Does pol believe in separation between church and state?

yes, but not freedom of religion

>>129417745
I don't think anyone wants the state bossing around the church. Well, no one with good intentions towards the church. But Islam should be a crime.

>>129417745
Yes, absolutely. I think that theocratic governments typically end up extremely backwards and prevent the society from making any progress, left or right (See middle-east).

However, I think it's very important that SOCIETY, as opposed to government should share one common faith, because otherwise, the society becomes hedonistic and degenerate (see modern Europe).

TL,DR Secular government, religious populace.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that religion has no place in politics. Only that religious institutions should not run society.

Not anymore, I believe in the SUBORDINATION of church to the state, not separation. Church must stand as ministry of the state, as a moral enforcer and a new layer of ideology to unite a people under one faith.

Look where we are now.

>>129418000
That's not exactly the point of separation of church and state. It's to stop the opposite from happening and having the church get involved in politics.

>>129419111
This

>>129419203
But what if the state corrupts the original message of the religion?

>>129417745
I don't believe in the state

>>129419223

Make the church subordinate, just like any ministry, problem solved.

>>129419354

Make a very clear declaration, as in the second amendment: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

No islam invasion, no liberal subversion and no general spread decadence.

Whats bad about those?

Why there is separation of church and state and not separation of marxism and state, or freemasonry and state?

It's antichristian bullshit.

>>129417745
yes

>>129419379
nothx lol.

>>129417745

Let the church BE the state. Secularism has only lead to degeneracy.
We let the unfaithful off their leash and they bit. Let's learn from this and keep them on it

>>129417745
That wall goes both ways.
Which means all government regulations regarding religion would be outlawed. This includes Lyndon Johnson's 501 (c) 3 bullshit.

>>129419527
That doesn't stop modern liberals from adultering the U.S. constitution, so why should it stop a politician from adultering the church.

>>129419777
>t. Mohammed

>>129419223
How so? They imposed limitations on the state. Not the church.

>>129418998
America's pretty degenerate despite the majority being Christian

>>129417745
Separation of Church and State means that belief cannot be compelled. That's what it actually means. Now consider how utterly dependent the current left is on compelling belief.

>>129420330
Agree, but that's because most Americans that identify as "Christians" aren't really Christians. These are the ones that lead hedonistic lifestyles, vote for muslim theocrats entering the country, and allow fags to sue bakeries for not making a cake for their "wedding."

>>129420234
Churches can't tell their congregation to vote for anyone, make political statements as a church, and; if I recall right; can't make political donations. If they do, they're no longer treated as a church by the IRS and have to pay taxes like a business. It's a two way thing with the law, hence the "wall" analogy.

>>129420234
The Swede understands. The model the Founders were working with was an aggressive government that tried to tell small sects what to do, to include torturing an imprisoning (was it Penn?) because he refused to pay money to the government to be licensed as a preacher.

>>129420733
This is true on paper but not in reality. All synagogues are explicitly political, without an issue, and leftist churches are tolerated. Tax-exempt status is not automatic. You must apply and be evaluated. As a result, churches that know they will be judged as right-wing do not apply for tax-exempt status in the first place.

>>129420963
>Right-wing churches don't apply for tax exemption

Where's your source on that one?

>>129421076
A right-wing priest named Matthew Johnson.

>>129420963
That's total hysterics.

No, it's a judeo-freemasonic principle and a lot of the founders of the US (majority not all) were freemasons which has its foundings in the Jewish kabbalah.

>>129421142
He's not a "priest" and he regularly spews political shit. I'd deny him tax status as a church, too.

>>129421189
Hysterics how? It's true at the very last in his case. Are you under the impression that right-leaning clergy probably saw nothing of that Lois Lerner business?

>>129421142
One priest doesn't dictate the M.O. of all priests. And if >>129421439
is anything to go by, he's not exempt from taxation.

>>129421439
>he's not a priest
He's actually an Orthodox priest, which is the priestiest kind.

>>129421597
>if my anonymous pal is anything to go by
Whoa, such erudite.
>he's not exempt from taxation
As he says. So you are in agreement.
By the way, what part of the Gospel was Jeremiah Wright elucidating in the God Damn Damn America sermon?

>>129417745
Yeah/No
I would abolish religion as alegal concept.
If people wish to get married that is a private right etc.
It is liberals that fucked this one up you know.

>>129421573
The lois lerner thing was about non-church groups, though. Last I checked, tea party whatever and 'patriot' groups =/= churches.

File: sdfwersdf.gif (995KB, 500x278px)

995KB, 500x278px

Yes.

Extortion should not be legal becasue you added a magic ring.

>>129421826
That would be the book of Marx 1:1

>>129421826
No, what I meant was that his church isn't tax exempt because of the political nature of his sermons. It has nothing to do with whether he is left or right-wing.

>>129421866
I am sympathetic to this especially seeing how it is totally scammed by many different parties. You could argue that a major factor in the propagation of cults in the US is the attraction of exploiting special legal status.

>>129421682
Eh, I'd just call him a "faggot," but to each their own.

>>129421953
Oh, okay, so I guess that means they have nothing to worry about.

File: 1490091819629.jpg (100KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 720x720px

>>129418000
dis.

>>129422103
If you want to say that then you cannot rely on what I have said, you have to get into the ... ah ... perspicacity with which Jews pay their taxes.

>>129422215
Yeah, not really. That is to say, if they follow the letter of the law with regard to their tax status.

>>129422348
I love that people like you think that you're well-educated.

>>129417745
Yes

>>129422577
I definitely like being well-informed.

>>129422301
I'm just somewhat skeptical of your arguments because of how much you generalize. All right-wing preachers refuse tax exemption, synagogues are openly political, etc.

>>129420733
The prime justification for separation of church and state is the people's freedom of religion, no?
I'm not denying it's a two way street, but it's heavily lopsided towards limiting the state's ability to impose on the church. For good reason too, the church is not really relevant as a belligerent here except through the state. I think it's disingenuous placing undue importance on that fringe scenario.
Now I'm not so good on american history, so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read it's overwhelmingly focused on protecting the church from the state.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Also I'm curious, when did those laws you're talking about solidify?

File: 1455023490029.png (213KB, 628x973px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 628x973px

>>129417745
No, cults should offer sacrifices to Caesar and respect his authority.

>>129417745
the state is the father
the church is the mother
if you separate them, you have bastard children

>>129423209
Here's the thing about that.

Up until that point, most (if not all) Americans adhered to some form of Christianity,

The issue was that certain sects of Christianity were still persecuted in Europe, ei. Protestants in Catholic areas.

Libs love to go on and on about how the founders didn't know automatic weapons were going to exist, therefore they shouldn't be allowed for civilian use, while the founders also probably envisioned America as a white, Christian nation.

As it should have been.

Yes. The state should not endorse or fund one religion. Ideally the state is limited enough that it wouldnt be able to do much even if it did.

But I certainly believe that culturally, religion should be valued by society, which invariable would influence decisions of the state.

>>129423209
Churches have been historically enormous belligerents in colluding with the state and as laws were being set up around churches after the revolution, it was much more of a relevant thing. It was way more lopsided with the church influencing the state at the time and allowing that is an imminent threat to democracy. In regards to the law itself, it was set up to keep the two apart -- the state won't involve itself in church matters and vice versa.

>>129417745
Answer me this: do you believe in separation between art and state? Culture and state? Ideology and state? Philosophy and state?

>>129417745
Yes, with all of my heart. A theocracy is one of the worst forms of government, hands down.
>Completely inflexible laws and morality; after all, the word of God is supposed to be absolute.
>By proxy, a tendency for less technological and scientific development.
>As evidenced in current times with the Catholic Church and Scientology, those in religious positions, such as priests, already have enough power and many can be easily corrupted. Do you really want them to be the voice of the government?
>Required tithes and taxes, both of which will go to the church.
>Historically speaking, could lead to a waste of resources for holy wars (not saying it happened often, just that it's possible. Too possible.)

At least that's my perspective on the whole issue.

>>129418000
>>129418998
these senpai

>>129417745
on one hand it removed christianity from the vicissitudes of politics
on the other hand the removal of state sanctioning of the church has caused it to lose much of its societal impact.

on the societal/cultural level its been a catastrophe.
on the truly religious level its purged the church of cultural christians and left only its true believers in its wake.
due to this i do support the separation. but woe be unto the world

>>129424541
iow, the church is so shit that it can't thrive without government subsidies?

>>129417745
fuck yes

>>129417745
As far as it know, it currently resulting in new alien church, or should i say mosque, taking over the states that separated its native one.

>>129417745
yea cause look at what happened to Christianity today

they are cucks of the highest order

captcha : poste voltaire

>>129417745

yes and so did jesus

Tax religion just like any other sales organization or business.

>>129419777
checked

>>129424034
None of those are institutions which hold such great amounts of power as it stands already. Ideology and philosophy are broad terms which can apply separately to many parts of society, including church and state.
To answer your questions in order; Indifferent, No, somewhat and somewhat.

>>129424541
Like I said in an early post, most modern Christians are exceptionally limp-wristed and tolerant of extremely liberal, hedonistic, and ultimately anti-Chrisitian ideas. However, I don't think outright state mandate is the solution to the issue of Christendom's decline.

>>129424749
Agreed. Christianity can only really be in it's best and truest form if the people come to it of their own volition, rather than by having their arm twisted by the state.

>>129423894
I would really like an answer to
>The prime justification for separation of church and state is the people's freedom of religion, no?

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Forcing the cessation of religious infighting using the state as a proxy is protecting the church. It's a moratorium on using the state as a weapon against other churches.
>>129423649
As it was, farm equipment notwithstanding.
Did the jews have a significant presence in the USA back then?

>>129424889
What about economy and state?

>>129424997
As far as I'm aware, there weren't many Jews back then, and they certainly didn't have the hold on society that they do now.

>>129425042
You can't really separate the economy from the state; half of politics is about economic theories and implementation.
The market on the other hand is something that should mostly remain separated, yet with a few key restrictions on child labor and health just to prevent shit from going too far.

>>129424641
certainly the church can become shit. though we are not catholic in nature and the protestant church is highly decentralized so you will have conservative and liberal churches.
this is when God prunes his church, which is obvious what is happening today. so sexual freedom is so important today, so he has given the perfect ultimatum, accept the sexual deviency of the world or become the object of worldly scorn and hatred for the sake of Christ.
the wheat is being separated from the chaff

>>129417745
gov't should be separated from all other institutions. Everything gov't touches it eventually corrupts.

>>129425289
And there you have it, you've pretty much shown why Western society isn't a society anymore, and why every element of it is interchangeable with an element of any other society, as long as the "economy" functions.

>>129425394
God has been telling us that the fertility cult joke is over for at least 20 years now if not longer.

>>129424997
>The prime justification for separation of church and state is the people's freedom of religion, no?
Of and *from* religion. Religion/churches have no direct connection to the state; at least not anymore. The catholic church can not make any demands on the state or heads of state to do anything like they used to, for example. It's also true that the state's laws are the only ones that are enforceable by the state, unlike centuries past where the state would sanction and even assist in the persecution of individuals even though it went against the laws of the state (murder is a good start). Once again, the separation of church and state wasn't done for the sake of protecting churches per se, it was to block any direct church influence from infecting the government and the same was granted in return.

I'm surprised that people back then used words such as 'erect'. Kinda crass, isn't it?

>>129424938
i wouldnt say they are limp-wristed, they simply do not exert their influence through force, which is the predominant philosophy of the day. and there is no "the church" is protestant societies, there are churches, which can lean conservative or liberal. and you can be sure the seculars are drooling all over liberal churches and shunning conservative ones which a big reason why the liberal churches thrive.

>>129417745
yes
I think that and apparently /pol/ is one person, so yes it does.

>>129425547
I'm sorry, but I think I missed something; what were you trying to prove and how did you just prove it? Is it because their is no culture in modern American politics, and that the most important questions are where to assign our resources? Because that's a bold faced lie.
First off we do have cultural beliefs affecting politics, it's seen when people are trying to create legislation based on what they and their parents and their parent's parents fought and believed in. In short, what made their society great. It's also seen when politicians, believing some of the ways of old are becoming far to great of a hindrance, decide to abandon some traditions and culture to better society as a whole.
Secondly, if you posted the original question as a response to my response, then you missed the entire point of the separation of church and state. It isn't about separating the culture from the government, but rather about keeping two already corrupt institutions of power from merging. Such a creation would have such influence over us that the end result would look like something out of 1984.

>>129425289
Good call on politics being improperly separated from economy.
But, you're assuming that the ownership class should be driving policy, as if their assets and the control provided by them were worth more than human life itself. I can't agree with that.
>>129425712
>The catholic church can not make any demands on the state or heads of state to do anything like they used to
No, but the US Conference of Catholic Bishops can whine like little tax-free bitches and get their way with regards to creating customers for their church indirectly via abortion restrictions etc.

>>129426253
>But, you're assuming that the ownership class should be driving policy
I am? Huh, well then put in a few extra laws to allow humane working conditions (or just allow unions and let the negotiations do the work for politicians.)
That is what you were complaining about, right?

>>129425712
>Of and *from* religion'
That's a superfluous addition. If you don't have from, you don't have of. It's a necessary criterion.
>Religion/churches have no direct connection to the state; at least not anymore
Yes, and that was clearly the goal. I was asking if I had the right idea about why.
>the separation of church and state wasn't done for the sake of protecting churches per se
Hence me asking, thrice now, if the justification was to secure the people's freedom of religion.
> it was to block any direct church influence from infecting the government and the same was granted in return.
You should try to write a little more tastefully. I can't make out anything from that sentence more than emotion. You're making it sound like the state made a deal with the devil, and the protection of the church from the state was just a grudging concession.

>>129417745
>pol
You need to go back.

>>129426557
They inevitably would be driving policy, without some sort of strict wall on the order of the one between church and state. I'm for bringing unions back into the mix, but the Taft-Hartley model has only been a miserable failure, with corruption or collapse the only two allowable fates.

>>129425712
Papists can fuck off. Kennedy was the only papist to get elected and look at what happened. The Catholic Church murdered the poor man because he wouldn't kowtow to their whims exactly because we have a separation of church and state. Truth be told, it was either the catholic church or the fed that had him killed, but blaming catholics is fun.

>>129419203
That's what the church of England is when King Henry the eighth tried to divorce his wife, but the pope said no at the time.

>>129417745
all these "men of god" in the church are weirdos that should not be able to interfere with real world problems

>>129417745
>Does pol believe in separation between church and state?
No
Screw the Danbury Baptists

>>129426635
>That's a superfluous addition.
It isn't. It's incredibly important because it sets a tone where 'muh gawd' isn't a good enough reason to make a law on something. Formerly, it wasn't.

> I can't make out anything from that sentence more than emotion
Or maybe English isn't your native language and my explanations are flying way above you?

>the protection of the church from the state was just a grudging concession.
Not exactly but that's actually not an inaccurate way of looking at it. Realistically, it was about the liberty to practice religion without the state getting involved (within reason) by legislating against it and more importantly, blocking them from influencing the political process because it's inherently anti-liberty. The point that the nation's founders focused on was the latter and the state not getting involved in church business (within reason) was them not caring what the church did. They perceived no threat of the state acting negatively toward the church, only the opposite was a concern because that was the long-documented historical modus operandi.

>>129417745
yes, especially separation from the marxist religion

>>129427263
the gospel is foolishness to those that are perishing

File: racistcomputers.jpg (22KB, 450x200px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 450x200px

>>129417745
YEP
THE VATICAN
ITS WHY WE LEFT EUROPE TO COME TO AMERICA

>>129419993
Actually, it has stopped them, at least for now. Free speech means they can argue about it all they want, but at the end of the day we still have our guns.

File: fuck.jpg (29KB, 740x410px)

29KB, 740x410px

>>129427725
>sets a tone
Like I said, superfluous.
>Or maybe English isn't your native language and my explanations are flying way above you?
Smugness is not an argument. You're not arguing. You're just spewing vitriol at the church.
>Not exactly but that's actually not an inaccurate way of looking at it.
I shouldn't be surprised. "Infected", was it?
>They perceived no threat of the state acting negatively toward the church, only the opposite was a concern
Is that why Jefferson paraphrased Roger Williams's
>[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.
Wow, they sure hated the church! And Madison was even worse:
>Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body
Or Jefferson again on polygamy
>Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.
>Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion
You're patently wrong. Not only did they consider it, they focused on it. Hell, just look at the first.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
That's a limitation on the state, not the church. Whatever "tone" you think you find hardly trumps the first amendment.

>>129429808
>subversive of good order
>opinion
Um

>>129431038
>deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion
DEPRIVED OF ALL
That's not an ambiguous statement and that doesn't constitute an exception. It's a separate clause, about actions and not thought.

>>129431397
Good order is a matter of opinion, as has been perennially the case since those words were uttered.

>>129419203
>implying the church has ever provided this

>>129431660
Yes. So?
They're separate clauses. No legislative power over opinion. Power over actions that are subversive of good order. Action, not thought. As I said.

>>129429808
You're going into hysterics. Yeah, no, sorry, you don't have to hate something to legislate against it.

>You're patently wrong
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
>That's a limitation on the state, not the church
Lolwat? Quite literally, no religion may achieve a favorable status with the state in any way or any practitioner of that religion which flew in the face of European convention at the time. Furthermore, what "god" or any denomination of church wants becomes totally irrelevant in any legislative process. And on top of that, no practice of the church that conflicts with state law, by precedent, will supersede state law: The sate's laws will always reign supreme unless you're given special permission. Yeah, quite the limitation on the state; it totally doesn't reign in the power of the church.

>>129432213
You said they never considered it. It was the focus. You were wrong. If you can't own up to that, even anonymously, I'm done with you.

>>129432504
>You said they never considered it
No, I alluded to the fact that they realized it but that wasn't the point.

>It was the focus.
It was an afterthought.

>You were wrong
I have shown time and time again they wanted to keep the *church* out of politics. Period, end of story, that is the point. The state reigns supreme over the church in all matters and no church will be given a platform or special recognition by the state.

>>129417745
Yes 100% and I am Christian if that matters for your question

File: liberty-form-of-goddess-youth-engraving.jpg (914KB, 1200x1827px) Image search: [Google]

914KB, 1200x1827px

>>129417745
No. Jefferson was called a heathen by his own protestant contemporaries during his day.
Besides, the separation is a fiction.
The State is wed to religion, whether it likes it or not. What secularism did was erect itself as a religion in Western Civilization's stead.

File: glubb.png (46KB, 273x693px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 273x693px

Secularism is a masonic doctrine that leads to social decay.

Only a theocracy can save us.

>>129417745
Yes, but not separation of mosque and state. Gas the thots, white sharia now.

>>129417745
>you can be obtuse (((secularists))) who can look at issues without importing your own judgement into the matter

Without knowing the context of the concept you will never appreciate what it stood against.

Separation of the Church and State does not mean the butchering of social norms and customs. It is a principle of protecting the State from the control of a foreign religious head of State ie the Vatican.The political power of the Vatican, however has been largely broken, therefore it is by and large redundant. It would be hypocritical of (((secularists))) to on the one hand suppress Christianity based on Separation of Church and State but turn around and promote Islam on the basis of (((equality))).

TLDR Separation of Church and State needs to be strictly enforced, you can't have it both ways.

>>129426253
>Waah! Religious people have opinions.

get used to it, faggot.

>>129418998
>I think that theocratic governments typically end up extremely backwards and prevent the society from making any progress

Golden Age Spain and the Byzantien Empire would beg to differ. Secularism is usually the cause of rot.

>>129436177
Check'd. Thots on suicide watch

>>129417745

No. The state needs to follow the teaching of the church

>>129419203

>Gallicanism

>>129419203
Literal communist, you monkey faggot.

>>129436119
This.


>>129435584

File: 1490630185922.jpg (13KB, 484x403px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 484x403px

>>129436401
>Having a desert religion rule your country

File: 1329144805479.jpg (87KB, 450x525px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 450x525px

>>129436543
>letting Commies rule your country

>>129436543
>desert religion

Did more good for the west than the snownigger religions ever did.

>>129436543

Christianity originated in Greece. Are there deserts in Greece?

>>129436543
>Being Western
>Not knowing that Western Civilization was built upon 1000+ years of Catholic monarchy
>One cannot talk of Western Civilization without Christendom
>And one cannot talk of Roman and Greek philosophy without recognizing that Christendom preserved it

>>129417745
yeah i think our 1A is pretty dank

glad i dont have to get taxed to give welfare to dumb nuns

>>129436665
Did it though?

I'm sure Islam will do a lot of good for Europe too.

>>129436543
>a desert can put those marks n the sphinx
pretty b;uepilled m8

>>129436767
t. muhommed.

>>129436867
Same Jewish religion

>>129436904
Old Testament israelites =/= modern jews. They aren't even the same ethnic group. Christianity also allowed for more sophisticated philosophy than Islam did.

Most people are too brainlet to realize that if you get rid of the church, you allow the gov to consolidate power with their new chuch - the public school.

The average person NEEDS a church of some kind. It doesn't always have to be a spiritual kind, just a place where a source preaches virtue, philosophy, and general lessons, all dumbed down for massive education.

File: 1496766276127.jpg (98KB, 735x735px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 735x735px

I used to, but not anymore. Make America Christian Again. Not Jewish, not Muslim. Christian.

>>129436744
>trying to ascribe Roman and Greek achievements to Christianity for merely having preserved it
get the fuck out

>>129437530
Without Christendom you wouldn't even know about them, Swede.
Learn some history.

>>129417805
that is fucking stupid and you know it.

He meant you need a wall so you could tell the difference between the 2.

>>129429707
They've been quite effective in getting rid of the best guns, though.

>>129436386
Europe was at its lowest when the Vatican controlled it. Innovation was stalled because it threatened the balance of power between the church, the kings, and everyone else. Absolute secularism does lead to societal rot, but realizing the potential of the sciences is how progress is made.

>>129437628
So?
Their achievements have nothing to do with Christianity.

>>129437962
>Innovation was stalled because it threatened the balance of power between the church, the kings, and everyone else.

Hoo boy.

http://jameshannam.com/medievalscience.htm

>>129437530
>>trying to ascribe Roman and Greek achievements


It was medieval scholastics who managed to turn greek philosophy into something workable.

>>129437962
>the Vatican did not fund the sciences
>the survival of an independent effective Europe was possible without Christian intervention creating common cause where there would be none otherwise to resist the rise of Islam
>that Christianity did not establish a platform of stability for innovation to occur

These stereotypical memes need to stop.

Leftists worship their version of democracy like it was a literal religion.

>>129437530

While Christianity was continuing the sophisticated philosophical tradition of the Greeks, your ancestors were chasing pigs in the mud

File: 1467488191403.jpg (112KB, 599x477px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 599x477px

>>129417745
The intention behind such a political structure is obvious however man will always worship something and in the secular society he will find himself eventually without any religion to worship and all that is left to worship is the state. This is why the soviets rid their society of religion, you can give up servitude of a believed higher being and substitute it for servitude of another man.

>>129438025
I understand that English may not be your first language, but how about you read and comprehend what I said before getting triggered like your protestant iconoclasts were over religious icons and statues.
I never said that their achievements had anything to do with Christianity. I said Christendom preserved Greek and Roman philosophy--and actually improved the Roman university, created the scientific method from Greek philosophical observations, and completed the incomplete Greek concept of objective truth.

>>129438301
>one cannot talk of Roman and Greek philosophy without recognizing that Christendom preserved it
You don't mention the library you got a book from, or the publisher when you talk about an author or his works. Preserving some of their works is not worth mentioning compared to creating them. The only reason you'd make such a ridiculous fucking statement is to try and lay some claim to it. Which is what you were doing. It's absolutely fucking moronic, and Christianity is rich enough without you tainting it with your bullshit.

>>129438829

We've unfortunately lost many ancient texts, like Cicero's Hortensius, and it's absolutely critical to preserve things like this so they aren't lost.

Yes, tax the churches and separate them from state.
>>129418998
I live in a place when 99,8% identifies as Roman Catholic.
It's a fucking meme.
Everybody drinks themselves to death, women are fucking whores and golddiggers. Nobody sticks to it.
They only use Bible to hate on gays and atheists.
Religious populace doesn't mean shit.

>>129438829
Have you not heard of the Benedictines?
This is common knowledge. After the collapse of the Western Roman empire, Benedict established monasteries which quickly spread across Europe, serving as places of teaching agriculture, trade, and creating local economies.

I thought Euros were supposed to have superior education to burgers.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=monasticism+and+preserving+western+civilization

>>129439171
Much better. Maybe you should stick to things Christians actually did instead of trying to lay claim to what they preserved or duplicated like some thirsty fucking arab hungry for any little speck of relevancy.

>>129440167
>instead of trying to lay claim to what they preserved
>preserved
This is precisely what I said they did--and they did. Speaking of relevancy, how about some comprehension.
Not only was there preservation of the ancient philosophies, but improvement on them as well.

>>129437694
No it isn't Abraham, all Jewish religions should be banned from the US(including christcucktianity)

>>129437628
>Christcucks we're the only ones to preserve Roman and Greek history
>Romans and Greeks never wrote down anything at all and everything they did was documented by christcucks despite the fact they didn't even exist until the end of the Roman empire in the early 500's

>>129419587
Because Europeans kept on killing each other over confessional differences. After things like the Thirty Year's War and St. Bartholomew's Day people in Europe became very wary of involving religion in politics. Also, the centralized governments, monarchies or otherwise, didn't want religious authorities to have power over them.

>>129437181
>Make America the very thing that allowed shitskins in here in the first place
>Make America become the very thing that destroyed Europe and turned the dicks I to pussies so that they would gladly accept foreigners to their shores and homes
Eat a dick larper

>>129441066

America has always been Masonic, not Christian

>>129417745
BUILD WALL

>>129419777
Is degeneracy even a real issue? Sheeple aren't going to work their shitty wage jobs for a corporatist police state if they can't get their highs and quick fixes. McReligion Easy OnlineTM might be a nice solution as long as it has nice graphics and flashy colors.

File: denominations_as_branches.jpg (63KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 600x450px

>>129417745
I absolutely believe in the separation of Church and State. America is uniquely unqualified to have a state religion. We have to many denominations. Which one would be in charge?When fundamentalists say Hinduism is to complex and has too many gods, they're really just projecting themselves.

>>129427097
The Italian Mafia, one arm of the Jesuits, did the deed.

>>129440445
>one cannot talk of Roman and Greek philosophy without recognizing
Yeah, no, fuck off with your WE WUZ crap.