This supposedly responsible member of Trump's cabinet and inner circle makes statements regarding regarding religious freedom in America.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … e-religion
Regardless, at a rally staged in San Antonio on Saturday by the Christian “nonprofit news media network” American Faith, Flynn said:
“If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion. One nation under God and one religion under God"
I cannot abide with such a statements and attitude, just another reason to suspect the conservatives masses that promote and eat this rubbish up, whole. What is it you people want, anyway? To have us all bow down in unison and worship your "rightwing God"?
That will be the day....
This is a conservative oriented viewpoint not in anyway better than that of the Taliban.
This is how I understand it.
"Religious freedom is enshrined in the first amendment to the US constitution, which says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
I agree with you (and the vast majority of Americans) - such statements and attitude are completely unacceptable.
But I'm curious as to the "conservatives masses that promote and eat this rubbish up, whole". Who are you speaking of - the very fringe of far right idiots, a tiny portion of conservatives? Or you painting the entire political conservative with that brush, as false is it is to do so?
"I agree with you (and the vast majority of Americans) - such statements and attitude are completely unacceptable."
Thanks for that
Carl Bernstein added: “It should be no surprise to know that Michael Flynn is saying the kind of things that he is saying, but what’s most significant here is that much of the Republican party … something like 35% in in exit polls said they favour Trump because Christianity is being taken away from them.
“So Michael Flynn is not that far away from huge numbers of people in this country.”
Then your opinion that just 35% favor Trump because they feel their religion is being taken also feel that a national religion (something forbidden in the Constitution) needs to be implemented?
Ignoring that the number is only 1/3 of those that claim to have voted for Trump, that still seems a HUGE assumption.
I do hear that complaint - that Christianity is under attack - but I have yet to hear anyone at all (outside of your link) proposing a national religion. Even the die hard Christians quail at that one.
Your point is well taken, Wilderness. I just wonder why would so prominent an official say things like this and whose attention was he trying to attract with his words?
Do you recall Pelosi saying we had to accept Democrat plans without knowing what they were (Obamacare)? Do you recall Democrats claiming Trump colluded with Russia? Do you recall the gross exaggeration of an "insurrection" at the Capital riot? Do you recall Martha Rugby and HB 205 to make pi equal to 3? Do you recall Diane Feinstein wanting to ban all guns from the hands of citizens (like the state religion, something in direct violation of the Constitution)?
Politicians are renowned for make really stupid statements at times and they are not all simple errors.
It is obvious Fylnn was speaking to a Christian group, and offering his opinion. I don't in any way agree with his opinion in this case. I also will not make any excuse or write it off as he's trying to please the crowd. The subject of religion and freedom of religion is a very serious subject.
His statement was clear, and the context of his words was clear.
His ideology of having one religion is ridiculous, and a very dangerous concept. Freedom of religion is a right that American's cherish.
I am not sure that you should assume this is that conservatives abide or agree with Fylnn's sentiment. It is true that one can assume many conservatives covet their religion. However, in my view, that means all have the right to choose the religion of their choice.
Now to sum it up --- his suggestion of one religion, is anti-Ameican and wacky. He needs to fade off into the sunset, he does not represent me, and I am a Republican conservative.
That sums it well, Sharlee, I guess there is hope for some of you.
Well, I will take that... I don't think the majority of conservatives would support or condone Fylnn's statement other than his right to freedom of speech. Just consider how very opposed Republicans are to anything that ever whispers of Government overreach or better yet is even mildly related to a one society ideologies. Such as communism or even socialism.
Is there a segment of Republicans that would appreciate and back Fylnn's one religion proposal? I would in my view say, yes there is.
I wonder which church Fylnn would pick to be the national religion. The Catholic church, that many say is not Christian at all? The Mormon church, that many say is not Christian at all? Jehovah Witnesses, that many say is not Christian at all?
It takes a real idiot to think that Christians nation wide would ever agree to a single, unified church. Which is why, in the very early days when Christianity of one brand or another was virtually all there was in the country, it was decided there would be NO national religion.
The causation of many wars is religion. Can't imagine the conflict we would have in the US if the Government tried to pull off this form of an edict. I agree Flynn's idea is idiotic.
Not just idiotic, but more a form of stupid thing.
of course government won't try to "pull off this form of edict" and the idea is worse than idiotic. It's un realistic, unworkable, impossible and why would he talk like that? Good grief!
In Italy, Catholicism is not a national religion, but only in the Papal City. Catholism, Jehovah Witness, the Mormon, and the others are religious organisations. Jesus Christ, who is associated with christianity do not found any religion. He brought life to mankind in the now. Religion is a liberal thing. It should be treat as liberal. It wouldn't gauranty you heaven. But it sure will take you near heavens gate...fullstop, or comma?
Without oversight Capitalism, itself, is a problem. Conservatives being opposed to government overreach depends upon what we are talking about.
Yes, the evangelicals would certainly support an idea of Christianity, at the minimum, being considered first among equals within the concept of "freedom of religion". Evangelicals are overwhelmingly Trump supporters and Republicans, he knew that his words smack of tyranny. What purpose was there in his uttering them? Evangelicals are a "big" segment.
Credence, I agree with you and wilderness. But as to the last paragraphe of wilderness first comment, I don't have an opinion.
Thank you, Miebakagh 57, where have you been, lately?
Credence, I've been busy specific in hubpages forum. I've been busy editing all my articles...but took I took a break from the topical forums, where hammers are flying. Seriously, there's not much activities going on our feeds, due to the removal of the comments system. So, I revisit the topical forums again to increase my work load. Critically, the topical forums flies with hammers, leading to "closed to reply" or leading to bans. Crednce, it seems also that many writers have learn a lessen or two from this negative scenario. Stay safe and healthy, and thanks.
Maybe he does reflect the sentiment of the evangelical crowd where one in four Americans say they are one. A peek showed a result from a poll in 2015 stated "A 57 percent majority of Republicans surveyed agreed that Christianity should, in fact, be established as the United States’ national religion." Though the poll indicated that the article title, Making Christianity Our National Religion Would Be Terrible for Christianity, shares not a good idea.
https://newrepublic.com/article/121153/ … l-religion
Yes, Tsmog, there are many that want to dismiss all this as just incidental. Flynn was an individual of prominence, still representing Trump. The words and his intent are both sinister, at best. I don't know about some folks, but 57 percent is a pretty big slice in my opinion.
I might suggest that certain "others"peruse this arrival that you linked here.
I agree that poll is revealing, yet as GA implies it is just one. The point I should have put in bold is 'sentiment' and that poll is related to Republicans. Yet, IMHO it does speak volumes in my mind of how religion plays in our politics today and the attitudes of religious people regarding politics. However, one must consider evangelical does not have a party affiliation as there are Democrat evangelicals too.
In following this thread I am led to think that Flynn's statement, maybe, should not be considered as dangerous or extreme.
I see this issue as just another puff from a fringe or extreme element. It comes from the religious far-right this time, but stuff like this comes from both sides. To try to take such fringe statements as representative of any large group, (as the OP does), can only be driven by political partisanship.
However, I can see the glitter of the prize for you. Look at all the jabs you got to throw: Trump, Trump's circle, the military, the Far-Right, the Religious right, the Republicans, and, all conservatives in general.
Hell, with all that possible booty I might have been tempted myself.
I think you're busted on this one bud. I don't think Flynn's view would be held as a majority view even on the far-right religious Republicans, much less your extrapolation to cover "the conservative masses."
And that "Taliban" comparison . . . have you been studying Jake's style? Maybe browsing through the archives . . . ?
His statement is extreme, GA, read tsmog's link.
It is just another piece in a puzzle that when all the pieces are in place makes for an composite image, that defining it as just ugly would be kind.
There are many mainstream Evangelicals, that are the "mainstream" in the GOP oriented rightwing universe that would eat this up. Which responsible figure in Government would even entertain such an idea, let alone mutter it in public? It may not be as "extreme" an idea as you would have us believe.
And all the "jabs" have been for the most part, well earned.
I disagree with you in thinking that Flynn's comments only attract the extreme right nut cases out here.
you are out of place, American conservatism, today, and moderation are contradictory terms.
I remember Jake, he was a great foghorn....
In an attempt to, briefly, make a point, I cut part of my original comment that explained why I think Flynn's statements are just fringe echoes.
I believe that the vast majority of Americans support our Constitution. Including the part about freedom of religion.
I also believe that most serious American religious folks believe their god is the real god, even when they accept the legitimacy of others having different religious beliefs. It seems natural that any seriously religious person would believe that their god is the only real god(s) and want their beliefs to be the accepted beliefs, (i.e. a national religion, i.e. proselytizing), for everyone. But I don't think a majority, (or even a large part), of those religious folks, would want to dump our Constitution in favor of a religious purge. That is why I say Flynn is a voice from the fringe. We have heard them before and will hear them again.
I also don't trust those various statements and polls about percentages extrapolated from a fringe, (my claim), to the masses.
It will take a lot more than a snatch, (as revealing as it is), of a speech from a tangent of a past administration to make me worry. I think it is fine for Flynn, and the folks you are pointing at, to feel just as they, (apparently?), do.
I think he meant one Christian faith, not "religion."
He doesn't get it at all ... reality.
... as In R E A L I T Y !
Therefore, he is to be ignored as an ignorant one who needs forgiving.
Kathryn, back at the onset of primitive society, such conservative fellows exists. These group attempt to reach God with witchcraft. But the Creator got them confused beyond they wild imagination. Seriously, I've not seen a country that's entirely christian, or moslem, or pagan,...it's a mix.
by American View 9 years ago
Ernest Istook once said “While even pornography is protected as free speech, the courts have consciously undermined religious speech and freedom of religion for years. ”Is he right, and thoughts?
by Daniel J. Neumann 11 years ago
Do you believe in religious freedom?Yes, this does relate to that pesky Mosque built near Ground Zero. Will you abandon the 1st amendment?
by Credence2 9 years ago
Oh yes, boys and girls, I am back, like a bad penny. I wonder what are conservative poster's positions on this topic is; are they really for freedom of religion or should children be hogtied and forced to participate in loyalty tests? I have studied with Jehovah's Witnesses and I say that their...
by Justin Aptaker 10 years ago
I America a "Christian Nation"? What does that term even mean?I often here that America is a "Christian Nation". Do you agree or disagree with this? And what, exactly, does that mean? Clearly, not nearly all Americans are Christians. Does this mean that a few of the first...
by cjhunsinger 5 years ago
What is meant by, "Freedom of Religion?There were many attempts by Christians to insert such beliefs and dogma directly into the US Constitution and to have the Constitution support a Christian mandate of belief. The most famous incident was a request from the Bishops of Danbury CT., which was...
by Sooner28 10 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/us/re … odayspaperWhy is this still allowed? If the Catholic Church ever had a doctrine that said African Americans, Asian Americans, or Hispanic Americans could not be priests, they would've been banned from discriminating.However, the United States...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|