• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Christian secularists

What is your position on confessionalism vs. secularism?

  • I'm a Christian, the government should nominally have Christianity as the official religion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a Christian, the government should be secular but in practice give preference to Christianity

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm not Christian, the government should support my religion in a meaningful way

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm not Christian, the government should nominally have my religion as the official religion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm not Christian, the government should be secular but in practice give preference to my religion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • tuna sandwich

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27
  • This poll will close: .
Because?



Do you really consider Iran and Malta to be on the same level?

And subjects them to secular domination.

In terms of religious law, one dominant religion holds sway over all others, with penalties for any who openly disagree. A secular state ensures a level playing field for everyone. Whatever their religious persuasion or not
 
People like you are what the founding fathers tried to protect the government from.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Many of the founding fathers recognized that the principles of civil law were inseparably linked to Biblical truths. James Wilson, one of the original Supreme Court Justices, and a signer of the Constitution, explained,

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants…”

Additionally, the United States Supreme Court specifically recognized America as a Christian nation. In the case “Church of the Holy Trinity vs. the United States” (Feb. 29, 1892, US457-458), Justice Josiah Brewer, following a lengthy and exhaustive search of early American historical literature, commented, “We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth….that we are a Christian nation….”

In another Supreme Court Case, “Zorach vs. Clauson” (1952, US306 307 313), Justice William O. Douglas categorically stated, “We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Further, in “United States vs. Macintosh” (1931, 283 US 605, 625), Justice George Sutherland affirmed, “We are a Christian people….affording to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledge with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.”

Historical revisionists contend the founding fathers were predominately deists. The facts say otherwise.

According to Dr. M.E. Bradford of the University of Dallas, of the 55 framers, 28 were Episcopalians, 8 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, and there were two each of Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Methodists and Roman Catholics. That left, by Bradford’s counting, three deists and one founder whose religious views cannot be determined definitively.

Concerning the outcome of the American Revolution, John Quincy Adams noted, “The highest glory won from the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated June 28, 1813, John Adams wrote: “The general principles on which the (founding) fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity.”

Founding father Noah Webster proclaimed much the same message when he said, “The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles…This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.”

Time after time, the founding fathers declared similar beliefs. From the archives of Patrick Henry’s personal notes (handwritten on the back of his copy of the “Stamp Act Resolutions,” made public after his death) we read:

“Whether this (new government) will prove a blessing or a curse
will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which
a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise they will be
great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be
miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation.”

More in the link below.

The Moral Foundations of America « The Righter Report
 
In terms of religious law, one dominant religion holds sway over all others, with penalties for any who openly disagree. A secular state ensures a level playing field for everyone. Whatever their religious persuasion or not

And why should the state act as though they're all equal, when clearly they're not?
 
Then human rights are being violated as non Catholics are forced to support a religion they don't ascribe to



We're all forced to pay taxes in support of things we do not ascribe to. Pacifists pay taxes that support the military; anarchists well they don't like government at all, and so on. :)
 
Theocrats are always fools who don't seem to understand that religions other than their own will end up in power. In the U.S., Catholicism is in the minority and would thus be persecuted rather than doing the persecuting.

Whatever powers you grant the state can be used against you. Freedom of religion means you can't push your religion on other people with government, but it is also means they can't push theirs on you.

Without such protections, only the dominant faith can survive, and you get endless bloodshed in the struggle for supremacy. See all of human history for the countless examples.
 
Theocrats are always fools who don't seem to understand that religions other than their own will end up in power. In the U.S., Catholicism is in the minority and would thus be persecuted rather than doing the persecuting.

Whatever powers you grant the state can be used against you. Freedom of religion means you can't push your religion on other people with government, but it is also means they can't push theirs on you.

Without such protections, only the dominant faith can survive, and you get endless bloodshed in the struggle for supremacy. See all of human history for the countless examples.

No one on this thread has advocated theocracy, that remains a red herring no matter how much it is brought up.

There has been more bloodshed caused by secularism in the last hundred years, then has been caused by religion throughout all of history.
 
Theocrats are always fools who don't seem to understand that religions other than their own will end up in power. In the U.S., Catholicism is in the minority and would thus be persecuted rather than doing the persecuting.

Whatever powers you grant the state can be used against you. Freedom of religion means you can't push your religion on other people with government, but it is also means they can't push theirs on you.

Without such protections, only the dominant faith can survive, and you get endless bloodshed in the struggle for supremacy. See all of human history for the countless examples.



This is actually the primary argument for no government-sponsored religion.

Back in England, when the king was Catholic the Catholics were up and Protestants were persecuted. When the King was Protestant, vice-versa. Founders didn't want this sort of thing going on in their new country, thus the 1A guarantee of freedom OF religion, plus the prohibition on state-sponsored religion.

Right now Christianity is the majority belief in America... but it might not always be so. Any power you establish may be turned against you later, thus caution is advisable.


Then there is my own concern about mixing State and Religion... that it tends to corrupt the religion.
 
AANNNND the bogeyman cometh.

2 very different things

communism replaces adherence to a religion with adherence to the state.

secularism is religious neutrality.

Are you saying that Communism isn't secularist?
 
We're all forced to pay taxes in support of things we do not ascribe to. Pacifists pay taxes that support the military; anarchists well they don't like government at all, and so on. :)

granted.
 
No one on this thread has advocated theocracy, that remains a red herring no matter how much it is brought up.

Do you not understand the definition of words? You have specifically stated that you want Catholicism to be the official state religion and make civil law conform to religious rules.

There has been more bloodshed caused by secularism in the last hundred years, then has been caused by religion throughout all of history.

Oh really. Please explain how freedom of religion killed hundreds of millions of people.
 
Are you saying that Communism isn't secularist?

In so much as that communism inserted the State as the target of worship. In essence the State became its own religion and its own god.

So yes that is what I am saying.

Secularism is religious neutrality.
 
Do you not understand the definition of words? You have specifically stated that you want Catholicism to be the official state religion and make civil law conform to religious rules.



Oh really. Please explain how freedom of religion killed hundreds of millions of people.

Cue the anti communist, anti nazi, anti fascist talking points and misinformation seminar.
 
Do you not understand the definition of words? You have specifically stated that you want Catholicism to be the official state religion and make civil law conform to religious rules.



Oh really. Please explain how freedom of religion killed hundreds of millions of people.

Do you not understand the definition of words? There is a difference between a theocracy and a confessional state.

The secular Soviet Union killed over one hundred and ten million people.

In so much as that communism inserted the State as the target of worship. In essence the State became its own religion and its own god.

So yes that is what I am saying.

Secularism is religious neutrality.

Logical Fallacies» ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy
 
Oh really. Please explain how freedom of religion killed hundreds of millions of people.

You make a fair point. Freedom of religion is certainly superior to demonizing religion. Sometimes religion is ridiculed as foolish. That's fine. Sometimes religion is criticized for being dangerous. That is when the drive for secularism forces the secular government to kill the Jesus Boogeymen. Yes. It has happened. As one poster has already stated. There has been more deaths caused by anti-religious governments in the past 100 years than there has been by religious governments.

Unless you argue that in those cases, the state was the official religion. :confused:
 
Do you not understand the definition of words? There is a difference between a theocracy and a confessional state.

The concept of a confessional state is pedantic nonsense. There is no difference between claiming god is speaking the laws to you directly or interpreting what god wants based on the holy texts. The net result is religious doctrine is dictated to the populace through the force of the state.

The secular Soviet Union killed over one hundred and ten million people.

The soviet union didn't have religious freedom. A secular state that persecutes religions is just as bad as a theocracy. Unlike you, I base morality on what action is being taken, not if my tribe is the one doing it.
 
The concept of a confessional state is pedantic nonsense. There is no difference between claiming god is speaking the laws to you directly or interpreting what god wants based on the holy texts. The net result is religious doctrine is dictated to the populace through the force of the state.



The soviet union didn't have religious freedom. A secular state that persecutes religions is just as bad as a theocracy. Unlike you, I base morality on what action is being taken, not if my tribe is the one doing it.

The majority of governments in the history of the world have been confessional states.

The Soviet Union was secular. You can deny it, but that would only make you wrong.
 
I would say communism is the consummation of secularism.

Then you would look entirely foolish if you were to do so. A secular state is neutral toward religion or non-religion alike.
 
A secular state that persecutes religions is just as bad as a theocracy.

Many people with calculators would disagree. A secular state that persecutes religions is much worse than a theocracy, mathmatically speaking.
 
The majority of governments in the history of the world have been confessional states.

The majority of the governments in the history of the world were also monarchies. Not exactly a wise arguments.

The Soviet Union was secular. You can deny it, but that would only make you wrong.

You need to understand that I don't follow your tribalist mentality. I may be an atheist, but I don't share the viewpoints of the USSR or China. I believe in freedom of religion and I put a christian who shares that belief before an atheist who does not.

Its you who must defend the actions of the Soviet Union, as they follow your philosophy simply with a different label on top.
 
Many people with calculators would disagree. A secular state that persecutes religions is much worse than a theocracy, mathmatically speaking.

Why don't you show me your math. Have you calculated how many deaths under Mao's regime were caused by state sponsored religious persecution?
 
Back
Top Bottom