What part of Christianity isn't compatible with the US Constitution...

[iolo]

The problem with common ownership is that it's essentially the government that owns everything. Maybe the majority of people will someday be ok with that, but I doubt I will ever be. I don't want the government to be able to decide how I use what should be my property.

No - that's American thinking. Common ownership just means everything belongs to everyone, and we all work for one another. We'll need some sort of government for a year or two, but it'll soon be gone.

[StoneByStone]

maybe six......can you find a seventh?......

Someone should tell these six groups that they each have only one person.

https://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/6_m...nores_partner/

[StoneByStone]

No - that's American thinking. Common ownership just means everything belongs to everyone, and we all work for one another. We'll need some sort of government for a year or two, but it'll soon be gone.

But every time this is tried, we end up with the government owning everything. They never actually step away and let the people take over.
Besides, would you really want everything to belong to everyone? Would you want a stranger to be able to just walk into your house and do whatever they want there?

[iolo]

But every time this is tried, we end up with the government owning everything. They never actually step away and let the people take over.
Besides, would you really want everything to belong to everyone? Would you want a stranger to be able to just walk into your house and do whatever they want there?

On the three or four occasions when it was, briefly, begun under war conditions, the capitalist armies rushed in to do mass murder and stop it. When I said you were thinking like an American, I was meaning that you describe normal capitalism (in which, for various reasons, the capitalist state controls certain industries or whatever) as 'socialism'. Socialism is not State control but the power of the (majority) working class. Why should a stranger want to walk into the house I was living in? He'd have one to live in, and we'd soon see off any trumpite bully-throwbacks by mass action.

[RB 60]

Evangelizing is there mission statement, it's where the term comes from, and you see it in their actions. You don't have to be religious to know all about the stuff. Maybe if they weren't giving pass, and kissing Trumps ass, they wouldn't have people ragging on them. I was raised Christian, enough to know that is not on the up, and up. End's don't justify the means. The last thing we need is for the government to act like religious parents. There isn't much freedom, where anyone has to cater to religion. If doctrines are forced by governing bodies, then how can it ever be faithful belief?

Again, what do you know about Evangelicals? You're just a sad Ox...

[StoneByStone]

Why would that matter to the question at hand? And can you provide the verses that required this Inquisition? Basically, can you provide a religious basis from their holy book that shows that the religion itself is in some way incompatible with a Constitution that says that they have every right to believe in that sky daddy?

Earlier I mentioned a verse that warns against worship of idolatry, and how this has been interpreted by Christians as being required to forcefully convert others.
Holy books are essentially ink blot tests that can be interpreted any way. My stance here has been that any religion could be incompatible with muh Constitution depending on how it's being interpreted.

[StoneByStone]

On the three or four occasions when it was, briefly, begun under war conditions, the capitalist armies rushed in to do mass murder and stop it.

But in the cases where that didn't happen, the government stayed in power and never turned over control to the people.

When I said you were thinking like an American, I was meaning that you describe normal capitalism (in which, for various reasons, the capitalist state controls certain industries or whatever) as 'socialism'. Socialism is not State control but the power of the (majority) working class.

No, I never said the government having some public companies is Socialism.
And I'm not saying Socialism doesn't work. I like Liberal Socialism a lot. I'm saying one common aspect of certain branches of Socialism, that being collective ownership, does not work well at all.

Why should a stranger want to walk into the house I was living in? He'd have one to live in, and we'd soon see off any trumpite bully-throwbacks by mass action.

Why would a person want to go on a school shooting? People do stupid things. People are selfish and greedy. Maybe a person would want to use your house for one thing, and his own house for something else. The point is, it can happen, and it probably would.

[iolo]

But in the cases where that didn't happen, the government stayed in power and never turned over control to the people.

In France, the capitalist government invaded Paris, killed masses of working people, and destroyed the Commune. In the Soviet Union the capitalist armies drove the (minority) working class back to the villages and a state-capitalist government emerged. In Hungary the Romanians invaded and killed the socialists. In Bavaria the overthrow of democracy meant the beginnings of Nazism. Capitalist governments never turn over control to the people unless capitalism is collapsing and they are forced to.

Why would a person want to go on a school shooting? People do stupid things. People are selfish and greedy. Maybe a person would want to use your house for one thing, and his own house for something else. The point is, it can happen, and it probably would.

People do stupid things when part of a stupid society where nobody cares about anyone else. In no working-class community I know would it be tolerated for two minutes anyone pushing in where someone else was living..

[Damocles]

The fact that it's a religion is what makes it incompatible, but you seem to want what it says in the Bible, and not the constitution. In the bible there is stuff about obeying governing bodies, but it's nuts. I think it's actually referring to Israel, back before the time of Christ. It's the only thing I can think of to answer, without reading through it. It took me a moment to find it, since I haven't seen a bible in years.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...-7&version=NIV

That's absurd, the Constitution guarantees the free exercise thereof. Just being a religion is not evidence of incompatibility, in fact the Constitution guarantees that the government cannot make laws against it. And following the laws is certainly not incompatible. So, verses directly telling Christians to follow the laws certainly isn't incompatible with the Constitution. When you speak like this I picture Kermit the Frog running around his arms flapping in the air because he's so very upset....

[Damocles]

Mandated to take over? That's just Evangelicals needing to evangelize everything. I thought this was about the two being compatible, not that Christians think they should take over. What I just posted shows they shouldn't.

So, basically the religion is not incompatible with the Constitution. Some of the less intelligent followers may take actions that are not compatible with the constitution, just like some atheists say dumb things that are incompatible such as, "It's a religion, therefore it is incompatible!"

[domer76]

You confuse the religion with some of its misguided "believers". There is no verse in the Bible that says that your children should be taught religion in a government school. I'd love for you to provide one, but it would be manufactured. I do not follow this religion or believe in God in this way. I don't say this stuff out of some weird allegiance or as an apologist. You can hardly throw a rock without hitting a church in any of the 50 states, but it doesn't establish it as a national religion.

I never said there was a verse, did I? I was obviously referring to that part of Christianity that wants their prayers read in schools.

Did that escape you?

[Damocles]

As a Secular Humanist, I don't want ANY 'religious' stuff tarnishing the United States, like 'In God We Trust' on our Money or like 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I doubt most Americans want Muslim Holy Days honored, Muslim paraphernalia on Public Property, or Muslim chants before Public Meetings.
I would guess most Americans are 'Christian' and would be offended by inserting Islamic Traditions into Mainstream America.
Secular Humanists are offended in the same way (as I would think Jews would be) in the mass marketing of 'Christianity'.

How about 'God Is Great' on our Flag? How about 'The Christian Republic of America'? Any of those appeal to you?

So? As a religious follower those people don't want your secular humanist beliefs doing the same. The "Christian Republic" would be a violation of the constitution as it clearly would be "regarding the establishment of religion" and it isn't anything that the Bible would tell these people to do. Basically you say that the religion is incompatible, but provide no evidence and say things like, "I don't like this." So? Is there anything in having that on the cash that tells you to follow their religion? If not, and there isn't, then it certainly isn't establishing a religion.

[Damocles]

Dude. It's a bogus question.

"What part of Scientology isn't compatible with the US Constitution..." <------ Here, that's an equivalent question.

There isn't. Scientology may be stupid, but they have every right to the free exercise of their beliefs.

[Damocles]

Earlier I mentioned a verse that warns against worship of idolatry, and how this has been interpreted by Christians as being required to forcefully convert others.
Holy books are essentially ink blot tests that can be interpreted any way. My stance here has been that any religion could be incompatible with muh Constitution depending on how it's being interpreted.

Your constitution requires that you allow those people to freely exercise their religion, so being a religion itself cannot possibly be incompatible muh constitution. Now some actions of individuals may be, just as the actions of some atheists insisting that no public mention of religion must be the answer is incompatible with the free exercise clause but they get to say it regardless.

[Damocles]

I never said there was a verse, did I? I was obviously referring to that part of Christianity that wants their prayers read in schools.

Did that escape you?

There is no part of the religion that wants that, that is misguided individuals. There are those in every belief system, including the atheists who think that any mention of a God anywhere publicly is somehow a "violation" even though they know it isn't.