The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades. How that statistic explains who we are now—and what, as a nation, in USA they have choose to be realist not idealist. Fairy tales of Bible will soon be over, And we shall celebrate the fall of christianity. The religion of lies and confusion. We choose Democracy, freedom over Crazy ass Christian religion. No wonder America is the best place to visit in the world.
Check this for ur own use ''http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583?GT1=43002''

You may ask, does politics have to do with Christianity? If you closely examine its history and heroes, you will find facts saying that this fabricated religion is nothing but politics. It has been the vehicle that enables the evil one (Azazl) to pursue and reach his political aims. The proof is that everywhere the doctrine of Christianity has been propagated, its recipients became the subjects of that nation which sponsored the teachers. From that point onward, every facet of their lives was governed by and according to the whims of that nation.

christ4mi:


The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades. How that statistic explains who we are now—and what, as a nation, in USA they have choose to be realist not idealist. Fairy tales of Bible will soon be over, And we shall celebrate the fall of christianity. The religion of lies and confusion. We choose Democracy, freedom over Crazy ass Christian religion. No wonder America is the best place to visit in the world.
Check this for ur own use ''http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583?GT1=43002''

what an obtuse way of thinking. America's foundation is steeped in christianity . . . it is absurd to praise the roof of a house and claim you have no need for a foundation.
Why are you "celebrating" the fall of christianity? How has christianity been a problem to you in American society? Do you actually believe that christianity is the very antithesis of democracy and freedom? Do you air head know that the christian founding fathers where the ones who bequeathed you with the democracy and freedom you now stupidly claim you chose?
Why is there no "democracy and freedom" in predominantly muslim states, communists like China and North Korea? Surely there is no christianity there so they shld all be "free" right?

Is America the best place to visit because it is now kicking out christianity? Is China then a good place to visit since christianity is pretty much under the cosh?

You dont seem to be able to utilise the space between your ears very well.

@Davidylan,

Christian America but yet they supported Slavery, Racial divisions etc. Abeg they should go sit their ass down somewhere.

The fact is that Christainity has been hijacked by politicians ever since constantinople, the roman emperor made it a state Religion.The spread of christianity despite heavy persecution during that time was a means by the emperor to unite his kingdom.TRUE CHRISTAINITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS- that is why Jesus never entered political debates during his time, hw always emphasized on the heart and soul of a man.That was also why the jews never accepted him as messiah or recognized him.
Over the course of history, christianity has been used as a vehicle for some o the most narcissitic agenda's in History, because any religion require's intellkectual surrender to achiee political aims and is a means of personal or group identity
- The catholic church used it as a means of achieving power and land.
-Used to justify slave trade.
-Even used for Nazi propagand.
-Used by the Neoconvicts in america for impearlistic purposes.
- used by Nigerian politicians and pastors to loot and decieve the masses.
But True Christianity has also brought out the best in Men.
Democracy today has christian underpinnings, Great men like Martin Luther King used it to advance great causes.and a lot of good christians over the world are doing great things with christianty.
To all the Atheists True Christainity devoid of politics is what jesus christ emphasied on and is still being practiced by many today.Imagine what the world would be if there is no religion today.Christainty fills a void in amns soul that society cannot fix.

davidylan:

what an obtuse way of thinking. America's foundation is steeped in christianity . . . it is absurd to praise the roof of a house and claim you have no need for a foundation.
Why are you "celebrating" the fall of christianity? How has christianity been a problem to you in American society? Do you actually believe that christianity is the very antithesis of democracy and freedom? Do you air head know that the christian founding fathers where the ones who bequeathed you with the democracy and freedom you now stupidly claim you chose?
Why is there no "democracy and freedom" in predominantly muslim states, communists like China and North Korea? Surely there is no christianity there so they shld all be "free" right?

Is America the best place to visit because it is now kicking out christianity? Is China then a good place to visit since christianity is pretty much under the cosh?

You dont seem to be able to utilise the space between your ears very well.

u said everytin. . , , . .

[b]
Dan 2:31-46
31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.
32 This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.
37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.
46 Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him.
(KJV)
[/b]


Christianity is the devil's worst nightmare.
To all human dreamers; time is running out
the day Christians leave America, that Kingdom falls
and the Kingdom of the Messiah takes over (completely)
Kingdom is a government word,and humans hardly practice governance without politics
so it may not be possible to remove politics from Christianity
But when Christ comes, government will be perfect
but we have to be ready

i always wonder at the speed with which davidylan tries to yoke his religion and democracy, which is far older than his religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOCRACY

Democracy is a form of government in which power is held indirectly by citizens in a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía (information)), "popular government",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos), "people" and κράτος (krátos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2]

Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece.[16][17] However other cultures have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient India[18], Ancient Rome[16], Europe[16], and North and South America.[19] Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe.[20] Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), but still remains a controversial issue with regard to disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.

and in the beginning, the us was not even truly democratic in the first place. . .or would you prefer to ascribe the following to Christian values

18th and 19th centuries


Although[b] not described as a democracy by the founding fathers[/b], the United States founders shared a determination to root the American experiment in the principle of natural freedom and equality for white male landowners.[35] The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. In the colonial period before 1776, and for some time after, only adult white male property owners could vote; enslaved Africans, free black people and women were not extended the franchise. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality.[36] Democracy only became a way of life for men. Women still were not permitted to vote by the constitution of the United States of America. Likewise, the frontier did not produce much democracy in Canada, Australia or Russia. By the 1840s almost all property restrictions were ended and nearly all white adult male citizens could vote; and turnout averaged 60-80% in frequent elections for local, state and national officials. The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy to Jacksonian Democracy and beyond. In Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens with (in the case of men) a nominal right to vote.

i keep telling you, the system of government that is truly linked to your religion is monarchy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Right_of_Kings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_and_state_in_medieval_Europe

anyway, if tomorrow, the world reverts to a single empire as the preferred/popular form of government, you people will find a way to piggyback onto it, and it will be ascribed to judeo Christian tradition, not so?


its so odd that the same people who trumpet democracy and Christian values get upset when minorities that are anathema to Christianity (gays etal) start pushing for their rights under a democratic dispensation.

Belief is ignorance. Belief is to ignore the facts, intentionally or ignorantly. If one has to believe, it means he or she does not know, and if one does not know, that is ignorance. Hence, belief is ignorance and religious beliefs without the facts is ignorance;So demand that anyone attempting to impose upon you their religious beliefs to produce the facts. If you look in the midle of the words be[b]lie[/b]ve and be[b]lie[/b]f you will see the word lie. The most deceptive word in religion is the word "believe" or "belief", Because a person can believe anything and this means that a person can believe,and be one hundrend percent wrong.But knowledge is knowing and knowledge is correct information."To know" gives one confidence, but belief infers doubt. Knowledge can be checked out by one or more of three test: Experience, Evidence and Reason. Knowledge is always logical and it reasons out.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. The condition of having free and fair competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of political freedom, is clearly the basic requirement of all definitions.

oddly enough america placed 17th. . .

The organisation looked at a wide range of democratic variables before dividing the 167 countries surveyed into four categories: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes.

"Sweden, a near-perfect democracy, comes top, followed by a bevy of similarly virtuous northern European countries," the EIU reports.

The other wholly democratic northern Europeans are Iceland, Netherlands, Norway and Denmark.

When 60 indicators were graded from 1 to 10, Sweden achieved a dazzling score of 9.88. The indicators were spread across five broad areas: electoral process, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties.

"More surprising are the relatively modest scores for two traditional bastions of democracy—Britain (23) and the United States.

"In America there has been a perceptible erosion of civil liberties related to the fight against terrorism. Long-standing problems in the functioning of government have also become more prominent.

note that this occured under the watch of a 'born again' Christian.

"In Britain, too, there has been some erosion of civil liberties but also a shocking decline in political participation," according to the report.

Italy (34), however, a country recently depicted by The Economist as ‘the sick man of Europe’, is considered a flawed democracy.

maybe since they are catholics, and thus in davidylan's book not true Christians

sweden , Iceland(of the lesbian PM) , Norway etal must also be built on 'strong Christian principles', not so?

oyb:

sweden , Iceland(of the lesbian PM) , Norway etal must also be built on 'strong Christian principles', not so?

Why did you skip out Netherlands? Can you see how you failed in your arguments as well? At least I have lived in the Netherlands. Obviously, you know the truth, but you are so pigheaded to accept it.

oyb:

its so odd that the same people who trumpet democracy and Christian values get upset when minorities that are anathema to Christianity (gays etal) start pushing for their rights under a democratic dispensation.

Would the same be said of Islam? Christian values allow for democracy. That is a well established fact. Would your sharia law place room for democracy or for people to start pushing for their rights?? It is rather odd when those who are antipodean to Christianity start opening their gob and ranting out discussions beyond them when the Islamic tenets has never made provisions to substantiate and validate their arguments.

Why did you skip out Netherlands?  Can you see how you failed in your arguments as well? At least I have lived in the Netherlands. Obviously, you know the truth, but you are so pigheaded to accept it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands

enjoy 

The Netherlands is a densely populated country. It is known for its traditional windmills, tulips, cheese, clogs (wooden shoes), delftware and gouda pottery, for its bicycles, and in addition, traditional values and civil virtues such as its social tolerance. The country has more recently become known for its rather liberal policies toward drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, and euthanasia. It also has one of the most free market capitalist economies in the world, ranking 12th of 157 countries on one index.[5]

i wonder how u, who openly advocated stoning those bloody gays to death could cope over there.  ;Dcould that be why you relocated to the UK?  .

do christian values accomodate the highlighted?

Would the same be said of Islam? Christian values allow for democracy.

christian values don't exactly allow for democracy? Europe won't be as "liberal" as it is today if it stayed under the grip of the catholic and orthodox churches. The Greeks weren't christian. It's funny Christians seem to be forget what led Europe into the dark ages before not exactly christian guys like david hume and john locked saved it with reason.

bawomolo:

christian values don't exactly allow for democracy? Europe won't be as "liberal" as it is today if it stayed under the grip of the catholic and orthodox churches. The Greeks weren't christian. It's funny Christians seem to be forget what led Europe into the dark ages before not exactly christian guys like david hume and john locked saved it with reason.

The first statement in bold is based on what? The last one? I happen to be a Christian whose values actually PROMOTE democracy. So how can it then be said that Christian values DO NOT promote Democracy?

We all know for a fact that it seems part of human nature to want to impose one’s will on others. Basically, human nature to be in wield power in one form or another, over the next man, and since most all Christians happen to be HUMAN BEINGS after all, does that then mean all human attributes exhibited by Christian humans have more to do with Christianity itself ?

The statement in bold is based on what? I happen to be a Christian whose values actually PROMOTE democracy. So How can it then be said that Christian values DO NOT promote Democracy?

Are you speaking for yourself or are you speaking of christianity in general?

Kobojunkie:

The statement in bold is based on what? I happen to be a Christian whose values actually PROMOTE democracy. So How can it then be said that Christian values DO NOT promote Democracy?

You as a person isn't an adequate enough sample size.  Christianity in Europe achieved it's political peak when Europe was ran by monarchies and fiefdom's.    The theocracies of Europe weren't democratic, they typically opposed labor rights and land ownership for peasants.  The catholic church at some point owned 30 % of the land in Poland (a long time ago of course).  Monarchies were seen as having divine rights while the Pope or the bishops of the orthodox church were the boss of the Monarchs.  

Europe didn't evolve into what it is today until the enlightenment era.  Did the christian church propose the magna carta?  The concept of democracy is old and advanced without Christianity.  The igbo's had a form of democracy and sure weren't christian.

asha 80:

Are you speaking for yourself or are you speaking of christianity in general?

Well, before you can speak of Christianity in general, you have to at least be willing to show where Christianity itself states that democracy is not a part of our values.  If a group of Christians choose to impose their will on others, while another group chooses to push for democratic values, can we conclude than that all of Christianity pushes to impose its will on others?

bawomolo:

You as a person isn't an adequate enough sample size.  Christianity in Europe achieved it's political peak when Europe was ran by monarchies and fiefdom's.    The theocracies of Europe weren't democratic, they typically opposed labor rights and land ownership for peasants.  The catholic church at some point owned 30 % of the land in Poland (a long time ago of course).  Monarchies were seen as having divine rights while the Pope or the bishops of the orthodox church were the boss of the Monarchs.   

Europe didn't evolve into what it is today until the enlightenment era.  Did the christian church propose the magna carta?  The concept of democracy is old and advanced without Christianity.  The igbo's had a form of democracy and sure weren't christian. 

That still does not prove your statement to be factual. It just shows that you seem to be willing to judge ALL of Christianity by the ills of a group which you have chosen to focus on, never mind that at other times in history, other groups of Christians have shown themselves to be more in favor of democracy claiming it to be part of their values rather than imposing their will on the masses.
Even during the inquisition, there was a large group of Christians, maybe not as organized who fought to have the ills invoked on the people by those who claim to be Christians stopped. They fought against the organized church and thousands of these Christians were slaughtered, was there sample size not large enough?

What I detest the most is how people make it seem as if some NEUTRAL powers came in to save the day, when in fact it was Christians who ushered in the age of enlightenment and other Christians who died fighting for the end of all the death and ills in the name of religion.

ok

Kobojunkie:

That still does not prove your statement to be factual. It just shows that you seem to be willing to judge ALL of Christianity by the ills of a group which you have chosen to focus on, never mind that at other times in history, other groups of Christians have shown themselves to be more in favor of democracy claiming it to be part of their values rather than imposing their will on the masses.

Even during the inquisition, there was a large group of Christians, maybe not as organized who fought to have the ills invoked on the people by those who claim to be Christians stopped. They fought against the organized church and thousands of these Christians were slaughtered, was there sample size not large enough?

I'm not arguing about Christians who were in favor of democracy, all i'm saying is that the Christian leadership (especially the Catholic church) didn't embrace democracy nor was it responsible for the advancement of it. Ideas such as freedom of expression and freedom of religion that we experience in democracies today were typically challenged by the Christian establishment of the time. Even Martin Luther supported the discrimination of the Jews. The church had no problem with the colonization or enslavement of Africans as long as attempts were made to baptize them. This isn't to say all Christians are against freedom of the individual.

There is little evidence that shows Democracy thrived based on the Christian doctrine. We would just agree to disagree but Christianity can't lay claim to democracy

religion and democracy are mutually or at best 80% exclusive

a lot of the freedoms a true democratic society allows are anathema to both Islam and Christianity

people like to trumpet about freedom, but what they really mean is freedom to do things they don't find offensive

we all witnessed the hulabaloo on the homosexuals thread, did we not. would allowing homosexuals full expression etal go in line with Islamic or Christian values?  

the same can be said about prostitution. from a purely democratic perspective, there is nothing wrong with prostitution as long as it is regulated by the governement (to control STDs, etal) . would any christain be comfortable living in a nation in which prostitution was legal. christians have fought against pornography. if i remeber correctly kobojunkie was extremely bothered by BBA. it was in a long ago thread. . .she was almost calling for its censorship/proscription, and some other folks were pointing out that that can't be done in a democratic dispensation

when in fact it was Christians who ushered in the age of enlightenment

John Locke , David Hume , Thomas Huxley and the likes were predominantly not christian.  They were free-thinkers.  The works from Greek and Iberian (muslim) civilizations were ignored or destroyed by christians during the dark ages.

You seem to have a bias here.

OYB - you have been dropping knowledge lately. i respect your objectivity.

OYB - you have been dropping knowledge lately. i respect your objectivity.

who me?

bawomolo:

John Locke , David Hume , Thomas Huxley and the likes were predominantly not christian.  They were free-thinkers.  The works from Greek and Iberian (muslim) civilizations were ignored or destroyed by christians during the dark ages.
You seem to have a bias here.

WOW!! We reduce all the works done during the age of enlightment to just a small group who are not put down as Christians?  So Christians cannot be free thinkers?? Come on dude!!! This has nothing to do with bias but more to do with you trying real hard to somehow push your claim that religion is against democracy!!
Anywho, if you want to believe that, that is fine by me!!

oyb:

who me?  

yeye man, you no sey your head dey swell  

Kobojunkie:

WOW!! We reduce all the works done during the age of enlightment to just a small group who are not put down as Christians?  So Christians cannot be free thinkers?? Come on dude!!! This has nothing to do with bias but more to do with you trying real hard to somehow push your claim that religion is against democracy!!
Anywho, if you want to believe that, that is fine by me!!

many of the leaders of the Enlightenment era were not Christians.  David hume was a deist, the list goes on.  Although he was a bishop, the church made a great opposition to the works of Charles Darwins.  The principles of freedom of the individual and freedom of thought till this day is opposed by the Christian Establishment.  In the US, Northern states like Vermont and Massachusetts are theoretically more democratic than their more christian counterparts in the good ole Bible Belt.

We are talking about Christianity and not religions in general.

oyb:

we all witnessed the hulabaloo on the homosexuals thread, did we not. would allowing homosexuals full expression etal go in line with Islamic or Christian values?  

But, nothing about democracy DEMANDS that Christians/muslims not be able to vote what they believe in a democracy?   Isn’t the whole point of a DEMOCRACY that the people be allowed to vote their view on issues, regardless of the views of another party or person?

oyb:

the same can be said about prostitution. from a purely democratic perspective, there is nothing wrong with prostitution as long as it is regulated by the governement (to control STDs, etal) .

Prostitution has NOTHING to do with DEMOCRACY!! I am not sure what in the world you are getting at but I think you are mixing seriously different concepts up here in your bid to make some vague point.

oyb:

would any christain be comfortable living in a nation in which prostitution was legal. christians have fought against pornography.

Isn’t it the essence of democracy to have the people elect those who they, the people, CHRISTIANS OR MUSLIMS OR NON, choose to represent their views/values?

oyb:

if i remeber correctly kobojunkie was extremely bothered by BBA. it was in a long ago thread. . .she was almost calling for its censorship/proscription, and some other folks were pointing out that that can't be done in a democratic dispensation

I am sorry @Oyb, what does BBA mean? OFCOURSE I will be freaken bothered by some stuff and not others. What the frell are you going on about now? I am not allowed to vote my view in a DEMOCRACY?



democracy definition
de•moc•racy (di mäk′rə sē)
noun pl. democracies -•cies
1. government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives; rule by the ruled

2. a country, state, etc. with such government

3. majority rule

4. the principle of equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment, or the practice of this principle

5. the common people, esp. as the wielders of political power

going by this, freethinking and Christianity are well mutually exclusive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_thinking

Modern movements

The year 1600 is hailed by many as the beginning of the era of modern freethought, as it is marked by the execution in Italy of Giordano Bruno by the Holy Inquisition.

[edit]
England and France

The term Free-Thinker emerged toward the end of the 17th century in England to describe those who stood in opposition to the institution of the Church, and of literal belief in the Bible. The beliefs of these individuals were centered on the concept that people could understand the world through consideration of nature. Such positions were formally documented for the first time in 1697 by William Molyneux in a widely publicized letter to John Locke, and more extensively in 1713, when Anthony Collins wrote his Discourse of Free-Thinking, which gained substantial popularity. In France, the concept first appeared in publication in 1765 when Denis Diderot, Jean le Rond d'Alembert and Voltaire included an article on Libre-Penseur in their Encyclopédie; the article was strongly atheistic. The European freethought concepts spread so widely that even places as remote as the Jotunheimen, in Norway, had well-known freethinkers, such as Jo Gjende, by the 19th century.

The Freethinker magazine was first published in Britain in 1881.

[edit]
Germany

In Germany, during the period (1815-1848) and before the March Revolution, the resistance of citizens against the dogma of the church increased. In 1844, under the influence of Johannes Ronge and Robert Blum, belief in the rights of man, tolerance among men, and humanism grew, and by 1859 they had established the Bund Freireligiöser Gemeinden Deutschlands (Union of Secular Communities in Germany). This union still exists today, and is included as a member in the umbrella organization of free humanists. In 1881, in Frankfurt am Main, Ludwig Büchner established Deutschen Freidenkerbund (German Freethinkers League) as the first German organization for atheists. In Hamburg in 1882 the social-democratic Freidenker-Gesellschaft was formed.

Freethinkers were persecuted alongside Jews and other minorities in Nazi Germany.[3]

[edit]
Belgium

The Free University of Brussels (Université Libre de Bruxelles / Vrije Universiteit Brussel), along with the two Circles of Free Inquiry (Dutch and French speaking), defend the freedom of critical thought, lay philosophy and ethics, while rejecting the argument of authority.

ULB physicist and chemist Ilya Prigogine (1917 - 2003) received the 1977 Chemistry Nobel Prize for his work on the entropy of dissipative and self-organizing natural systems, allowing a better lay understanding of the fundamental freedom of complex nature and life, and making an argument against the concept of simplistic newtonian determinism.

[edit]
United States

Driven by the revolutions of 1848 in the German states, the 19th century saw an immigration of German freethinkers and anti-clericalists to the United States (see Forty-Eighters). In the U.S., they hoped to be able to practice their beliefs, without interference from government and church authorities.[4]

Many Freethinkers settled in German immigrant strongholds, including St. Louis, Indianapolis, Wisconsin, and Texas,[4] where they founded the town of Comfort, Texas, as well as others.

These groups of German Freethinkers referred to their organizations as Freie Gemeinden, or "free congregations."[4] The first Freie Gemeinde was established in St. Louis in 1850.[5] Others followed in Pennsylvania, California, Washington, D.C., New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas, and other states.[4][6]

Freethinkers tended to be liberal, espousing ideals such as racial, social, and sexual equality, and the abolition of slavery.[4]

Freethought in the United States began to decline in the late nineteenth century. Its anti-religious views alienated would-be sympathizers. The movement also lacked cohesive goals or beliefs. By the early twentieth century, most Freethought congregations had disbanded or joined other mainstream churches. The longest continuously operating Freethought congregation in America is the Free Congregation of Sauk County, Wisconsin, which was founded in 1852 and is still active today. It affiliated with the American Unitarian Association (now the Unitarian Universalist Association) in 1955.[7]

oh well, maybe kobojunkie is right. . .

in the homosexuals thread, it was also pointed out that democracy is about protecting the rights of minorities.

Kobojunkie:

But, nothing about democracy DEMANDS that Christians/muslims not be able to vote what they believe in a democracy?   Isn’t the whole point of a DEMOCRACY that the people be allowed to vote their view on issues, regardless of the views of another party or person?

in the homosexuals thread, it was also pointed out that democracy is also about protecting the rights of minorities. i even forgot. . . another point that i made. . .if civil rights had been put to a vote. . .

Kobojunkie:

Prostitution has NOTHING to do with DEMOCRACY!! I am not sure what in the world you are getting at but I think you are mixing seriously different concepts up here in your bid to make some vague point.

perhaps i was rambling here. . .

Kobojunkie:

Isn’t it the essence of democracy to have the people elect those who they, the people, CHRISTIANS OR MUSLIMS OR NON, choose to represent their views/values?I am sorry @Oyb, what does BBA mean? OFCOURSE I will be freaken bothered by some stuff and not others. What the frell are you going on about now? I am not allowed to vote my view in a DEMOCRACY?

bba - big brother africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Obscenity

The federal government and the states have long been permitted to restrict obscenity or pornography. While The Supreme Court has usually refused to give obscenity any protection under the First Amendment, pornography is subject to little regulation. However, the exact definition of obscenity and pornography has changed over time.

When it decided Rosen v. United States in 1896, the Supreme Court adopted the same obscenity standard as had been articulated in a famous British case, Regina v. Hicklin. The Hicklin standard defined material as obscene if it tended "to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall." The Court ruled in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) that the Hicklin test was inappropriate. Instead, the Roth test for obscenity was "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest."

Justice Potter Stewart, in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), famously stated that, although he could not precisely define pornography, "I know it when I see it."

The Roth test was expanded when the Court decided Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if it would be found appealing to the prurient interest by an average person applying contemporary community standards, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Note that "community" standards—not national standards—are applied whether the material appeals to the prurient interest; thus, material may be deemed obscene in one locality but not in another. National standards, however, are applied whether the material is of value. Child pornography is not subject to the Miller test, as the Supreme Court decided in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). The Court thought that the government's interest in protecting children from abuse was paramount.

Personal possession of obscene material in the home may not be prohibited by law. In writing for the Court in the case of Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch." However, it is not unconstitutional for the government to prevent the mailing or sale of obscene items, though they may be viewed only in private. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), further upheld these rights by invalidating the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, holding that, because the act "[p]rohibit[ed] child pornography that does not depict an actual child, " it was overly broad and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."

In United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. ___ (2008), by a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court upheld the PROTECT Act of 2003. The Court held that prohibiting offers to provide and requests to obtain child pornography did not violate the First Amendment, even if a person charged under the Act did not possess child pornography.[4]

under a democractic dispensation, though voters may find pornography objectionable, it constitutes free speech. that was why i said that when people talk about freedom, what they really mean is freedom to do things THEY  do not find offensive/anathema

oyb:

in the homosexuals thread, it was also pointed out that democracy is about protecting the rights of minorities.

So far so good, but protecting the rights of the minority has nothing to do with imposing the views of the minority on the majority, just so you know.

oyb:
bba - big brother africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
under a democractic dispensation, though voters may find pornography objectionable, it constitutes free speech. that was why i said that when people talk about freedom, what they really mean is freedom to do things THEY do not find offensive/anathema

Essentially, under your democratic dispensation, I have no right to speak out freely against what I find objectionable because that freedom does not pertain to people like me?  So, they are free to do as they choose but I am not free to do what I choose, which is speak out against their actions?  I have no right to be offended by the actions of another because in your idea of a democracy, I lose my right to do so?

Ok. Why in the world is it government by the people if the people are limited in what they can be outraged/ offended/ take offence with? I still have no idea why you are in some twist trying to tie the two together, only in the end it seems you are deviating even further from the definition of democracy. Are you in essence saying we are not allowed to be human in a democracy?

Poster,
I don't think Christianity is ever going to end in America. Some of them not observing chrinstianity are waiting till old age. God to churches on Sunday and see, still filling up. White pple are still carrying it on, just that some are trying to separate being a christian with being religious.

i am simply saying this -

in a democracy, while we have the right to object to things like pornography, that is all we can do. we cannot make them go away.

in countries like china or the middle east, where there is much less freedom than in the us, you would probably not have to worry about your children surfing on porn sites or dating sites etal, because the governements heavily censor the internet. that most definitely is not the case in america, is it?  

as  a christian, are you comfortable with that sort of freedom?