1965 immigration and nationality act we became the melting pot the great experiment.
Just some quick bullet points to research.

a reply to: rickymouse

They could make a very hasty decision if you piss them off in that state and get angry and kill their unborn child because their husband kept bringing the wrong kind of ice cream home..

This is not a real issue.

First of all, no doctor is going to give an abortion to a woman carrying a healthy, viable fetus, because she's mad at the "baby daddy". No hospital would allow it, no insurance would cover it.

Secondly, no one is advocating for any such thing.

Thirdly, stop making women out to be incapable of making decisions when it comes to their own bodies.