Laws I Would Enact in an Officially Christian United States Government

[NotfooledbyW]

Yeah, unfortunately the will of the Christian majority is subverted by the atheist few who have seized power.

22JAN30-POST#0198 above

NFBW wrote: How did you determine Mashmont “the will of the Christian majority”? As a politically stressed militant Catholic you must know the reality from the sixties through the election of Obama in 2008 more than half of all Catholics voted Democratic with the exception of 2004 when a slim majority voted for Bush43.

Overall, 57 percent of Catholics affiliate with the Democrats and 40 percent with the Republicans when those leaning toward one or the other party are included. The Democrats held a three-to-two lead before we included the leaners. - - -​

​

catholics by party affiliation Religion and political affiliation.​

​

- - - The “within generation” comparisons for 2011 show more Catholics affiliated with the Democrats than with the Republicans in all four generations.​

​

AP VoteCast showed 50% of Catholics backing Trump and 49% favoring Biden, reflecting the faith's longstanding role as a closely contested vote in presidential elections Survey: Biden and Trump split the 2020 Catholic vote almost evenly​

Nearly all black Christians, plus half of the Catholic vote plus a quarter of white Protestants makes a multi-cultural Christian religious bloc for the Democratic Party. They have the Jewish vote too,

When you use the phrase “the will of the Christian majority” do you mean the DEM Christian multi-racial sub group or the GOP mostly white Christian sub-group, or are you too confused to answer this question? 22JAN30-POST#0201

 

[MisterBeale]

It's for the impressionable young people who turn on the TV and watch what is there. They are the ones who need protected from this garbage.

So, basically, what you are saying, is you want to strip away the rights of parents, and have the STATE decide how to raise children.

What could be more leftist, more STATIST, and more authoritarian than this?


The creator is about free will, that is why the first amendment, inspired by the divine GREAT LAW OF THE PEACE, and conjunction with Natural Law, insures every individual will be able to act in accordance to their own conscious. Having the STATE subvert that conscious? Is Lucifarian hubris.

If you pass your inspired "Catholic," law? You are, in fact, showing that you do not understand Catholic philosophy in this area of Natural Law. Most educated Catholics in this realm of philosophy would condemn your thinking, as it subverts the agency of the individual.

If a person has no agency, then they can achieve no moral perfection, only the state is responsible for their salvation. . . they aren't really pure of heart then.

Natural law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

". . . To know what is right, one must use one's reason and apply it to Thomas Aquinas' precepts. This reason is believed to be embodied, in its most abstract form, in the concept of a primary precept: "Good is to be sought, evil avoided."[55] St. Thomas explains that:

there belongs to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men's hearts. But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, insofar as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or some other passion, as stated above (77, 2). But as to the other, i.e., the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices, as the Apostle states (Rm. i), were not esteemed sinful.[56]

However, while the primary and immediate precepts cannot be "blotted out," the secondary precepts can be. Therefore, for a deontological ethical theory they are open to a surprisingly large amount of interpretation and flexibility. Any rule that helps humanity to live up to the primary or subsidiary precepts can be a secondary precept, for example:

• Drunkenness is wrong because it injures one's health, and worse, destroys one's ability to reason, which is fundamental to humans as rational animals (i.e., does not support self-preservation).
• Theft is wrong because it destroys social relations, and humans are by nature social animals (i.e., does not support the subsidiary precept of living in society).

Natural moral law is concerned with both exterior and interior acts, also known as action and motive. Simply doing the right thing is not enough; to be truly moral one's motive must be right as well. For example, helping an old lady across the road (good exterior act) to impress someone (bad interior act) is wrong. However, good intentions don't always lead to good actions. The motive must coincide with the cardinal or theological virtues. Cardinal virtues are acquired through reason applied to nature; they are:

1. Prudence
2. Justice
3. Temperance
4. Fortitude

The theological virtues are:

1. Faith
2. Hope
3. Charity

According to Aquinas, to lack any of these virtues is to lack the ability to make a moral choice. For example, consider a person who possesses the virtues of justice, prudence, and fortitude, yet lacks temperance. Due to their lack of self-control and desire for pleasure, despite their good intentions, they will find themself swaying from the moral path.. . . "

 

[Zincwarrior]

Nice trolling. But I haven't moved goalposts at all. Most people, the vast majority, would be very pleased at the changes I would make.

In fact, let's say I developed AI or something and became the world's first quadrillionaire with unlimited power. Would I take over the US and the world and mold it into the Christian image? You bet I would. In a heartbeat. I could do no greater service for my fellow man. I would ban Marxism worldwide. I would free China, North Korea, Cuba...all the Communist countries. I would build churches all over the world I would mandate Christian moral teaching in all the schools. I would scrap the climate change crap. I would clean up the media, the movies. Everything. I would establish capitalism all over the world, I would eliminate state domestic spending and develop the volunteer charitable giving network. I would make the world a much better place.

What would you do to the people who said NO?

 

[Mashmont]

What would you do to the people who said NO?

What would you do to the people who said NO?

As long as they don't break the law, they're fine.

 

[Mashmont]

So, basically, what you are saying, is you want to strip away the rights of parents, and have the STATE decide how to raise children.

What could be more leftist, more STATIST, and more authoritarian than this?

When the state has school crossing guards, is that also the state stripping away the rights of parents and raising children for them?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

First off all, the senile buffoon Biden didn't win the 2020 election.

22JAN30-POST#0189 above

NFBW wrote: All fifty states certified their elections on or before December 14 which means Biden won even if all your unproven claims of massive amounts of election fraud are proven without practical and scientific forensic doubt. Something like satellite camera footage of a Chinese NAVY Submarine surfacing off the coast of Arizona and loading cases of bamboo ballots marked for Biden loaded into a caravan of white vans driven by last summer’s BLM rioters to be delivered to the Maricopa County warehouse facility for insertion into the Hugo Chavez voting machines and the Trump ballots removed. The same vans now seen painted black containing Trump ballots, are then dumped in the desert where the Jewish owned outer space laser guns disintegrated them with no trace left behind. - - - prove all that and constitutionally Biden still won. December 14 is the deadline the atheist sympathizing founders wrote into the no Jesus Constitution. Sorry Mashmont Trump still lost - The cyber ninjas didn’t find any bamboo fibers in the Biden ballots. 22JAN31-POST#0206

 

[braalian]

As long as they don't break the law, they're fine.

Yeah, your priggish laws that no one but you and 80 year old church ladies want.

No one would obey your laws and no cop would bother to enforce them.

How would you begin to enforce laws that would be that unpopular?

 

[expat_panama]

Of course I understand that right now it would difficult. But I am here to put the idea in people's heads. That's the beginning of enacting change.

That's a possibility, and another one is that you're (as they say) farting to stop a windstorm. From what I can see --and we can verify this by checking polls, is that the overwhelming sentiment is opposition to establismentarianism.

Another thought you might consider. When the constitution was written the idea was to prevent an established church that was just one denomination of Christianity while the U.S. remained a Christian nation. The assumption was that the U.S. was Christian and there was no argument. The idea that having the U.S. be a Christian nation was somehow an establishment violation of the constitution didn't come up until a couple centuries later.

In the original constitution (before the amendments even) there was a calendar reference to "the year of our Lord". They simply assumed that Christ is the Lord and everyone was cool w/ that. No problem.

So what I'm saying is that your energy might also be spent in reinstating the former approach of accepting the Christian nature of the U.S. w/o all the legal bickering. Your thoughts?

 

[Mashmont]

22JAN30-POST#0198 above

NFBW wrote: How did you determine Mashmont “the will of the Christian majority”? As a politically stressed militant Catholic you must know the reality from the sixties through the election of Obama in 2008 more than half of all Catholics voted Democratic with the exception of 2004 when a slim majority voted for Bush43.

Overall, 57 percent of Catholics affiliate with the Democrats and 40 percent with the Republicans when those leaning toward one or the other party are included. The Democrats held a three-to-two lead before we included the leaners. - - -​

​

catholics by party affiliation Religion and political affiliation.​

​

- - - The “within generation” comparisons for 2011 show more Catholics affiliated with the Democrats than with the Republicans in all four generations.​

​

AP VoteCast showed 50% of Catholics backing Trump and 49% favoring Biden, reflecting the faith's longstanding role as a closely contested vote in presidential elections Survey: Biden and Trump split the 2020 Catholic vote almost evenly​

Nearly all black Christians, plus half of the Catholic vote plus a quarter of white Protestants makes a multi-cultural Christian religious bloc for the Democratic Party. They have the Jewish vote too,

When you use the phrase “the will of the Christian majority” do you mean the DEM Christian multi-racial sub group or the GOP mostly white Christian sub-group, or are you too confused to answer this question? 22JAN30-POST#0201

Again, I differentiate between practicing Catholics who attend weekly Mass and subscribe to Catholic teachings versus and check-the-box non-practicing Catholics. The former vote overwhelmingly Republican; the latter vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

 

[Mashmont]

Yeah, your priggish laws that no one but you and 80 year old church ladies want.

No one would obey your laws and no cop would bother to enforce them.

How would you begin to enforce laws that would be that unpopular?

Odd you assume the majority smoke pot and are addicted to porn. You need to expand your horizons and get out of your fringe little group.

 

[Mashmont]

That's a possibility, and another one is that you're (as they say) farting to stop a windstorm. From what I can see --and we can verify this by checking polls, is that the overwhelming sentiment is opposition to establismentarianism.

Another thought you might consider. When the constitution was written the idea was to prevent an established church that was just one denomination of Christianity while the U.S. remained a Christian nation. The assumption was that the U.S. was Christian and there was no argument. The idea that having the U.S. be a Christian nation was somehow an establishment violation of the constitution didn't come up until a couple centuries later.

In the original constitution (before the amendments even) there was a calendar reference to "the year of our Lord". They simply assumed that Christ is the Lord and everyone was cool w/ that. No problem.

So what I'm saying is that your energy might also be spent in reinstating the former approach of accepting the Christian nature of the U.S. w/o all the legal bickering. Your thoughts?

Remember back when bimbo AOC first proposed the Green New Deal that her Marxist handlers gave her? Everyone scoffed at the details, and not one Democrat supported it. Today, that piece of lunacy has been written into Democrat bills and supported by most Democrats. So if a horrible idea like that can gain traction after simply being introduced, imagine what traction a great idea like mine can gain. Simply from being introduced.

 

[Zincwarrior]

As long as they don't break the law, they're fine.

So you would imprison them. Nice.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Again, I differentiate between practicing Catholics who attend weekly Mass and subscribe to Catholic teachings versus and check-the-box non-practicing Catholics. The former vote overwhelmingly Republican; the latter vote overwhelmingly Democrat

22JAN31-POST#0209 above

NFBW wrote: I believe if you’re going to convince enough Americans to accept your proposal for adopting fascist Christianity you’ll have to start being much more precise in your language. You proclaimed from high on your pure Christian roost that “the will of the Christian majority is subverted by the atheist few” which you admit is not true because later you say you were only speaking for “ Christians who attend weekly Mass and subscribe to Catholic teachings”. You have to know damn well that your mass attending Catholics do not represent the majority of all Catholics in the United States. So why did you lie by using imprecise language?
And check your numbers please. Do you have any data and how many Black, Latino, Hispanic Asian Catholics in America attend mass and follow Catholic law but who also vote Democrat?

22JAN31-POST#0213

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Is it considered adultery if a priest is fiddling two altar boys at the same time?

Leave No Child's Behind

No. It's a faith-based initiative.

 

[bodecea]

The Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, there is a power above government. Our first two Presidents:

In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."


Religion should be able to speak out on the morality of laws under consideration. In other words, religion should have a voice. The power to pass the law remains as is.

I also believe that beginning in middle school, any and all religion should be an elective.

Different people have different beliefs on what "their Creator" is......it could even just mean your mother and father being your creator.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Isolated anecdotes, even if true, mean nothing.

"Anecdotal" Is a Lame Gotcha

^^"Facts don't matter unless they've been selectively compiled on an authorized data list written by a designated fact-scavenger."^^

 

[MisterBeale]

When the state has school crossing guards, is that also the state stripping away the rights of parents and raising children for them?

False equivalence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So you use some anonymous diary to make a blanket unsubstantiated claim against all Christians? That's pretty ridiculous.
I can play that game too. My wife and I have a circle of church friends. Maybe 25 couples. No adultery. No cheating. No divorces. So by your yardstick, I can extrapolate to say 100% of practicing Christians don't cheat.

Atheists don't even have a yardstick. 40% out-of-wedlock pregnancies would seem low to them. Yet you people are fine with that.
Save the hypocrisy.

A Midwife's Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785-1812


A perceptive reader can tell that it was true over a wide Christo-fascist area by the matter-of-fact way the midwife reported it. The book won the Pulitzer Prize.

 

[bodecea]

Remember back when bimbo AOC first proposed the Green New Deal that her Marxist handlers gave her? Everyone scoffed at the details, and not one Democrat supported it. Today, that piece of lunacy has been written into Democrat bills and supported by most Democrats. So if a horrible idea like that can gain traction after simply being introduced, imagine what traction a great idea like mine can gain. Simply from being introduced.

"bimbo AOC"? Ah, just another INCEL.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Jesus didn't address thermonuclear war, either. What makes you think he had to name every type of sin for it to be a sin?

Fetus Fetish Turned Into a Bribe to the Clergy to Get Us to Vote for Right-Wing Economics

There's no way a prescient God would have omitted abortion from His Thou Shalt Not list. So it's not a sin.

In fact, what kind of cruel deity would want an unwanted child to be born? Take it to Limbo if the fetus had a soul, which it doesn't. What kind of Creator would have given us such a strong sex drive and make us suffer the consequences of unwanted pregnancy if He didn't also give us the ability to get out of that trap?