The coming evangelical collapse

04SCTLS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
7
Location
Lockport
The coming evangelical collapse

A marginalized put back in it's place Christian chapter in Western history is about to begin

Opinion By Michael Spencer

from the March 10, 2009 edition

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html

Michael Spencer is a writer and communicator living and working in a Christian community in Kentucky. He describes himself as "a postevangelical reformation Christian in search of a Jesus-shaped spirituality." This essay is adapted from a series on his blog, InternetMonk.com .

Oneida, Ky. - We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.
Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.
This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.
Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.
Why is this going to happen?
1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.
The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.
2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.
3. There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile. Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.
4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself.
5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to "do good" is rapidly approaching. We will soon see that the good Evangelicals want to do will be viewed as bad by so many, and much of that work will not be done. Look for ministries to take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive.
6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.
7. The money will dry up.
What will be left?
•Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.
•Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. Evangelicals have been entering these churches in recent decades and that trend will continue, with more efforts aimed at the "conversion" of Evangelicals to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.
•A small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal. This is an attractive, innovative, and tireless community with outstanding media, publishing, and leadership development. Nonetheless, I believe the coming evangelical collapse will not result in a second reformation, though it may result in benefits for many churches and the beginnings of new churches.
•The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision.
•Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear.
•Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism. Can this community withstand heresy, relativism, and confusion? To do so, it must make a priority of biblical authority, responsible leadership, and a reemergence of orthodoxy.
•Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community. It is time for missionaries to come to America from Asia and Africa. Will they come? Will they be able to bring to our culture a more vital form of Christianity?
•Expect a fragmented response to the culture war. Some Evangelicals will work to create their own countercultures, rather than try to change the culture at large. Some will continue to see conservatism and Christianity through one lens and will engage the culture war much as before – a status quo the media will be all too happy to perpetuate. A significant number, however, may give up political engagement for a discipleship of deeper impact.
Is all of this a bad thing?
Evangelicalism doesn't need a bailout. Much of it needs a funeral. But what about what remains?
Is it a good thing that denominations are going to become largely irrelevant? Only if the networks that replace them are able to marshal resources, training, and vision to the mission field and into the planting and equipping of churches.
Is it a good thing that many marginal believers will depart? Possibly, if churches begin and continue the work of renewing serious church membership. We must change the conversation from the maintenance of traditional churches to developing new and culturally appropriate ones.
The ascendency of Charismatic-Pentecostal-influenced worship around the world can be a major positive for the evangelical movement if reformation can reach those churches and if it is joined with the calling, training, and mentoring of leaders. If American churches come under more of the influence of the movement of the Holy Spirit in Africa and Asia, this will be a good thing.
Will the evangelicalizing of Catholic and Orthodox communions be a good development? One can hope for greater unity and appreciation, but the history of these developments seems to be much more about a renewed vigor to "evangelize" Protestantism in the name of unity.
Will the coming collapse get Evangelicals past the pragmatism and shallowness that has brought about the loss of substance and power? Probably not. The purveyors of the evangelical circus will be in fine form, selling their wares as the promised solution to every church's problems. I expect the landscape of megachurch vacuity to be around for a very long time.
Will it shake lose the prosperity Gospel from its parasitical place on the evangelical body of Christ? Evidence from similar periods is not encouraging. American Christians seldom seem to be able to separate their theology from an overall idea of personal affluence and success.
The loss of their political clout may impel many Evangelicals to reconsider the wisdom of trying to create a "godly society." That doesn't mean they'll focus solely on saving souls, but the increasing concern will be how to keep secularism out of church, not stop it altogether. The integrity of the church as a countercultural movement with a message of "empire subversion" will increasingly replace a message of cultural and political entitlement.
Despite all of these challenges, it is impossible not to be hopeful. As one commenter has already said, "Christianity loves a crumbling empire."
We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century.
We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture.
I'm not a prophet. My view of evangelicalism is not authoritative or infallible. I am certainly wrong in some of these predictions. But is there anyone who is observing evangelicalism in these times who does not sense that the future of our movement holds many dangers and much potential?
________________________________________________________________

At the same time good news

Survey sees a drift away from religion in America

The percentage of Christians in the US declined, while that of people with 'no religion' almost doubled.

By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor from the March 10, 2009 edition

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p01s02-ussc.html

Excerpt

One in every 5 US adults chose not to identify a religious identity: 15 percent chose "no religion" and the other 5 percent declined to name one.

________________________________________________________________

This demographic is painfully under represented but will be catered to by the Democrats as a new force for change.
I can't see the Republicans embracing these people unless they purge themselves of the religious right that Reagan invited into the Republican party.(And it could happen)

But then it is the end of an "Era" of 28 years of religious overinfluence and busybodying in national politics.

And to that I say AMEN

dinosaurhq1ey4.jpg
 
Things have been very good for quite a while. After 9/11, these figures were very different. And following the next dramatic world event, we'll see this change again. Try to keep your intolerant atheist friends from getting too excited.
 
This only follows long term demographics stating that by 2040 or so white christians will be a minority(albeit the largest one) We had discussed this in previous posts.

As to the withering of the Evangelicals this OP ED piece was written by one.

Irreligious people are the largest growing demographic and under the american system they should have representation commensurate with their numbers.
It will come.
I'll hold my breath:rolleyes:
 
9/11 was commited by brainwashed religious extremists who thought they were doing right by God.
What better arguement is there for keeping religion in it's place and out of politics?
 
This only follows long term demographics stating that by 2040 or so white christians will be a minority(albeit the largest one) We had discussed this in previous posts.

As to the withering of the Evangelicals this OP ED piece was written by one.

Irreligious people are the largest growing demographic and under the american system they should have representation commensurate with their numbers.
It will come.
I'll hold my breath:rolleyes:
Meh. By 2040 all the Christians will likely be gone from this planet. You can have the remains.
 
I'll take the risk that this is just man made up stuff.
 
Meh. By 2040 all the Christians will likely be gone from this planet. You can have the remains.

likely? doesn't sound real positive. got the exact date you'll all be leaving?
 
This discussion isn't political, it's becoming spiritual.

As I stated, I expect this trend to reverse soon enough.
But I'm not sure by reading that if it simply implies a move away from organized religion, but a remaining embrace of the spiritual or some kind of broader Godlessness?


Unfortunately, I would ask, are people replace the big "G" in God with the little "g" of government?
And the fundamental question then becomes-

Our country was founded on the premise that our rights were granted to us by God, and that we empower government to protect them.
If there is no God, where are our rights derived from? Are they granted to us by government?
That's a radical fundamental change in our country and philosophy.
And a dangerous one.
 
As I stated, I expect this trend to reverse soon enough.
Unfortunately, I would ask, are people replace the big "G" in God with the little "g" of government?

I think they already have in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands.

I don't need an exact date.

Sounds like you would be happy and pleased to be around and alive for the end of times to see the fireworks.

Do you find life on earth as a human being depressing?

Don't you want to find some joy here on earth beyond the comfort of religion and make the most of this "life" in case there is no afterlife?

Seems like this Rapture prophecy keeps coming up every 20 years or so but nothing happens.

I mean it's in the Bible this prediction, and has been around for thousands of years.
 
Our country was founded on the premise that our rights were granted to us by God, and that we empower government to protect them.
If there is no God, where are our rights derived from? Are they granted to us by government?
That's a radical fundamental change in our country and philosophy.
And a dangerous one.
Our rights are endowed by the ‘Creator’ – Jefferson chose that word specifically. He had used the word ‘God’ in the first paragraph of the DOI, but he chose to use the more generic ‘Creator’ when defining where our ‘rights’ derive from. He wasn’t adverse to using the word God – but for some reason, when detailing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he chose a more general term.

I think one of the things it had to do with was the rising atheist / agnostic part of society at that time, including Thomas Paine among others. There was quite the atmosphere of questioning not just the existence of God, but how God and man interact. How does ‘church’ fit into the equation? Is the belief of Judeo Christian God required to have rights? Would a man who believes in a different God, views God differently, or even doesn’t believe in God at all, be allotted those same rights?

So, rather than God, Jefferson used Creator. I believe it was to make sure that those rights which he outlined were available to all men. They didn’t have to be Christian. They were ‘men’ and so they were created ‘equal’. To say that one’s rights derive from God could limit those rights, and who should be endowed with those rights.

So, does the country turn to God during times of hardship? I think that is what you are alluding to Cal. It does – and with the nation certainly experiencing ‘hardships’ in many areas, the past trends would indicate that once again the nation will turn toward God. Traditionally, simplicity and closer family relationships are also on the ups in times of hardship.

It is sort of like chicken soup – we feel bad – so we look for comfort in certain things. God, family and the simple life are pretty comfortable things. However, I do think that the author of the article above does have something right. The huge evangelical churches, which in their own way are a symbol of excess, will be on the outs. I think you will see a return to more traditional forms of religion, along with an increase in congregations in small neighborhood churches. Once again – a comfort factor, as well as a sense of community.
 
Our rights are endowed by the ‘Creator’
You're making distinction without a difference.
But it is important to note, Jefferson wasn't the only guy at the table. In fact, as important as he was, he wasn't very involved in drafting the constitution at all.


It is sort of like chicken soup – we feel bad – so we look for comfort in certain things. God, family and the simple life are pretty comfortable things. However, I do think that the author of the article above does have something right. The huge evangelical churches, which in their own way are a symbol of excess, will be on the outs. I think you will see a return to more traditional forms of religion, along with an increase in congregations in small neighborhood churches. Once again – a comfort factor, as well as a sense of community.
I think we're in agreement.
And all of that would be for the positive.
 
You're making distinction without a difference.
But it is important to note, Jefferson wasn't the only guy at the table. In fact, as important as he was, he wasn't very involved in drafting the constitution at all.

Well, Jefferson and Adams (the real author of the Constitution) had many letters and discussions regarding that document, Jefferson had very little to do with the crafting final draft - you can tell, other than the preamble, it is rather dry and 'legal', which Jefferson knew that Adams could better construct.

However, Jefferson did write the Declaration of Independence - and these words were his:
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.

I think we're in agreement.
And all of that would be for the positive.
Yep.
 
Sounds like you would be happy and pleased to be around and alive for the end of times to see the fireworks.
I won't be here, but I'll be watching.

Do you find life on earth as a human being depressing?
No.

Don't you want to find some joy here on earth beyond the comfort of religion and make the most of this "life" in case there is no afterlife?
I find plenty of joy here on earth, and there will be an afterlife.

Seems like this Rapture prophecy keeps coming up every 20 years or so but nothing happens.
When it does, it will be too late for you. Keep rolling those dice though.

I mean it's in the Bible this prediction, and has been around for thousands of years.
Oh noes! :rolleyes:
 
I won't be here, but I'll be watching.

No.

I find plenty of joy here on earth, and there will be an afterlife.

When it does, it will be too late for you. Keep rolling those dice though.

Oh noes! :rolleyes:

It all seems ultimately cruel and nasty, not loving and caring.
In an extremely tiny spot of an incredibly vast and old universe creating billions of mostly good people who perish and/or suffer eternally except for some millions of sincere Christian believers who are spared for a mysterious purpose.
Why make people to ultimately suffer eternally.
What's the point?
So guys like you can sit there smug in heaven next to the vengeful God of the First Testament and enjoy it?
How ultimately sadistic and egotistical you really are, convinced in your certitude to the point of high arrogance.
 
Our rights are endowed by the ‘Creator’ – Jefferson chose that word specifically. He had used the word ‘God’ in the first paragraph of the DOI, but he chose to use the more generic ‘Creator’ when defining where our ‘rights’ derive from. He wasn’t adverse to using the word God – but for some reason, when detailing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he chose a more general term.

You need to understand the philosophical background involved here and how it was applied in the creation of this nation; otherwise you are just spouting from ignorance. You expect specific quotes where there are none because the Framers were assuming certian philosophical principles that assumed God.

For instance, the whole idea of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness", or as it was phrased in later amendments 'Life liberty and property". That comes explictly from John Locke's concept of Natural Rights (originally phrased "life, liberty and estate") which were viewed as coming from God. Most any constitutional scholar will view the DOI as a "Natural Rights" document as well. The distinction between Natural Rights/Natural Law and positivism (the view that freedoms come from the government) is a very important one and as relevant now as it was in the late 1700's.

The Framers pretty much took Lockian philosophy as the framework for creating our government with one major change; the understanding of human nature that they functioned under was completely different then Locke's understanding of human nature. The Framers' understanding was much more in line with Hobbes' understanding of human nature ("Nasty, Brutish, and Short") and, more accurately, the Bible. They understood human nature as naturally selfish and thus viewed religion as necessary in curbing those more evil aspects of human nature. That is what separates the liberalism this country was founded on from all other forms of liberalism as well as socialism and fascism (which assume that human nature is generally good and/or capable of change in the aggregate and basically "perfectable"). That is also why the Framers included all the checks and balances/separation of powers and federalism not to mention the Bill of Rights. I could go into more detail, but I am in the middle of midterms.

Here are a few other quotes for you:
Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.
-Richmond v. Moore, Illinois Supreme Court, 1883

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.
-Samual Adams in a Letter to James Warren, Febuary 12, 1779

Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day?...Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity...?
-John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5.

I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.
-Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.

I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.
-Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.

I verily believe that Christianity is necessary to support a civil society and shall ever attend to its institutions and acknowledge its precepts as the pure and natural sources of private and social happiness
-Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, William W. Story, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. I, p. 92, March 24, 1801.

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.-John Adams, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813

It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
-John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
-John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.
-John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. VI, p. 9

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
- Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787​
 
Jefferson very specifically used 'creator' when he could have easily used 'God' - as I said, he used 'God' in the previous paragraph.

Locke used 'state' of nature and 'law' of nature and those were governed by reason - not by God. The founding fathers were determined in having 'reason' dictating the laws of this country - and not God. The constitution is secular law and not divine law. The founding fathers very specifically created a secular document.

Locke thought that humans were "by nature free, equal and independent." Furthermore, natural law obligated that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions." (This is where Jefferson got our version...)

Founders believed that inalienable rights exist in all human beings as an occurrence in the natural state, sans society. That it was also necessary to create a government for the purposes of protecting those rights. Jefferson very specifically used 'Creator' to more closely reflect that rights exist in all people, as part of nature.

We are one nation under the constitution, not one country under God.
 
We are one nation under the constitution, not one country under God.

Actually, we are a nation under God or the creator.
Because we aren't "under the constitution," the constitution just being an organization or contract that limits the power of government.

Power goes from the creator to the individual and then some of it is lent to the government in a contract to protect our rights. If the government breaks that contract then we are not obligated to it.

And I know this all would sound like nonsensical logic to someone unfamiliar with these discussion, but they aren't just semantics.
 
No, we can't be one country under something that a percentage of the population doesn't believe in. God or even 'creator' doesn't work. If we hold those people who don't believe in God to be 'under' him we have violated their natural rights.

And are we above the constitution? 'We' the people created the constitution, but we are bound by its laws.. perhaps we are a country that is bound by the constitution.
 
No, we can't be one country under something that a percentage of the population doesn't believe in. God or even 'creator' doesn't work. If we hold those people who don't believe in God to be 'under' him we have violated their natural rights.
Not so. Just because they deny "its" existence, doesn't mean we deny them the rights "it" grants them.

And are we above the constitution? 'We' the people created the constitution, but we are bound by its laws.. perhaps we are a country that is bound by the constitution.
The government is bound by the constitution. The constitution limits the power of government.
 
Jefferson very specifically used 'creator' when he could have easily used 'God' - as I said, he used 'God' in the previous paragraph.

Locke used 'state' of nature and 'law' of nature and those were governed by reason - not by God. The founding fathers were determined in having 'reason' dictating the laws of this country - and not God. The constitution is secular law and not divine law. The founding fathers very specifically created a secular document.

Locke thought that humans were "by nature free, equal and independent." Furthermore, natural law obligated that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions." (This is where Jefferson got our version...)

Founders believed that inalienable rights exist in all human beings as an occurrence in the natural state, sans society. That it was also necessary to create a government for the purposes of protecting those rights. Jefferson very specifically used 'Creator' to more closely reflect that rights exist in all people, as part of nature.

We are one nation under the constitution, not one country under God.

I have heard all those mindless and decietful talking points before and they are based in ignorance. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. I really don't have time to get into this.

His use of 'Creator' actually confirms the exceptance of God if you actually understand the theory of Natural Rights as understood by the Framers in reading Locke (of course, you would have actually had to have read Locke and the people who influenced him). It was in that act of God as creator of humans in his image that we are extended certian inalienable rights from God, according to the theory of Natural Rights. So refering to him as the 'Creator' is much more accurate in conveying that specific understanding of Natural Rights as God given. You are trying to make distinctions where there are none.

It is like saying that someone refering to the "commander-in-cheif" of the US military is not refering to the President of the United States.

Also, you are misusing the whole "state of nature" idea (natural rights are not derieved from the idea of their existing in a "state of nature", and clearly don't know where the idea of natural law originally came from, or that there is a distinction between natural law and natural rights but that they are intertwined. There has been a strong effort to distort and secularize Locke's work and that is what you are mindlessly repeating. Go back and read his original writings. All you are doing here is obfuscating things and not making any sense. Or, if you wanna keep sticking your foot in your mouth, be my guest.

This is a repeat of the whole "substantive due process" and "substantive rights" thing where you have no clue what you are talking about but simply refuse to accept anything I say because I am a conservative and you don't agree with it. You will try any absurd argument you can think of to rationalize that irrational disregard of what I have to say even though what I say is based in an accurate and very well informed understanding of the writings and/or principles in question and you have no clue what you are talking about.

Consider this fact; a consensus of political scientists and constitutional scholars agree with what I have said about Locke and Natural Rights in regards to the Framers here. Does that make it easier to accept if I argue with the flawed reasoning you like to use? :rolleyes:
 
No, we can't be one country under something that a percentage of the population doesn't believe in. God or even 'creator' doesn't work. If we hold those people who don't believe in God to be 'under' him we have violated their natural rights.

What natural right are we violating? What is considered a natural right is very specifically spelled out in the constitution.

The constitution, as it was originally created, was under God because it cannot take away our rights because they are God given. That phrase was included in the Pledge of Alligance to differentiate ourselves from the USSR in the 1950's. they functioned under a positivist system of laws, so acknowledging that our rights were God given differentiated us from them.

And are we above the constitution? 'We' the people created the constitution, but we are bound by its laws.. perhaps we are a country that is bound by the constitution.

The constitution is a document ment to safeguard our natural rights from the federal government.

You shouldn't hold strong opinions on things you don't understand.:rolleyes:
 
I have heard all those mindless and decietful talking points before and they are based in ignorance.

Or, if you wanna keep sticking your foot in your mouth, be my guest.

You shouldn't hold strong opinions on things you don't understand.

And now Cal, you will understand why I do what I do... I tried, and now I will revert back. But not on this thread, because I did try here.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top