Half of Americans back stronger role of religion in society…

Half of Americans back stronger role of religion in society…
Despite there being a separation of church and state, religion plays a significant part in daily US life


Around half of Americans favor religion playing a greater role in US society, while 18 percent oppose that idea, according to a Pew Research Center study published Monday. Despite there being a separation of church and state, religion plays a significant part in daily US life: the president traditionally is sworn in using a Bible, while "In God We Trust" is printed on bank notes. France, Sweden and the Netherlands, meanwhile, posted almost opposite results: 47 percent, 51 percent and 45 percent respectively were opposed to religion playing a key role in society.

Among the 27 countries surveyed in 2018, France (20 percent) and Japan (15 percent) were the countries with the lowest proportion of citizens favoring strengthening religion's role in society. Indonesia (85 percent), Kenya (74 percent) and Tunisia (69 percent) came out as the countries most in favor of a bigger place for religion. The study did not make a distinction between different religions. In the US, the proportion rose to 61 percent among people aged 50 and over, but dropped to 39 percent among 18 to 29-year-olds. The study was carried out with a representative sample of at least 1,000 people in each country.

Attached: ingodwetrust.jpg (856x642, 70.88K)

I guarantee you the remaining 18% are concentrated in cities.
Majority of city folk are insular idiots whom are easily swayed with the idea of socialism because in a city, its someone elses job to clean up after them, cook for them, drive for them etc
Real people do their own shit, unlike most city dwellers.
If you live in the city, your fundamental unit of existence is money. Money buys you everything and anything in a city.
If you live in a rural area, your fundamental units are inches of rain, acres of land, and the good-will of your neighbors. If you don't have those things, life is very hard, and there isn't shit to be done about it.
City-dwellers have the option of being disconnected from reality.

They aren't involved in the process of producing, only distributing and consuming. Much like how Marx was obsessed with industrial economic systems and paid no mind to agriculture. Cities and the general urbanization of our societies are the biggest problems when it comes to the growth of leftism.

Cities were created to be breeding grounds and containment centers for brainwashed masses.
Once you put people into a box with all of their needs being met (housing, food, etc) then strip them of their transportation (cars) in favor of "urban transportation" (subways, buses, trains) that can only take them in circles but will never take them away - you've created a society utterly dependent on your infrastructure and unable to escape your indoctrination.

Comfy living with low amount of threats to stimulate survival instinct promotes a tolerant and care-free outlook on life. People are more susceptible to the alluring tunes of leftist/marxist/deconstructionist rhetoric to turn them into winnie the pooh idiots.

Stress is like a virus, the more people encounter each other in such a state, the more it multiplies. Cities, with such a lack of solitude, filled with naturally stressful noises, and all the stresses of work, inevitably have an elevated stress level than rural areas. Add in the fact that the greatest threat to the individual in a city, other than the ever-present possibility of a nuke, is other people, and the only protection is the state. Essentially, people in cities will be at an elevated stress level, making them easier to manipulate, and they won't be able to trust anyone walking by, so by necessity they must put their security in the hands of the state, while susceptible, due to stress, to authoritarian ideologies that offer further protection.

In contrast, rural areas tend to be quiet, with plenty of solitude, allowing people to unwind. The greatest threat to someone in a rural area is nature itself, and the protection comes from community, other people that must rely on each other as the state's too far away to be any help. This means people must form closer bonds, and trust each other more. Not experiencing the security provided by the state, with decreased stress levels leave the rural citizen less susceptible to authoritarian ideology, and more supportive of libertarian ideologies.

The morons live on top of one another. When there is a conflict, the conflicted parties have no space to avoid one another and therefore must turn over their dispute to be adjudicated and now power is given to another. Trash removal? Needs the government or lazy poor winnie the poohers wouldn't pay to have it hauled off or do it themselves. At every turn, those living in urban shitholes give authority away and demand that others fix their problem. They've conditioned themselves to be bitches. Move to the country and we handle the issues ourselves without any stinking government fags.

They are weak, uprooted people, so they fear the strong, the independent. The left is the party of weak people, women, "minorities", mentally or physically disabled, or simply people who depend on others and by extension the state. Those who wouldn't survive a week once shit hits the fan and they couldn't just buy their Grande Latte with extra soy milk anymore.
People in the countryside, they are often on their own, they or their neighbors grow crops or raise cattle, they own guns, they do physical work, they hunt etc. They'd be more likely to cope. They don't engage in oppression olympics and whine about shit, they live in the real world, not in a world full of social constructs that give them non-existing "rights".

Cities represent mankind's attempts to create a new humanist reality away from God, according to Ellul.
Essentially, after being thrown from the garden of Eden, mankind (cain) chose to found a city, away from the nature that had become so difficult to control. There was safety in numbers, and he intended to create his own paradise on earth.
Thus, cities are all cursed by their arrogance.

Gosh darn city folk. I’d reckon they ain’t got no idea how ta milk dem cows or harvest crops. I say if y’all life in a city then y’all goin’ to hell, an’ I don’ care HOW gud of a Christian yuh are!

Attached: 6BFBD55D-742F-4010-B03B-26E93C708ABF.jpeg (1129x1600, 247.07K)

T. Cityfag

Escape while you can. Being able to provide food for yourself, not breathing hydrocarbons, and not being under 24/7 surveillance is liberating.

Even if true, I doubt Americans would be in favor of this if they were told all that really entails. A rigid approach to implementing biblical law would allow

and so on. Meanwhile

Would all be heavily curtailed if not outright illegal.

I highly doubt that any polling could find a majority of Americans that are in favor of a single one of these things, let alone all of them. All these people want to do is pray in public spaces. There's no meaning behind them wanting the country to be more religious. They don't actually care about the word of God. They just want people to be more like them because it makes them feel good.

Your post reads as that of a random SJW who listens to too much Sam Harris "lectures"

Feel free to point out where I'm wrong

Starting with the fact that women were never treated as property in the bible. In fact, we have numerous exalted women in both old and new testament, like judge Deborah. It is a modern meme spread by retards
Honor killings are executed by either mob or a separate person, which was not the case in the bible, but rather executions were ordered by the priesthood.
Arranged marriages, like in every society, were common in nobility. Bible neither endorsed nor condemned it.
Bible doesn't condemn welfare
As for the rest, the mere fact that you actually post about stoning faggots as a valid point qnd concern speaks of multitudes. And considering that in current year we have faggots parading and swirling dicks in front of children, I don't really think that anyone would oppose curtailing them, even if it would mean execution.


I don't know where you got that I thought any of that is a point of concern. I actually support all of it. My entire post was making the point that whoever responded to that poll almost certainly has shallow belief.

Literally the book of Genesis. Jacob has to work seven years to purchase Rachel from her father. There are numerous mentions of such in the Books of Law. Just five chapters later, same book, we see Shechem trying to pay a dowry for Dinah. Let's not pretend this is something other than what it is. There's nothing wrong with it. And this is more or less arranged marriage as well.

The thing about arranged marriage is that religion has broken down to the point where we live in tolerant multi-faith societies but we're still under the commandment not to marry outside our religion. Arranged marriage would be a near necessity to deal with this commandment assuming a religious revival. Children do too much socialization outside of the church and we can't trust them to control themselves.

Welfare is socialized almsgiving. Socializing almsgiving deprives it of its meaning. When everyone is forced to give to the poor at threat of gunpoint, we cannot call this a charitable sacrifice. Further, any attempts at actual almsgiving are rendered pointless since everyone can sustain themselves on the government teat. True almsgiving more or less necessitates that we get rid of welfare.

Dowry is notas same as purchasing someone or something you cretin

If Half of Americans feels that way. Than leave ((America)). Not holy about that Masonic nation

I'm not seeing a meaningful difference.

Then you are an imbecile.

Did you not read the second paragraph of the OP? The EU is much worse. 50% are very good odds.

The city ontologically breeds people dissociated from reality, there's no way around it and that is why cosmopolitanism exists in every major city in the world but nowhere in the country. OP is right.

According to E. Michael Jones, the Catholic Church did have welfare programs in place before the Protestant Reformation. If you watch the parts from 24:50-25:20 and around the 27:00 part of the video, this is discussed. Supposedly, there were "Purgatory Societies" where, after a person died, you could use that person's land provided you prayed for them.

You forgot the part about separation of church and state, user.

As for implementing the mosaic law, that was meant as a shadow of the fulfillment to come. We don't carry out tabernacle/temple rituals with animal sacrifices anymore. Because Jesus fulfilled all of that, which was unable to save, only to condemn sin. Read the New Testament.

Also the state church is exactly the kind of micromanaging, destructive entity that led to all the problems in the first place, hence you need to have state and church in separate spheres.

Now that ideal HAS slowly been lost in practice especially in big urban area, but this is due to "humanism" (i.e. talmudism) stealthing itself as somehow "not religion" when it is; it's a new talmudic state religion of "human rights" from 1960's to now that is trying to crush the God-given rights of the U.S. Constitution. But that's yet another topic. Since state religion is exactly the problem to fight against, thus undermining your point.

t.anti-catholic "muh state church" baptist

It's not a claim solely attributable to EMJ, it's a historical fact. See Duffies' Stripping of the Altars for pre-Reformation Catholic England and medieval textbooks.

Which, prior to the Reformation, was in the hands of the Church. The Church wasn't simply a giant leech on State lands, the set-up was that the State supported the Church, and the Church in turn gave back to the poor.

When the State throws out the Church and Her charity, the State then becomes responsible for its citizens' well-being.

Don't forget "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in your constitution.
It was supposed to be a shield for religion, not the sword against it it became under an activist court.

In any case the bigger problem is the nation is the historical emanation point for much of surviving denominational variety. How could we implement a greater religious role on a national level when we can't even agree on the same belief. America is and always has been a secular nation.

What I find hilarious about those types of people is that they are implying that God made a mistake to set up a state church in the OT and would never do such a thing for the NT.

Most American Christians know this. It’s l*berals who believe it’s meant to suppress religion.

America was originally meant to be a confederation of different European ethnic groups. E Pluribus Unum literally means out of many one, which is what it became. Assimilating these ethnic groups into one "American" identity - which of course is based on freemasonic imagery and concepts. Separation of church and state. Wilson's 14 points. Classical liberalism. Satan was the first classical liberal, it's all about being in rebellion against God and the king.

Sure. You can’t possibly look at the EU and tell me they’re better off. You’re an imbecile if you fall for the progressive definition of separation of church and state. You’re a LARP who fell for the monarchism meme and lacks even a basic understanding of American government.

Author of this post most likely demands to be taken seriously.

Did I say the EU was any better?
The founding fathers were a mix of Satanists, freemasons, a few Latins, protestants all coming together. The constitution is a pluralist document. It is against the traditional understanding of a monarch drawing legitimacy from God.
Jesus seems to support the monarchism meme by calling himself "king of kings".

What satanists? Any source besides some boomer YouTube video?
What monarchy should we emulate? The UK? Sandtiggers?

Attached: C71DCA90-6E46-4D5A-9139-E13D7697E648.png (1000x507, 122.58K)

Ben Franklin was a satanist that’s a fact. It’s boomers who defend this mythology of Americanism being Christian.
UK is not a monarchy parliament runs everything. The royal family there are really just cowards who let merchants take over their country centuries ago.
Imagine being this disingenuous to say that by defending Christian monarchy I am defending Muslim monarchy.

The implications behind that post are even more disturbing. Democracy is superior because white people made it? Do you even listen to yourself? It’s also not even correct as most European countries were monarchies far longer than they were republics.

Post a source then.
“Real monarchy has never been tried”
You said monarchy, and I posted a map of modern day monarchies.

To be quite honest, antimonarchists don't need to lift a finger. You discredit your ideology perfectly thanks to your autistic LARP and pathetic arguments.

tradional monarchy. Not modernist crap like liberal monarchies(UK).

Hmm antimonarchists? you mean communists, modernists and masons? Non-christians?
Monarchy has been the norm in the world until world war 1…All christian countries were monarchies
Exceptions don't negate the rule.

I am none of those things. Now answer my other questions.

Parliament ran the British Empire since before the American Revolution. It was just easier to use a king as a figure to base propaganda around instead of a parliament.

I am not defending anything modern. What I am defending cannot be put on a modern map but it is in the Bible. Canada has a PM, that’s a republic. Britain is a republic. Australia too. Unless you’re going to argue the Windsor’s are secretly running the British Empire, such nonsense.

Attached: 79C73C69-00F4-40F9-A051-E0F76E5536F1.jpeg (386x461 48.86 KB, 142.11K)

Personally, I see the United States government as it was originally intended (not what’s its become) as closer to the government of Leviticus, which was a republic. All earthly kings fall short of the glory of God.

so you are an anti-monarchist? would you support the french revolution? would you fight alongside the atheists and revolutionaries against the Bourboun dynasty? would you have the balls to hold to true to your word?

do you really think a bunch of masons really tried to make america a biblical state? being the first nation in the world to ever seperate church and state?
Confessional state>>>>>>>any secular state. 90% of countries with catholic state church bans abortion except for extreme cases, and homosexual marriage is banned,
Presidents don't? what logic is this?

I said closer, not identical. What matters is freedom of speech, freedom of self-defense, and freedom of religion for a majority Christian population, which it was.
Again, you don’t know what this actually means. F*ck the liberal definition. It means the state can not interfere with internal church affairs.
And what do you know, as the pendulum swings right, more states are banning both.
They do, the point is they hold less power over the people who will meet them with armed resistance when they overreach their power.

This is great, but America still doesn't recognize any religion and see all religions as equal. Confessional state doesnt do any harm to the church and it's still miles better than a secular one.
it has been this way for decades. Not a fad like it is right now. Kind of late, eh?
i personally don't advocate for absolute monarchy nor a modern bureacratic all emcopassing state, i hold to the tradiotinal view of monarchy which had a council, and was highly decentralized, like in the middle ages. Rights were respected with the fueral letters, proving a piece of paper isn't necessary.

Separation of church and state means inevitably you get a state church. That’s what we have today in Burgerland with churches afraid of being taxed for teaching the actual Christian stance.

Bourbons were degenerate retards and deserved what they've got. And radical wing of revolutionaries also being malevolent morons doesn't invalidate that.

This pendulum theory implies the West hasn’t been in decline for hundreds of years.

Also imagine basing your national identity on a freemasonic experiment from 200 years ago.

Nations are based on ethnoi, there cannot be a propositional nation (inb4 “that’s what the left says”). The left says the US is a propositional nation because they support propositional nations based on “freedoms”. That’s anarchism for you.

Without moral order, there is no freedom.

Republicanism/democracy is a LARP where the political elites pretend to represent a vague nebulous category “the people” aka the 51%.


Attached: 43591633-634D-42C4-96C6-B3BC6E7C3622.jpeg (550x380, 67.9K)

Agreed, but…
This is very un-christian. They didn't deserve death nor did the kingdom of France, with all the errors it had, to be destroyed. So what you're telling me is that you would side with the masons and help crush the vendee rebellion right?

Christians: In God we trust.
Muslims: In goat we thrust.

I agree with that. They should've replaced the Bourbons with another dynasty, not abolish monarchy.

also the last king wasn't a degenerate at all. He was a good man, although one that wasn't mentally strong enough to crush the revolution.

this. Bourbons failed their people when they embraced the enlightnement and spreaded it even to Spain. I'm not a fan of them, but they shouldn't have been killed as that is barbaric, not abolish the kingdom because that's retarded, but they should have changed the dynasty instead.

Sometimes we end up with a bad ruler. That’s a lot better than the system in America where big money runs the political system.

Also it’s like the Soviet Union; a lot of what we know about the Romanovs or the Bourbons is warped by the revolutionary regime that came after them and rewrote history. For example, Marie Antoinette never said “let them eat cake”. George III didn’t run the colonies or institute any of the taxes the colonists were complaining about. Sure, these royals were decadent. But the point of a king is that he wasn’t elected, he has no factions that he’s in the pocket of, he has no one to answer to but his subjects. Also a king doesn’t have to be of a royal house or even have a crown. Francisco Franco ruled a stable, Catholic Spain for many years.

Wasn't Franco more of a less a steward while the monarchy just hung out in the backround? Kinda like Mussolini and the King of Italy?

*more or less
sage for double post

Attached: 1538113282705.png (526x628, 916.68K)

I've been thinking when antibiotics finally dwindle into uselessness, even more people will embrace religion. If the Lord doesn't come by then at least.

Either that or they suffer pretty severely. Generation after generation knew this lesson, but the 20th and 21st century has forgotten it. Super fungi and Super Viruses are coming.

Ackschually, it's the counter-revolution Jesus is the leader of. The Devil is the leader of the actual revolution agianst God the Father and His almighty authority. For satan is the first rebel, the first protestant to disobey and to think he knows better.

Attached: DpQ9YJl.png (700x700, 20.78K)

God will bring back order to all things and all rebels will pay for how they mishandled the gift of free will. If I’m wrong, tho, correct me: this is what I understood when it comes to order, revolutions and counter-revolutionary movements rooted in Christianity.

This might be the stupidest thing I've read all day.

I’m pretty sure West Yurop and North Yurop will end up like Lebanon: Christians will become a minority and natives will become one as well.
I try not to be blackpilled, but dang…outside the certainty of God, nothing else will survive (imho).

No it makes perfect sense. If you remove the church from its rightful place above the state, your church gets taken over by the state because it has no power anymore.

It makes no sense. The point of separation of church and state is the state has no power over the teachings of the church, can you even read?
Look at the Church of Sweden. There’s your state church. All state churches are cucked beyond all hope.

Have faith, anons.

craaaaawling iiiiin my skiiiiiin

It has nothing to do with being edgy. I'm angry that people don't believe in consequences to God's timeless laws anymore. Science has made them feel safe, and thus, made them abandon God. This is a reset button. Things are going to get real again, just like every generation in the previous eons of humanity had to deal with. They weren't edgy either. It was just a fact of life to be dilligent about these things. Civilization is breaking down without this fear.

If anything, I'm awaiting a new age of "normalcy". What we're living in now is ABNORMAL, unlike any age before it. And it's madness.

It's a clown world we live in

Attached: 023.png (680x680, 220.72K)

Attached: 1509314646465.jpg (588x823, 109.3K)

EU is a come and go thing we still have nation states.
USA is a masonic invention through and through, mixed nation.

How many of them actually want to change the thing? Not just say "muh religion"
The very foundations are laid there to make this happen. This is secular paradise, enjoy.
First the percentage is low
Second it does not matter since they probably are not anti-secular in any sense. They are just saying things are not going well. vast majority of they would embrace religious freedom and constitution when asked.
Even if all of them wanted to abolish secularism, their opinion would not matter anyway. Welcome to democracy!
tl dr: this is a nothing burger. Why am I reading this at all?

Were they? There is so much propaganda nowadays that I don't know if those stories are exaggerated or not. Anyways, the republican political elites of nowadays are probably twice as degenerate as the ones of ancien regime.

Ya, because the U.S. had ll of those 300 years ago? You're a winnie the pooh pseud.

i've noticed that the narrative has changed from god doesn't exist to god is evil


Yeah I once saw a book in the library called "God: The Most Unpleasant Character in Fiction". Two for the price of one, there. Then you have people like Stephen Fry saying that if God was real and he got into Heaven, he'd choose Hell because he wouldn't want to be with God.