This makes me think of something. Bringing back the slippery slope example if you are sliding down a hill you don't just hit the brakes instantly or you can roll over and fall, you might want to instead use the momentum you've built up to sling shot your way back from the bottom back to the top. This is dangerous because if you do it wrong you end up going all the way down.
All laws are morality policing. It's immoral to rape kids, kill people, steal stuff, etc. So there are laws that punish people for it.
"The only way out is through" doesn't seem like the right metaphor for when you're concerned about heading into immorality.
I thought I was referring to Doc Solaris reminding me of accelerationism. Where you let the people running things keep going on their path or even push them forward, so that at the right time you can swoop in after they have fucked things up. It's what reminded me of it when he said we need new persecutions of the Church to make Martyrs to make the church's faith stronger and after all is said and done things will be better. Unless I misread his posts that was what I thought he said.
Accelerationism is a political death cult disguised as an 'innovative' ideology.
Are you like trying to be a bad parody of every Leftist boogie man about the religious Right?
I mean what he says can kinda make sense in a Christian context. God won't keep blessing America if it turns wicked, he might allow us to fall and the Chinese to rise. I mean look at how he let Israel be conquered when they abandoned him.
I stand by what I said; he sounds like a bad parody of the boogieman the Dems have used about the Right being wanna-be theocrats who want to force Christian dogma as law.
Those are not false idols, they are American Founding Principles, and something that reaches beyond any particular faith.
Now that depends. You see it is possible for their to be a state religion that is serious and it does have favoritism but it still tolerates and allows other faiths to be worshipped. In fact that is historically how most multi cultural/ethnic empires did things. That way allows minority religious groups to follow their own rules as long as they don't cause trouble to the government and pay their taxes. So it is possible for Christianity to become a state religion and then offer tolerance to Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Mormons, and Sikhs, and other religions that aren't satanic or blaspheming Christianity.
I mean yes and no. Early America did discriminate against Catholics, and Mormons and non protestants. Also early Americans said all men were equal, they did not always keep to it faithfully. But now in the modern day if a super conservative decided to take away a right from women people would say that they are violating the constitution even though the constitution itself, or the framers ever said anything about women or all humans. They used the term men. People who don't interpret the constitution strictly and give us our rights, don't deserve to be protected by it. You can interpret freedom of religion the same way Europe does with freedom of speech. Many people say that our allies in western Europe our free countries with freedom of speech, and religion. So why can't conservatives use an interpretation that is favorable to us but not favorable to the left? After all the left will tear apart the constitution to hurt us.
I mean you aren't wrong here. People interpret it now in a secular sense. But you can interpret it in a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, ore deist sense. Looking at the words you could change the U.S. so that it is a strict patriarchy only men can vote and have control over their wives, etc. and they have to believe in a creator that means a monotheistic religion so you allow Christians, Muslims, Jews. But you ban pagans and polytheists. You could interpret it that way and it would not go against the plain text. Now very few people DO that, but you could.