Do MAGAs want a Christian Nation or a Free Nation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

I'm pretty sure atheist countries suck the (looking at China).

The thing is all these religions have embedded in them social hierarchies and sort of rules of the road as to how people in various classes are to be treated, which is pretty much absent in atheism.

I think it's instructive but many religions consist almost exclusively of elite, but others are popular amongst the masses. Judaism is good example of this where are the poor Jews, I think most just leave (not to pick sides because Muslim countries are known to treat workers the worst.) I'm reminded of the Hannakah festival where the Rabbi made a point to call out every politician and or wealthy entity in attendance.

Anymore when interviewing I'm careful to read the religious vibes, and I'm not even a woman. The preference is for defacto American religion, that celebrates federal holiday's and days off.

There is a difference between a nation that requires atheism and restricts religion, vs one which allows freedom and happens to end up with a large number of agnostics/atheists

The freedom is the difference and the key to success.

For the rest of your comment, you sound awful and prejudiced and isolated. I hire a lot of people and their religion does not factor into it!

How many Muslims do you work for? Put some skin in the game! You sound aweful not realizing that people in the same class as you who hold religious beliefs will not treat people fairly in many cases.

And here we had a Christian earlier in this thread admit they suss out religious beliefs in interviews to avoid those who don't celebrate Christian holidays

Can you name one benefit to working for an Islamist if you aren't belonging to Islam. They only recently quit treating such people as slaves.

If you can't imagine that perspective don't bother arguing.

Name one thing that's good about working for an Islamist from a non-Muslim point of view.

I have employed many on a hospital unit. Fantastic team players, caregivers, kind, humble, and willing to work Christian holidays and Sundays. Honestly, the devout Christians can make healthcare staffing a pain.

You can't even hit the right perspective. I wouldn't want to go to you for medical treatment.

It's ok, I wouldn't want to work for you as you admit you break the law and discriminate when hiring. Nobody wants a boss who doesn't follow the law. You also, frankly, sound weird.

You and your perspectives again. It's not against the law for an interviewee. I have no obligation to take a job from an Islamist.

It literally is against the law to discriminate based on religion during the hiring process. Are you really this dumb?

https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices

That is only for employers.

Ok well discriminate away and limit your job opportunities, weirdo.

I asked, and no-one could come up with any benefits to working for an Islamist. They have history of being poor employers in their home countries and only recently gave up slavery.

I don't want those job opportunities. If I had to do it again, I would not have taken the job I had working for Islamists knowing now they don't believe in Sunday's or Christmas.

Hey, I wouldn't want to work for a far right Christian Nationalist who believes women are subservient to men, such as Charlie Kirk or Pete Hegseth.

In jobs with year round work requirements such as healthcare, religious diversity is an asset as no, you can't just automatically get Sundays or Christian holidays off; adequate staffing takes priority.

Your kind Islamic or Jewish or atheist colleagues might offer to trade shifts with you though.

You're not very good at this are you? Well, I guess you can get an abortion in Islam countries. So, there is that liberty. I wonder why women aren't running off to emigrate to those countries. Maybe they don't like their fashion sense.

Of course you wouldn't see it my way. That's the situation. Take a job with an Islamist, and they won't think Oh, it's Christmas, we'll have to manage to get people time off. They just won't do it. Then when Ramdan rolls around, oops they'll conveniently forget, oh but you aren't Islam you don't mind working that.

You sound anxious. Perhaps see a therapist. Or pray, whatever works for you.

I know the Indians have been leaving trinkets at their Visa god's temple, I guess we can all agree to relieve our own anxieties. My satisfaction is taking as many PERM interviews as possible.

Troll

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Free Christian nation[/quote]

That is self-contradictory[/quote]

NP

I am a conservative. I am NOT MAGA, as I consider Trump to be in opposition to most conservative positions. I am also a Christian.

I agree with the PP that ideally, I would like America to be a free Christian nation. I think the reason that seems self-contradictory is that too often, the media talks about “Christian Nationalists” who want to force everyone to become Christian. I support freedom of religion (including the freedom to be atheistic, agnostic, or otherwise non-religious). In fact, I believe that faith can’t be forced and that God has given everyone free will, so it’s certainly not my place to take ir away.

I think the simplest way to explain how America can be both a free nation and a Christian nation is to compare Christianity (for the sake of this discussion) with exercise. I think it is commonly agreed that exercise has many benefits for both an individual (longevity, physical health, mental wellbeing, etc.) and for the larger community (lower health are costs, greater productivity, etc.). Ideally, it would be great if America were a free, physically fit country where everyone (including my couch potato self) exercised according to medical guidelines. Does that mean I’m going to start prioritizing fitness? Not likely. Does it mean I want the government to force anyone (especially me) to start doing daily calisthenics or any other type of exercise? Heck no. While I think it would be great if we all freely chose to exercise, it should be a choice.

Similarly, I believe Christianity is something every person needs and would greatly improve their lives. I also think that if everyone freely chose to be Christian and tried to follow the Bible (something I should point out that even the most devout Christians sometimes fail at and many self-professed Christians don’t even try), the Country would be much better off. However, I don’t think a single person should be forced to change their beliefs or how they practice (or don’t) whatever they do believe, much less should it be compelled on a national level.

In other words, I think the government’s official policy should be freedom of religion, but that Christians should freely choose to live their lives so that everyone can see the benefits of Christianity (peace, love, hope, etc.) and thus be motivated to choose to follow Christ so they might be similarly blessed.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Free Christian nation[/quote]

That is self-contradictory[/quote]

NP

I am a conservative. I am NOT MAGA, as I consider Trump to be in opposition to most conservative positions. I am also a Christian.

I agree with the PP that ideally, I would like America to be a free Christian nation. I think the reason that seems self-contradictory is that too often, the media talks about “Christian Nationalists” who want to force everyone to become Christian. I support freedom of religion (including the freedom to be atheistic, agnostic, or otherwise non-religious). In fact, I believe that faith can’t be forced and that God has given everyone free will, so it’s certainly not my place to take ir away.

I think the simplest way to explain how America can be both a free nation and a Christian nation is to compare Christianity (for the sake of this discussion) with exercise. I think it is commonly agreed that exercise has many benefits for both an individual (longevity, physical health, mental wellbeing, etc.) and for the larger community (lower health are costs, greater productivity, etc.). Ideally, it would be great if America were a free, physically fit country where everyone (including my couch potato self) exercised according to medical guidelines. Does that mean I’m going to start prioritizing fitness? Not likely. Does it mean I want the government to force anyone (especially me) to start doing daily calisthenics or any other type of exercise? Heck no. While I think it would be great if we all freely chose to exercise, it should be a choice.

Similarly, I believe Christianity is something every person needs and would greatly improve their lives. I also think that if everyone freely chose to be Christian and tried to follow the Bible (something I should point out that even the most devout Christians sometimes fail at and many self-professed Christians don’t even try), the Country would be much better off. However, I don’t think a single person should be forced to change their beliefs or how they practice (or don’t) whatever they do believe, much less should it be compelled on a national level.

In other words, I think the government’s official policy should be freedom of religion, but that Christians should freely choose to live their lives so that everyone can see the benefits of Christianity (peace, love, hope, etc.) and thus be motivated to choose to follow Christ so they might be similarly blessed.
[/quote]

I'm glad you found value in your religion. As far as our country goes, or any nation for that matter, we're much better off as an agnostic nation with a tolerance of all believers from every religious walk of life. Christianity is no more important than any other religion in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

I'm pretty sure atheist countries suck the (looking at China).

The thing is all these religions have embedded in them social hierarchies and sort of rules of the road as to how people in various classes are to be treated, which is pretty much absent in atheism.

I think it's instructive but many religions consist almost exclusively of elite, but others are popular amongst the masses. Judaism is good example of this where are the poor Jews, I think most just leave (not to pick sides because Muslim countries are known to treat workers the worst.) I'm reminded of the Hannakah festival where the Rabbi made a point to call out every politician and or wealthy entity in attendance.

Anymore when interviewing I'm careful to read the religious vibes, and I'm not even a woman. The preference is for defacto American religion, that celebrates federal holiday's and days off.

There is a difference between a nation that requires atheism and restricts religion, vs one which allows freedom and happens to end up with a large number of agnostics/atheists

The freedom is the difference and the key to success.

For the rest of your comment, you sound awful and prejudiced and isolated. I hire a lot of people and their religion does not factor into it!

How many Muslims do you work for? Put some skin in the game! You sound aweful not realizing that people in the same class as you who hold religious beliefs will not treat people fairly in many cases.

Sounds like you don't want to live in a country that values freedom and has a first amendment like ours. If anti-freedom, there are other places for you.

As long as I am free to criticize Islam as loudly as I want and am free to avoid said Islam practitioners in positions of power. What else is freedom if you don't include that as said freedoms?

Your are free to criticize me for my choices, but you still are just being insincere in your assessment of what freedom is.

What the heck?
The chair of my graduate dept was Muslim. Is that power? I had several Muslim professors (btw this was a STEM field), is that power?
What happens if a Muslim police officer stops you for failing to use your turn signal?
What about that Muslim surgeon who does your emergency appendectomy?
If a Muslim in your workplace is made a manager over you, do you quit?
If your town gets flooded and the National Guard comes to help and the commander is Muslim, do you tell them to take their sandbags and leave you alone?

I'm just trying to grasp this. Also, do you refer to Christians as "Christian practitioner"?

As for "Christian Ideals" every religion, even those that do not include a God in the sense of a creator or a divine person, such as Buddhism or, to take things further, Confucianism, include a Golden Rule principle (love your neighbor as yourself is the New Testament equivalent). To the extent that the US is founded on a religious principle, that would pretty much be it--the idea of human value and dignity. The rest pretty much follows--freedom of conscience, of expression, and so on. That's it. People who do not believe in God, whether they call themselves atheists or agnostics or secular humanists, have no problem believing in the same principle.

Even to the extent that the Declaration of Independence does invoke a God (the God of nature, innate rights and dignity which do NOT require Christianity at all), the United States is a system of law. That's it. This system doesn't tell us whether to go to church or not, what to eat, what kind of music to listen to, where to live, what kind of livelihood to have. It simply establishes the framework through which we ultimately decide what laws to make, how to carry them out, and to provide for judges to decide when either there there are disputes how to apply the law (civil matters) or to oversee judgment when one person does not comply with the laws the rest of us, through our system of law-making, have put into place. That's it. All the rest--the anthem, the eagle, the flag, the national holidays--are simply trappings to remind us of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

There are very few true atheists, but a lot of lazy people that don’t want to render unto God what is God’s.

Those people can live off the fruits of their forefathers for a time, but things decay over time.

What you perhaps actually like is to live off the accumulated social capital without having to do anything yourself to maintain it. Much like some people like to live off inherited wealth without having to work hard. That certainly can be appealing.

This is why I’m poking you to name a truly non-Christian nation that meets your definition of freedom. Because such a thing cannot exist without generations of Christians doing the hard work.

DP...I didn't have to look very far because Canada is a non-Christian nation that meets my definition of freedom.

When would you say Canada became a non-Christian nation?

DP. It's in their constitution. From the founding, then.

The constitution provides for freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, and expression. Every individual is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on religion. The law imposes “reasonable limits” on the exercise of these religious rights only where such restrictions can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The law permits individuals to sue the government for violations of religious freedom. Federal and provincial human rights laws prohibit discrimination based on the grounds of religious belief. Civil remedies include compensation and changes to the policy or practice responsible for the discrimination.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/canada#:~:text=The%20constitution%20provides%20for%20freedom,without%20discrimination%20based%20on%20religion.

Their Constitution dates back to 1982, not the founding btw. They were founded as a Crown Colony, and the Crown is the head of the Anglican Church. So that's 200+ years of being an officially Christian nation, and 43 of being merely culturally Christian.

Once again, you people seem to really like formerly Christian nations that are frittering away their spiritual inheritance, much like one might befriend a trust-funder who spends his parents wealth. But we all know the shirt-tails to shirt-tails story.

And I'm still waiting for an example of a free nation without a deep Christian heritage.

Yes, Canada began as its own nation -- not as a colony of the British Empire -- with the patriation of its constitution. It has been an independent country since 1982.

If you wanted its history as a colony, you should have asked for that.

Please give it up, Canada is a member of the commonwealth for goodness sake.

Yes, but as its own nation, no longer as just a colony since patriation of its Constitution in 1982.

This is not hard.

Canada was not self-determining before 1982, and now it is. When do you think the USA started its history as a nation? Back while we were still a colony of the Brits? Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

There are very few true atheists, but a lot of lazy people that don’t want to render unto God what is God’s.

Those people can live off the fruits of their forefathers for a time, but things decay over time.

What you perhaps actually like is to live off the accumulated social capital without having to do anything yourself to maintain it. Much like some people like to live off inherited wealth without having to work hard. That certainly can be appealing.

This is why I’m poking you to name a truly non-Christian nation that meets your definition of freedom. Because such a thing cannot exist without generations of Christians doing the hard work.

DP...I didn't have to look very far because Canada is a non-Christian nation that meets my definition of freedom.

When would you say Canada became a non-Christian nation?

DP. It's in their constitution. From the founding, then.

The constitution provides for freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, and expression. Every individual is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on religion. The law imposes “reasonable limits” on the exercise of these religious rights only where such restrictions can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The law permits individuals to sue the government for violations of religious freedom. Federal and provincial human rights laws prohibit discrimination based on the grounds of religious belief. Civil remedies include compensation and changes to the policy or practice responsible for the discrimination.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/canada#:~:text=The%20constitution%20provides%20for%20freedom,without%20discrimination%20based%20on%20religion.

Their Constitution dates back to 1982, not the founding btw. They were founded as a Crown Colony, and the Crown is the head of the Anglican Church. So that's 200+ years of being an officially Christian nation, and 43 of being merely culturally Christian.

Once again, you people seem to really like formerly Christian nations that are frittering away their spiritual inheritance, much like one might befriend a trust-funder who spends his parents wealth. But we all know the shirt-tails to shirt-tails story.

And I'm still waiting for an example of a free nation without a deep Christian heritage.

Yes, Canada began as its own nation -- not as a colony of the British Empire -- with the patriation of its constitution. It has been an independent country since 1982.

If you wanted its history as a colony, you should have asked for that.

Please give it up, Canada is a member of the commonwealth for goodness sake.

Yes, but as its own nation, no longer as just a colony since patriation of its Constitution in 1982.

This is not hard.

Canada was not self-determining before 1982, and now it is. When do you think the USA started its history as a nation? Back while we were still a colony of the Brits? Come on.

Behold the atheist. Got something completely wrong and is now doubling down in the most cringe inducing manner rather than admit a fault. Atheistic morality requires one to string self-serving lies together to preserve your worldview.

Thank you for illustrating to anyone on the fence what it will be like if atheists ever take control of.

[Anonymous]

Try pushing LGBTQ in an Islamic country and see how that works out for you. Write back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

There are very few true atheists, but a lot of lazy people that don’t want to render unto God what is God’s.

Those people can live off the fruits of their forefathers for a time, but things decay over time.

What you perhaps actually like is to live off the accumulated social capital without having to do anything yourself to maintain it. Much like some people like to live off inherited wealth without having to work hard. That certainly can be appealing.

This is why I’m poking you to name a truly non-Christian nation that meets your definition of freedom. Because such a thing cannot exist without generations of Christians doing the hard work.

DP...I didn't have to look very far because Canada is a non-Christian nation that meets my definition of freedom.

When would you say Canada became a non-Christian nation?

DP. It's in their constitution. From the founding, then.

The constitution provides for freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, and expression. Every individual is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on religion. The law imposes “reasonable limits” on the exercise of these religious rights only where such restrictions can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The law permits individuals to sue the government for violations of religious freedom. Federal and provincial human rights laws prohibit discrimination based on the grounds of religious belief. Civil remedies include compensation and changes to the policy or practice responsible for the discrimination.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/canada#:~:text=The%20constitution%20provides%20for%20freedom,without%20discrimination%20based%20on%20religion.

Their Constitution dates back to 1982, not the founding btw. They were founded as a Crown Colony, and the Crown is the head of the Anglican Church. So that's 200+ years of being an officially Christian nation, and 43 of being merely culturally Christian.

Once again, you people seem to really like formerly Christian nations that are frittering away their spiritual inheritance, much like one might befriend a trust-funder who spends his parents wealth. But we all know the shirt-tails to shirt-tails story.

And I'm still waiting for an example of a free nation without a deep Christian heritage.

Yes, Canada began as its own nation -- not as a colony of the British Empire -- with the patriation of its constitution. It has been an independent country since 1982.

If you wanted its history as a colony, you should have asked for that.

Please give it up, Canada is a member of the commonwealth for goodness sake.

Yes, but as its own nation, no longer as just a colony since patriation of its Constitution in 1982.

This is not hard.

Canada was not self-determining before 1982, and now it is. When do you think the USA started its history as a nation? Back while we were still a colony of the Brits? Come on.

Behold the atheist. Got something completely wrong and is now doubling down in the most cringe inducing manner rather than admit a fault. Atheistic morality requires one to string self-serving lies together to preserve your worldview.

Thank you for illustrating to anyone on the fence what it will be like if atheists ever take control of.

Not that PP, but this thread is about whether people want a Christian nation or a free nation. Sounds like you are against freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Try pushing LGBTQ in an Islamic country and see how that works out for you. Write back.

This has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. Stay on topic.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't trust these fraudsters to make America a "Christian nation" because they don't believe in or practice the teachings of Christ.

From another thread:

Here is the true teaching of Christ that MAGA Catholics reject:

Love your enemies Matthew 5:44 “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Turn the other cheek Matthew 5:39 Reject retaliation: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

Blessed are the peacemakers Matthew 5:9 Peacemakers are called children of God, not agitators or warmongers.

Do not store up treasures on earth Matthew 6:19–21 Warns against materialism and hoarding wealth.

You cannot serve both God and money Matthew 6:24 A direct rebuke of greed and prosperity gospel ideology.

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger Matthew 25:35–40 “Whatever you did for the least of these… you did for me.”

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle… Matthew 19:24 A warning about the spiritual danger of wealth.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged Matthew 7:1 Condemns moral superiority and public shaming.

Let the one without sin cast the first stone John 8:7 A call for humility and mercy, not condemnation.

Heal the sick Matthew 14:14 Jesus healed without cost or condition—contrasting with resistance to universal healthcare.

Welcome the outcast Luke 5:30–32 Jesus dined with sinners, tax collectors, and the marginalized.

The Good Samaritan Luke 10:25–37 Compassion across ethnic and national lines—an implicit rebuke of xenophobia.

Render unto Caesar… Matthew 22:21 A call to respect civic responsibility, not idolize political power.

Woe to you who are rich… Luke 6:24–25 A prophetic warning to the comfortable and powerful.

Forgive seventy times seven Matthew 18:21–22 Radical forgiveness, not vengeance or scorekeeping.

Do not be like the hypocrites… Matthew 6:5 Condemns performative religion and public displays of piety.

Blessed are the meek Matthew 5:5 Elevates humility over dominance or bravado.

Do not resist an evildoer with violence Matthew 5:39 A call to nonviolence, even in the face of injustice.

Give to everyone who begs from you Luke 6:30 Radical generosity, not suspicion of the poor.

You are the salt of the earth… the light of the world Matthew 5:13–16

How can anyone call themselves true when they reject the majority of Christ's teachings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This White House document about religious freedom seems self-contradictory. A free nation (and the leader thereof) should not specify that people must believe in a single creator or any creator.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/09/president-trump-champions-religious-freedom-unveils-america-prays/

Personally, I value us as a "Free nation." I am also, admittedly, an atheist. Am I still welcome in the US? Or do conservatives want religion as a litmus test for being a "true" American?

Please stop with all of the religious nonsense. If you need religion in your life knock yourself out, but can we create a don’t ask don’t tell for god?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This White House document about religious freedom seems self-contradictory. A free nation (and the leader thereof) should not specify that people must believe in a single creator or any creator.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/09/president-trump-champions-religious-freedom-unveils-america-prays/

Personally, I value us as a "Free nation." I am also, admittedly, an atheist. Am I still welcome in the US? Or do conservatives want religion as a litmus test for being a "true" American?

Please stop with all of the religious nonsense. If you need religion in your life knock yourself out, but can we create a don’t ask don’t tell for god?

Can you let the Heritage foundation know? People like Hegseth?

And perhaps Trump as he issued the document linked in the first place?

THANKS!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Try pushing LGBTQ in an Islamic country and see how that works out for you. Write back.

Nobody is “pushing lgbtq” on anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try pushing LGBTQ in an Islamic country and see how that works out for you. Write back.

Nobody is “pushing lgbtq” on anyone.

Try “not pushing” lgbtq on anyone in an Islamic country. What freedoms you take for granted are entirely dependent upon a Christian heritage.

Which brings me back to my original question. What country that was never Christian do you consider free?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try pushing LGBTQ in an Islamic country and see how that works out for you. Write back.

This has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. Stay on topic.

It does, even though you don’t understand why.