Why is christianity not the state religion of the USA?

Jun 2018
182
New York
Can we get back into the topic of the thread? As interesting as this aside is is it had nothing to do with why the US does not have a state religion.
 
Oct 2019
124
West Virginia
I
Glad to see you at least revised and clarified your comment about "blunder". I don't condemn Islamic fascists except when I did when I explicitly mentioned how Al-Qaeda became strong after Saddam's death, clearly as something negative. The "murder of Islamic jihadi devils" (love your dehumanising language) you speak is by invasions of wholesale countries and the killing, maiming and displacing of millions of civilians, who are also the victims of these fascists that the US created in the 1980s to fight Afghan Communism and give the Soviet Union its own Vietnam War. I don't however go around mentioning the atrocities of the likes of ISIS and Boko Haram as much for the simple reason that I don't see the need to as everyone knows they're evil and commit atrocities. It's like condemning Nazis or condemning Trump. Their atrocities are well-known and there's no need to repeat them. You would have a point there if I defended them, except I never did.

What I'm doing is criticising imperialist wars done in the name of secularism and in the name of fighting religious fanaticism, which should indeed be counted as part of French laicite and other versions of Western secularism espoused by countries allied with the US. I don't do any bogus separation of "internal" and "foreign" policies and practices. It is true I do support a non-confessional, non-sectarian state that treats believers and non-believers equally, but French laicite is not that, it is instead colonial secular sectarianism that gives justification for genocidal wars like the 2013 French invasion of Mali or the 2015 French bombing of Syria, which you don't mention (only a hilariously vague comment about "French economic domination of Mali") and which, far from killing Islamic "jihadi devils" (imagine if I called Israeli Zionist soldiers who kill Palestinians "satanic kikes", that's pretty much the equivalent here), kills the victims of Islamic jihadism instead.

Your comment about Ríos Montt is also instructive because you are ignoring the fact that the US and its allies created jihadist fascism in the 1980s and revived their support against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, and also allowed for it to find a save haven in Iraq after the invasion that deposed Saddam (and you don't say anything about how, despite eventually becoming an Islamist conservative, his regime was still ultimately a secular one, showing both that there's tyrannical secularism and that you're not applying your standards about fighting religious fanaticism as consistently, since had Saddam not been deposed, there wouldn't be any Al-Qaeda or Daesh or Zarqawi in Iraq; as bad as Saddam was and he was certainly horrible, you're not going to say ISIS was preferable, do you?). In fact, the US has been arming Al-Qaeda to fight Assad and the French basically gave air cover support for Al-Qaeda. It's the equivalent of Reagan doing a humanitarian intervention to stop the same Lucas García and Ríos Montt he himself illegally armed (through Israel, and I will remind you again that calling jihadists "devils" is the equivalent of calling Zionists who are no less murderous "satanic kikes").

And no, I don't know all solutions, but clearly humanitarian imperialism which is genocidal and straight up neocolonialism is not one of them. I would rather support regional interventions for extreme cases. For instance, I think Iran's intervention in Syria (not Russia's though) was ultimately right, as was Hezbollah's. They're Syria's neighbours and also official allies sanctioned by the Syrian government and with wide support from the Syrian people, especially Hezbollah. In Mali, an intervention by its direct neighbours in the conflict against Al-Qaeda sanctioned by the African Union was for me the solution. In the case of Guatemala, a Cuban intervention would have been something I would have supported. These interventions are fundamentally different than the imperialist wars that the US and its allies wage and which only kill en masse, especially since they only involve mobilisation of soldiers, and not heavy weaponry like tanks and jets that destroy wantonly with no regard for human life, infrastructure or the environment.
I clarified, I did not revise. I never expressed support for imperialist wars, nor for Reagan's misguided policies in Afghanistan which helped to create the ongoing mess there.

French laïcite you are grossly confusing with imperialist policies. If a country is secular, then it has no official religion, and the state does not support or suppress any religion. That is the way the USA and France are. France does dominate Mali, and most of its other former African colonies, and I fail to see why mentioning that is "hilarious". It is economic colonialism, or imperialism if you prefer that word. You are desperate to pretend you are winning an argument, yet you say nothing to counter what I've said. Do you support French neocolonialism in Africa? If, not, then why is it hilarious if I condemn it? You're not making sense as you flail about trying to save face and ego. You are failing at that.

What I said about Saddam is that he was a bloody criminal against humanity and deserved to die. Is that praise for Daesh? Hardly. Again, you fail.

If you support anything Hezbollah or Iran does, you are a gross hypocrite. They are both bloody criminal regimes, and religio-fascist to boot. And you say Hezbollah is legitimate because the mass-murderer al-Assad approves of them? Just who do you think initiated the problems in Syria? There was no invasion by any foreigners when the killing by the Syrian govt began. Your notion that only non-European regimes should intervene is ludicrous. I suppose you think Niger and Chad had the resources to clean up the mess in Mali? You call those mobilizations preferable, but they did not happen, so you do now know how they'd have resulted, or if they'd been successful. One such intervention I can recall was by Tanzania in Uganda, to depose the bloody Idi Amin, in place essentially due to the UK intransigence against Obote who was socialist and unacceptable to the British imperialists. Oh yes, and another such was Vietnam entering Cambodia to remove Pol Pot.

Why are you prattling on about imperialist crimes when I clearly also condemn them? Again, you're boxing with shadows. Your diligent stridency comes off as faux militancy, dilettante posing. I remain opposed to imperialism and to theocratic regimes. You got a problem with that?
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,364
Italy, Lago Maggiore
<<NOTE>>
I'm seeing that the thread tends to derail towards digressions about political matters.
1.Don't go out of topic.
2.Remember that politics cannot be discussed.
 
Oct 2019
124
West Virginia
<<NOTE>>
I'm seeing that the thread tends to derail towards digressions about political matters.
1.Don't go out of topic.
2.Remember that politics cannot be discussed.
Indeed, the topic is Christianity as a state religion.

I'm about to search for some sources on this, from historians.

I'm also interested in exploring WHY the Roman rulers felt that adopting Christianity as the state religion was beneficial for them. There are interesting parallels between Christianity and Islam in this respect, how they spread, how their orthodoxy was enforced, and so on, remembering that every country converted to Islam which also converted to Arabic language and identity was a former Roman province, from Iraq to Morocco. I've been reading history which increasingly demonstrates a great similarity between the two faiths, rather than their differences which are more often emphasized.

The times that interest me are up to the time of the Enlightenment, long before 1991.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,723
Dispargum
Christianity during the Enlightenment is fine, but keep the Romans and Muslims out of this thread. The topic is Christianity as a US state-sponsored religion - why or why not? If you want to discus those other topics, start another thread.
 
Oct 2019
124
West Virginia
Christianity during the Enlightenment is fine, but keep the Romans and Muslims out of this thread. The topic is Christianity as a US state-sponsored religion - why or why not? If you want to discus those other topics, start another thread.
Is it not clear that the Founding Fathers were largely Deists who believed in keeping church and state separate, largely due to their acute awareness of how state support of religion (alternately Catholic or Protestant) in England had created a lot of mayhem.

Oh am I allowed to mention England?

Please remove me from this site. I tire of the tedious one-sided warnings and attacks against me for responding to the very same "sins" committed by others.

One cannot have an intelligent discussion in this ambience. It's just another online ****-slinging contest.

I'll go back to reading real sources and learning.

Ciao. Remove my account, do not respond to me.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,457
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Is it not clear that the Founding Fathers were largely Deists who believed in keeping church and state separate, largely due to their acute awareness of how state support of religion (alternately Catholic or Protestant) in England had created a lot of mayhem.

Oh am I allowed to mention England?

Please remove me from this site. I tire of the tedious one-sided warnings and attacks against me for responding to the very same "sins" committed by others.

One cannot have an intelligent discussion in this ambience. It's just another online ****-slinging contest.

I'll go back to reading real sources and learning.

Ciao. Remove my account, do not respond to me.

Wish granted.
 
Feb 2017
313
Latin America
I

I clarified, I did not revise. I never expressed support for imperialist wars, nor for Reagan's misguided policies in Afghanistan which helped to create the ongoing mess there.

French laïcite you are grossly confusing with imperialist policies. If a country is secular, then it has no official religion, and the state does not support or suppress any religion. That is the way the USA and France are. France does dominate Mali, and most of its other former African colonies, and I fail to see why mentioning that is "hilarious". It is economic colonialism, or imperialism if you prefer that word. You are desperate to pretend you are winning an argument, yet you say nothing to counter what I've said. Do you support French neocolonialism in Africa? If, not, then why is it hilarious if I condemn it? You're not making sense as you flail about trying to save face and ego. You are failing at that.
I said it was hilarious because you're avoiding the fact that the French invaded Mali in 2013 and only speak as if it does is economically strangle Mali rather than bombing it and turning it into a graveyard in the name of laicite and fighing religious fanaticism, something you again ignore here. You're also avoiding how the French bombed Syria in 2015 and helped in the devastation of Raqqa, also in the name of "laicite".



What I said about Saddam is that he was a bloody criminal against humanity and deserved to die. Is that praise for Daesh? Hardly. Again, you fail.
I didn't say you praised ISIS, I said that if you applied your standards more consistently, you would not be raving mad about Saddam being deposed since this is what led Iraq to being dominated by ISIS. I also pointed out that Saddam is a secular tyrant, going against your idea that secularism is inherently less repressive than religious governments.


you support anything Hezbollah or Iran does, you are a gross hypocrite. They are both bloody criminal regimes, and religio-fascist to boot. And you say Hezbollah is legitimate because the mass-murderer al-Assad approves of them?
I said Hezbollah's intervention in Syria is legitimate, not Hezbollah itself, and also said that it wasn't just because of Assad but because Hezbollah enjoys wide support among the Syrian people as well. Hezbollah is not a "regime" because it's not a government or state, it's a political party with a militia wing. Iran is repressive, I never denied that, but at least it is anti-imperialist and to say it is fascist is downright wrong since it is a regime with elections and is not ruled by a military junta either. Constitutional clerocracy is a better term, and while that is not a type of government I want anywhere, that is not fascism either.

Just who do you think initiated the problems in Syria? There was no invasion by any foreigners when the killing by the Syrian govt began. Your notion that only non-European regimes should intervene is ludicrous. I suppose you think Niger and Chad had the resources to clean up the mess in Mali? You call those mobilizations preferable, but they did not happen, so you do now know how they'd have resulted, or if they'd been successful. One such intervention I can recall was by Tanzania in Uganda, to depose the bloody Idi Amin, in place essentially due to the UK intransigence against Obote who was socialist and unacceptable to the British imperialists. Oh yes, and another such was Vietnam entering Cambodia to remove Pol Pot.
The US invaded Syria's direct neighbour Iraq, which made Iraq a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and other jihadist militias that would later invade Syria during the Arab Spring in 2011, which the US immediately began to support and do PR for them by portraying them as secular and "moderate" when in reality they were fanatical ultra-violent Islamists. It was these militias that started the war. So yes, the US did effectively initiate the war in Syria as there wouldn't be any war if it hadn't invaded Iraq, which again is right besides Syria.

And yes, European regimes should not intervene because they're colonial or ex-colonial regimes. You already said it yourself with why an intervention by Reagan against Ríos Montt would be ludicrous since the guy was arming him. While colonial powers are not responsible for all atrocities in independent ex-colonies, they still are the ones who devastated these countries and left their unstable situation that allowed for these atrocities to occur, and in any case European colonial or ex-colonial powers never left completely anyway and have done everything in their power to remain in their colonies directly or indirectly for as long as they possibly can. And yes, Niger and Chad are not such failed states that they don't have armies to mobilise to help defend Mali. There was also Gaddafi's Libya, which while not directly neighbouring Mali, it's still a close regional neighbour with an anti-colonial ideology. Except of course that Libya couldn't come to Mali's rescue because NATO, in its crusade against Muslims and socialists, deposed Gaddafi in a destructive air war that killed at least thousands to support jihadists selling slaves in the streets.

Nor did Chad or Niger mobilise them because they weren't allowed and the Mali government and people were forced to accept a French invasion instead.


Why are you prattling on about imperialist crimes when I clearly also condemn them? Again, you're boxing with shadows. Your diligent stridency comes off as faux militancy, dilettante posing. I remain opposed to imperialism and to theocratic regimes. You got a problem with that?
You're not "clearly" condemning them. You love to hark about Islamic crimes, racistly call Muslims (even if only jihadist ones) "devils", complain about leftists not attacking Islam, and above you implicitly support the war against Assad and against Mali. You also attack the few Muslim anti-imperialist regimes not allied with the West. So it's clear that you are a bigot who can't stand Muslims and condemn anti-imperialism only when done against Latin America, a region dominated by descendants of European or White settler colonists and is culturally closer to Europe than the Islamic world which has been portrayed as its arch-enemy.