Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "MAGA Christian Extremists Learn Trump's Kids Are Jewish" video.

I agree with the pastor's separation of "religion" and gov't. But what he doesn't understand is that he, and everything he says, is ALSO "of this world".
3
This is where the Founders put the "religious" subjectivists -- ___ From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776: "XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function. . . . . "XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment." ___ From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777: "Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession." "Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature." ___ From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777: XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State. ___ Those provisions, and their equivalents in the other state constitutions, eventuated in the First Amendment separation of "religion" and gov't.
2
@derrickburwell7777 That wasn't written by Christ. In fact, nothing in the "Bible" was written by Christ. And nothing on the "Bible" about Christ was written until at least 30 years after his death.
2
According to the Quakers" Jesus" was a prophet, but not divinely inspired. Whereas the tribe that invented a "God" that tells them what they want to hear claims that that "God" said that those who self-servingly invented that "God" are the "chosen people". There originates the poison of tribal supremacism.
1
Well, yes, but not as it has come to be understood. As example, the Pilgrims who founded Plymouth Colony were seeking "religious freedom" FOR THEMSELVES. Quakers were so suspect that they had to register with the gov't, and essentially had to have passports in and out of the colony. The Puritans founded Massachusetts-Bay Colony were seeking "religious freedom" but FOR THEMSELVES ONLY. In order to be eligible to run for election, and hold public office, one had not only to own property but also to have the RIGHT "religion -- THEIRS. And they established, in law, that "Papists" -- Catholics -- were PROHIBITED even being IN the colony. And established in law that those with "wrong" "religions," including Quakers, were BANISHED from the Colony, subject to EXECUTION if after banishment one returned to the Colony. See what happened to Quaker Mary Dyer. So the various groups of colonists who were seeking "religious freedom" had no problem with establishing theocracies -- "religious" tyrannies -- so long it was of their respective 'religion," and they were in charge. ___ From "A Man for All Seasons" -- in the following "Roper" was Thomas More's hot-headed and impulsive son-in-law -- ___ Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws, from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
1
@TheHugeDwarf Massachusetts-Bay Colony banished "Papists"/Catholics. And in the law if they returned to the colony, they were executed. The same for Quakers. Sam Adams was a tax collector; but he used the taxes collected for his political ends, so when elected to the General Court -- the state legislature -- there was a legal cloud over his head. When the "Boston Massacre" occurred (it was not a "massacre" despite Sam Adams' propaganda seeking blood by calling the thoroughly-outnumbered British troops "murderers) one of the witnesses, a teenager who would die of his wounds, was from France -- he only spoke and read French. Adams had him, on his death bed, sign an affidavit soon determined to have been written by Sam Adams. The problem was that the affidavit, though attributed to the witness, was written in English -- which set Sam Adams up for a charge of perjury. He escaped that by stirring up "religious" hatred against Catholics -- the witness had been a Catholic. It is also said that Sam Adams wasn't actually about "revolution"; he was about re-establishing "Puritan virtue" -- a state "religion". And his history shows that he never missed an opportunity to foment violence in order to achieve that goal. Sam's cousin John Adams wrote the Massachusetts-Bay constitution -- except the section establishing a state "religion": that was written by Sam. Maryland was dominated by "Papists"/Catholics. Jefferson's "Religious Freedom Act" nonetheless established "religious" freedom -- i.e., one didn't have to be Catholic in order to have rights. Roger Williams, a minister banished from Massachusetts-Bay because he gave sermons promoting "freedom of religion" -- not of the practice, but of one's choice of "religion" -- founded "Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations" colony on his idea of religious freedom. So all the talk about how the colonies were founded by people seeking "religious freedom" glosses over the actual facts: Massachusetts-Bay was a theocracy, a "religious" tyranny, for a substantial portion of its history. In its laws one finds its "Capitol Offenses" -- those requiring the death penalty -- were drawn directly from "Deuteronomy" and "Leviticus". And some of those are pure impossible nonsense -- such as the provision prohibiting having sex with animals. And when Henry VIII wanted to divorce one of his wives he conveniently "interpreted" a prohibition in "Leviticus" as "ambiguous" so he could rationalize the divorce.
1
@thystaff742 Nope: it was about separating the two. It is INFORMATIVE to ACTUALLY READ how the Founders put the "subjectivists" who reject all rules based on their "religious" claims in their place. The following couldn't be ore clear on the point -- ___ From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776: "XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function. . . . . "XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment." ___ From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777: "Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession." "Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature." ___ From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777: XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State. ___ Those provisions, and their equivalents in the other state constitutions, eventuated in the First Amendment separation of "religion" and gov't. "Religions" are neither outside the rule of law, nor equal to or above it; and claiming to be acting in accordance with one's "religion" does not exempt one from the rule of law.
1
@thystaff742 "Nope, it was about keeping government out of the church." Wrong: it was about keeping "religion" out of gov't as the LAWS established by the FOUNDERS clearly demonstrate -- ___ From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776: "XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function. . . . . "XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment." ___ From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777: "Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession." "Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature." ___ From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777: XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State. ___ Those provisions, and their equivalents in the other state constitutions, eventuated in the First Amendment separation of "religion" and gov't. Let's be clear instead of full of shit: In Massachusetts the priests who engaged in pedophilia were protected by the "religion" but prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned under SECULAR CRIMINAL law. Or do you want us to believe that a "religion" would have the "right" to practice human sacrifice, and even cannibalism, and the gov't couldn't do anything about it?
1
@thystaff742 Being exempt from taxation was based on an agreement: "religion" wouldn't be taxed if it stayed the fuck out of POLITICS -- as the Founders themselves clearly established. During the 1970s Catholic priest and Democratic Massachusetts Congressman Father Drinan was forced out of the House of Representatives -- by the REPUBLICANS who hated his being a LIBERAL -- because he was a CLERGYMAN, who are BARRED serving in gov't. Before and into WW II, Catholic priest Father Coughlin was a pro-Nazi/Hitler radio preacher preaching Fascism, by doing which he was engaging in POLITICS and urging a change in GOV'T. Finally the Catholic church took him down. You have this false fantasy that the vast majority are not only "religious" but are "experts" on what the Constitution that they REJECT actually says, and that they -- because of their "religion" -- would protest their "rights" being violated -- "rights" that DO NOT EXIST. You view is of the abundantly clueless claiming "rights" -- and authority they do not have -- on a basis of near-absolute illiteracy about actual law.
1
@robertmartinovics9270 The fundamental issue is that the 'religious" are subjectivists: they reject objective reality, which includes such as written constitutions and laws. They make all sorts of "truth" claims based on their "religion" -- but if one critically evaluates the claims, the "proofs" for such claims are found not to exist, and that the claims are actually self-serving. Because of that they essentially refuse to reason, so they are barred from being in gov't because law is reason, but very, very, very refined. The incoherence that is the "Bible" is not a substitute for objective rule of law derived from democratic debate and consensus. And the Founders had seen at first hand the brutalities of "religious" gov't -- theocratic tyranny in the name of "Gawd". Research Quaker Mary Dyer -- that is "religious" gov't in action.
1
You need to read the entire "Bible" to learn that "God" contradicted himself -- when the Jews were slaves he opposed slavery; when the Jews owned slaves, he approved slavery. And the part/s when "God" ordered mass murders, including of women and children, because incapable of objectivity like a petulant child. Or really look at it honestly: "God" created finite imperfect humans who were bound to screw up -- certainly "God" knew that in advance. But when finite imperfect humans predictably screw up, "God" punishes them, instead of taking responsibility for making their screwing up inevitable. Or step back and take a look at the big picture: "God" has an infinite universe to run -- but gives all his attention, eternally, to a speck of dust with a self-aggrandizing/deluding race of finite imperfect humans who go to war with each other in effort to prove that "God" is "love". Or look at reality and facts and evidence: it can't be proven there's a "God". Illiterate sheep herders "hearing voices" is not evidence.
1
@derrickburwell7777 So then we don't know that he even said it.
1
@derrickburwell7777 Then I guess we don't need "religion" DICTATING o us that the words they insist on putting in OTHERS faces, regardless whether they want it IN THEIR FACES, are the words of a "God" that can't be proven to exist, but is really handy for bullying and attempting to lord it over everyone else. Be honest: tell us how you don't see your ARROGANCE, whereas your "Christ" preached HUMILITY -- and instructed his followers to practice their "religion "IN PRIVATE". What do you NOT understand about the following? -- ___ From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776: "XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function. . . . . "XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment." ___ From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777: "Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession." "Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature." ___ From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777: XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State. ___ Either you abide by the SECULAR law, which is the SUPREME -- HIGHEST -- Law of the Land or you are not law-abiding.
1
Trump is married to an immigrant and hates immigrants.
1
The only document in Trump's "Bible" that is relevant is the US Constitution, which incorporates the First Amendment, which incorporates SEPARATION of "religion" and gov't -- SEPARATION of "religion" and the Constitution and laws.
1
@jonathanmcvay4499 You miss the point: 1. The US Constitution is, by its own explicit language, the SUPREME Law of the Land. There is no "law" higher than it. 2. The First amendment of the Constitution SEPARATES "religion" from gov't -- which is by definition RULE OF LAW.
1
@jonathanmcvay4499 "Blasphemy" is a judgment made by those who are instructed to avoid being judgmental. Copernicus, a theologian, following science based on evidence, determined that the sun didn't revolve around the earth but instead that the earth revolved around the sun. That was "blasphemy" and as result he was burned at the stake.
1
@jonathanmcvay4499 Obviously you aren't judging from a secular perspective -- even though the Constitution, with the First Amendment, establishes a secular society of secular law separate from the subjectivist claims of "religion". Gee, if "religion" could actually prove their claims, then there wouldn't be countless different "religions," each claiming, against all the others, to be the "One True Religion".
1
@jonathanmcvay4499 The Constitution separates "religion" and gov't. That is the Law of the Land. It is that simple and clear.
1
You mean which ONE of the countless "One True Religion"s?
1
And Hinduism has multiple "Gods".
1
Buddhism doesn't posit a "God" -- so their is no scapegoat onto which to slip one's individual responsibility. And Hinduism posits many "gods".
1
Quakers accept Jesus as a prophet, but do not believe he was divinely inspired. Muslimism is based on the same "Christian" "Bible," but they to deny that Christ, though a prophet, was divinely inspired. And US poetess Emily Dickinson, neither Christian nor Muslim, wrote, "I don't believe in bibles; I believe in the straight line to God". And the only relevant document in serial-adulterer Trump's "Bible" is the US Constitution, which is the SUPREME Law of the Land -- there is no "law" higher -- which incorporates the First Amendment, and which Amendment incorporates separation of "religion" and gov't. But in reality it can't be proven that there's a "God". Or many "Gods". Or no "God". The human conception of "God" or Gods" is actually beyond human comprehension; so that conception is only evidence that humans can make shit up that they can't understand and can't prove.
1
@dh8203 "God is "perfect". Perfection is beyond the comprehension of imperfect humans. "God" is "infinite". Infinity is beyond the comprehension of the finite.
1