I agree, their constant aim of making their religion law has to be stopped
2007-03-26 04:59:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Well, at least this Christian can spell "theocracy," which seems to be more than some atheists can manage this morning.
As far as the Civil War (notice the capitalization in reference to a specific historical event, please) being started by Christians, that's the equivalent of saying that Hiroshima was the result of an airplane flying overhead. Oversimplification is usually a serious logical fallacy when it comes to analyzing historical events.
And as far as your assertion that we Christians want a civil war (non-specific event, no capitalization) and a theocracy, that's about the silliest thing I've heard here in a long time. Do you have any proof for your accusations, or do you simply enjoy the sound of your own frothing off at the mouth?
I'm inclined to believe that it's the latter.
2007-03-26 05:14:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by Wolfeblayde 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Ok I'm not a christian, nor am I in favor of a theocracy.
However, your histrionic statement about the cause of the american civil war is severely lacking in any proof or detail.
The american civil war was caused by disagreement over two issues: 1. state's rights versus federal rights and 2. the issue of slavery.
It was in no way a religious war. To state that is inflammatory at best, and I would suggest you take your own advice and study american history better.
2007-03-26 05:03:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kallan 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Another civil War in America? Who wants to kill non-Christians? Where are you getting this information? Don't believe everything you read or hear!This is a free country and it not true, that Christians want to kill off non-believers! Where are you from? Are you an American? We don't do stuff like that in this country!
2007-03-26 06:55:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by Pamela V 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
And what's your point? Little afraid, eh? And almost all the US was Christian at the time of the Civil War, both north and south, not a relevant point.
You need to study American history a little better, the war was fought over many issues, none of them being religion.
And you , no doubt, learned that in phony, bologna, public school system, right?
2007-03-26 05:03:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
California replaced into not in contact because of the fact it replaced into so some distance removed from the action and replaced into already a unfastened a unfastened state so it rather is in basic terms contribution could have been tax funds for the union and consistent with possibility some nutrients for the warriors. Missouri replaced into unquestionably in contact in the conflict and the Missouri Compromise unquestionably began to warmth up the debate over slavery. Louisiana replaced into in contact and had some battles there and replaced into considered needed to the union' approach because of the fact the had to divide the south for the time of the Mississippi River. different areas of the west have been in contact albeit not as a lot because of the fact not many considerable battles befell in many those states. additionally those states have been some distance removed from the real action with the aid of there relative distance from the main considerable cities on the east coast and extremely low populations
2016-10-19 23:16:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
.... You have issues. New England was always the most Protestant of all the American regions and they never had slavery. The middle colonies like Philadelphia also abolished slavery thanks to the Christian Quakers. Slavery was a business back then, it was a currency in the south. People thought it was their right to own a slave, and since the laws said it was okay back then, they truly saw no wrong.
Sounds a lot like abortion I think.
2007-03-26 05:10:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Their answer to everything is the legislation of a specific understanding of morality, and most times it is an incorrect understanding of morality.
When the standards of religious morality are so undefined and unnecessarily binary, no good can come from such legislation, only more problems.
2007-03-26 05:01:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Religion did not cause the Civil War.
I have been around much longer than you and know more history,
AND
WELL
I add.
2007-03-26 05:07:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by 1saintofGod 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sorry, but you are implying that the Civil war was religious in nature - I think that you need to post proof of that, or at least a link to a credible site that explains it.
2007-03-26 05:00:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Pirate AM™ 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
Not gonna happen. There are "Christians" who are pushing for it; but the crazier they become, the more alarming they are to the rest of society. People are getting sick of the diehards. They maybe reached their nadir of influence with BushCo and we all see how that went.
2007-03-26 05:00:00
·
answer #11
·
answered by jonjon418 6
·
1⤊
0⤋