>>16883543
The whole thing is a misconception of how Christians are supposed to be apolitical, or at least have no grand expectations of a theocratic or semi-theocratic government. We mostly see that attitude of being just pilgrims passing through the world, but not of the world, during the early church's history, before Constantine. During the 4th century AD, the church and the world mixed heavily, and that original attitude from the New Testament era and the anti-Nicene era had largely become lost, superseded by imperial and regnal ambitions, and later, politically republican and democratic pretensions of Christian governance. The truth is that no country on Earth belongs to Christians, not even America. A country could never be Christianized, as that is an oxymoron. The church and the state do not mix.

>>16883543
>How did evangelical Christians take such powerful control of the Republican Party given their pretty tiny portion of the actual electorate?
They historically weren't tiny. They are the majority of Christians in the US, and, up until the late 2000s or so, the US was an overwhelmingly Christian country.

What's more fascinating is how quickly it all collapsed. As recently as 2008 it used to be that politicians had to LARP as devout Christians or else they had no hope of being elected in America. Obama (who is very obviously a closet atheist) had to start attending some random black church in Chicago in order to make his presidential campaign viable. Fast forward a decade and nobody gives a fuck about this stuff anymore. It's entirely possible to imagine a gay atheist being elected as president from either party and almost nobody would care.

>>16884505
>It's entirely possible to imagine a gay atheist being elected as president from either party and almost nobody would care.
Not quite yet, but America is getting very close to that. I think even Pete Buttigieg makes some sort of claim at being a Christian.

>>16883543
Black churches are ethnic churches so it's no surprise that their parishioners vote according to ethnic interest rather than Christian values

>>16884509
Nah, it would be possible right now. Buttigieg says he's Christian because I believe he actually is. Gay Christians do exist (somehow) and Buttigieg who is married, monogamous, relatively boring etc is an archetypal example of one.

IMO Trump was the first big sign that religion does not matter in US politics anymore. A man with his values and lifestyle would have had precisely zero chance of winning the Republican nomination in 2008 or earlier. By 2016 the country had changed enough that Evangelicals knew they had to compromise and support a very fundamentally un-Christian man in the hopes he might repay their loyalty.

>>16884481
Britain is technically a Christian state. At least in that it’s state religion is the Church of England, and that church has permanent lords in the House of Lords to represent the church

Obviously in reality that doesn’t actually have any real influence though. Especially since it’s such a liberal church

>>16883543
It started in the late 70s after Nixon. Reagan rode high on this.
Like with everything else bad about modern America, it starts with Reagan.

>>16884505
I disagree. The vast majority of the US was Christian yes. But evangelism specifically was never the majority. At its absolute peak it was between 25% and a third of the US population

Obviously it’s not that easy to verify with polls either, lots of big variation in results. Because there is no universally agreed on evangelist sect. There’s a wide variety, with evangelists even being in different sects of Protestantism and with different levels of fervour.

>>16884481
very good take, saying that as a Christian

>>16884518
Fair enough. Wonder why the desegregationists didn’t try any major projects to integrate churches. Seems like a pretty simple endeavour compared to forcing people at gun point to desegregate schools

Just build a new church. Say it’s welcome to all races. Get people to pray and sing hymns with people of different colours and to congregate in a lunch after each Sunday.

Literally the only story I can think of where something similar happened was Jim Jones church lol. Before he went full cult leader and was just a preaching minister he had a multiracial church which was very successful. And due to its wide reach and altruistic attitude made positive changes (story I recall being an elderly black woman who was in the church complaining that her landlord wouldn’t fix some major plumbing issues that she’d had for a very long time, Jim Jones decided to get his whole congregation to sign a petition and write letters to him. Which actually made him fix it)

Modern evangelicals have mostly given up the fight to actually end stuff like gay marriage and abortion on federal level.

Instead the position tends to be they want to defend their way of life. And the easiest path to do this is via a state level. So instead of say, trying to pass some federal law banning gay marriage or abortion. They will push for it to be delegated as issues for each state to decide

That way liberal fag states like California can have all the gay marriage and abortions they want. But the home states evangelicals actually live in, or can decide to move to, can choose not to allow these kind of things.

In reality, even if you’re a pregnant woman in a restricted abortion state, you can still just drive to one that allows it and come back. There is no legal issue there

although I have to ask, why is it illegal for people to go to a state with a lower age of consent and have sex with someone who is legal but 16, but this is still an offense if in your home state the age of consent is 17-18?

Likewise. A gay married couple in California moving to some place that doesn’t allow it doesn’t prevent the fact they’re legally married, right?

>>16884505
>What's more fascinating is how quickly it all collapsed. As recently as 2008 it used to be that politicians had to LARP as devout Christians or else they had no hope of being elected in America.

that's mostly because by 2008 it had become solidified that 99% of evangelicals were going to vote Republican so politicians didn't really need to pander to them anymore, whereas back in the 80s there was still the possibility that they could be Democrats or swing voters.

as for the OP question mostly because the South started to majorly shift to a Republican region in the 80s.

File: Francisco Sans Cabot (Bar(...).jpg (3.81 MB, 2972x2193)

3.81 MB JPG

>>16883543
>How did evangelical Christians take such powerful control of the Republican Party given their pretty tiny portion of the actual electorate?
>They lost on every issue except support for Israel
American Evangelical Christianity was literally created by postwar Jewish television producers as a low-IQ zionist replacement for authentic Christianity, it is pure cultural astroturf.
https://littoria.substack.com/p/americas-church-the-invention-of

>>16886244
Yeah, it’s weird to think about but the south was actually a pretty major swing region in general, so you’d have weird situations where democrat candidates would win there based on issues that didn’t align with the wider democrat platform

You had George Wallace as the democrat governor of Alabama for example. Al the way from 1963-1987

And George Wallace was a MAJOR racist and pro segregationist. He wasn’t pandering to racist voters, he outright believed blacks to be an inferior race and feared e results of desegregation. Yet he was a major figure in a rapidly changing democrat party where blacks were a major voting bloc for civil rights

Plus George Wallace ran for president and was almost certainly gonna be the democrats candidate in 1972 until he was paralysed in the assassination attempt after he got shot in the spine

Republican Nixon meanwhile was the guy who preached civil rights whole privately being a racist lol

>>16886222
>Wonder why the desegregationists didn’t try any major projects to integrate churches.
They did, but most blacks didn't want to desegregate.

>>16884505
Evangelicalism is better thought of as a political-social grouping than as religion.
After 2008, the country as a whole shifted in a more populist-identitarian direction, and so the religious component of identity fell off in importance* and many of the stock 2000s religious issues (evolution in schools, stem cells, etc.) entirely disappeared, because they'd only ever been about signaling religious affiliation.
*or perhaps it would be better to say that it inverted, so that if one panders to their sense of tribal belonging, then they get the religious terminology and labeling applied.

>>16886222
Segregation was mandated at the state level. "Race free churches" got the free gift from the local community of a cross being burnt on their lawn. It's why even Catholic churches in the Deep South were segregated.

>>16886369
>Church segregation was mandated at the state level
You are just making things up. It is integration which mandated by the government.

>>16886373
No, integration was mandated by the FEDERAL govt, not the STATE govt.
in the South at the time segregation was mandated on the STATE level.

>>16886375
There was no state mandate to segregate churches, you are just making that up. If a church desegregated then people would simply stop going to church, like they do now.

>>16886384
There were state mandates to have segregated facilities all around, and that included churches.
Churches that weren't segregated usually got a visit from the local boys in white.

>>16886234
>Modern evangelicals have mostly given up the fight to actually end stuff like gay marriage and abortion on federal level.
did you fall asleep in a coma in 2016 and just wake up? abortion is vanquished as of June 2022.

>>16886387
Give one example of a state mandate to segregate a church

>>16883543
Because the moment you decide to work with the actual insane doomsday cultists that want all of human civilization destroyed, it's going to be a fairly dominant part of your political identity.

To use a incredibly nerdy example: Allying with Archaon the Everchosen in Warhammer Total War. Sure, you CAN do it and still try to do your own thing. But, on the other hand, the fact that the person you are allying with is trying to destroy all civilization in pursuit of his mad goal of killing the chaos gods by killing all potential followers means a lot of choices are going to be made for you.

>>16886399
Same mandates that caused the public accomodations and most private accomodations to have "separate but equal". Realistically this meant it was Whites only for one part and a vastly inferior Black part.
This reached into most faiths in the South; only about 6% of churches in the South were integrationist, with the rest not.

>>16886409
Give one example of a state mandate to segregate a church. I've never even been to a church, I am just sick of low-IQ innuendo being substituted for actual history

>>16886422
>Give one example of a state mandate to segregate a church.
Jim Crow, idiot. I've been citing it.
> I've never even been to a church
why not?

>>16886425
You said that segregation of churches was mandated by the state, I am asking you to provide the text of said mandate

>>16886428
The Jim Crow laws enabled it and across the South private and public accomodations had superior facilities for Whites and vastly inferior facilities for everyone else. That is segregation and it was mandated on the state level.
Let me guess, you're not American, but some flavour of Euro?

>>16886431
Don't change the subject, provide the text of the mandate which segregated the churches

>>16886435
Subject's not being changed and you're an autistic little shit.
Go look into the Jim Crow laws. I am telling you to do your own research on the subject.

>>16886439
>I am telling you to do your own research on the subject.
Don't make historical claims that you aren't willing to defend

>>16886443
Except I have been defending them. This was what the American South was like pre Civil Rights era.
It was mandated and enabled by the Jim Crow laws. It didn't apply to "just one" church, but it enabled almost all White churches to both exclude Blacks according to their bylaws and to have "seperate but equal" facilities for those few that allowed Blacks in them (something like 6%)
If you can't understand that you must be an ESL.

>>16886449
>I defend my position by endlessly repeating evidence-free innuendo
This is holohoax fabulism tier debating. Do you have evidence or not?

>>16886536
>holohoax
Opinion discarded; if you won't accept the reams of documents that prove that the Germans systematically murdered millions of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals then you won't accept anything else.

>>16884518
Only by like 80%

>>16883543
Because unlike most Cucktrians, the Evangelicals at least have a spine to save America. TradCaths maybe but for the rest of the Cucktians, they are beyond help and don't want to save America. Cucktians have gone woke and decided that homosexuality ,faggotry, tranny worship, open borders, Marxism, race crap, and vaccines matter more than saving this fucking country from the globalists and Marxists who infest this country. Evangelicals at least have spine and are willing to die for this country and save if from socialism unlike Cucktians who love that shit so fuck you if you're not an evangelical you're not a real Christian if you don't support our cause and our movement. Fuck you. We don't want you in our ranks.

>>16886577
>reams of documents
Jewish newspaper reports do not count as reams of documents. In the other thread, literally not a single document proving that a single Jew was gassed was provided. You just have a completely different understanding of what history means, to you history is just whatever narrative is being pushed by the media at any given time.

>>16886602
yes they were holiday camps
that thousands of people died of heart attacks in the same day they were brought there
mengele didn't exist, neither did his notes
wannsee conference didn't exist either, neither did operation reinhard

>>16886394
Roe V Wade being overturned didn’t stop abortions being allowed

>>16886619
No? It just returned it to the state level as it should be. If California wants them, fine. If Arkansas doesn't, fine. Their business.

>>16886626
That’s what I said in my post. So not sure why you even brought up Roe V Wade

>>16886610
>Not a single document provided

>>16886631
so uh
what happened to all the Jews?

File: hobbes-leviathan.jpg (1.01 MB, 1549x1181)

1.01 MB JPG

>>16886200
It only doesn't have "real influence" because of several generations of liberalization of society, in no small part due to enlightenment era figures and movements. For centuries the influence was incredibly real, it's why buggery laws existed and why Jews were exiled. It's like how people say the Monarch, despite being Sovereign and all Acts requiring royal assent, somehow doesn't actually have influence.

It's all on the basis of assumption and politeness, there is no mechanic that prevents either institution from asserting influence. It would take incredibly little effort for the UK to revert to its old ways.

>>16886234
>Modern evangelicals have mostly given up the fight to actually end stuff like gay marriage and abortion on federal level

say you what? you would need a constitutional amendment for that and it's unlikely to get the needed 3/4th of the states. even then as Prohibition demonstrated it would be near impossible to enforce.

>>16886641
Other than centuries of legal precedent and conservative/centrist institutionalist autism, which seems to be a big part of British culture

>>16886649
>>16886626
Don't disagree but there are extremists on both sides who want total legalization or ban of abortion on the national level.

>>16886634
First you have to establish that any Jews are missing

>>16886666
Yeah, a few million. This was borne out by Communist censuses in the 50s.

File: Where did they go.jpg (2.43 MB, 2882x2156)

2.43 MB JPG

>>16886669
>Communist censuses in the 50s
So you have no evidence

>>16886672
>blob
I know, I know, White people can do no wrong, Jews and Blacks deserve it, White people would not at all engage in discrimination or industrialized murder.

>>16886641
This is just untrue. Conventions may as well be rules. Whenever they did try and use their theoretical power they get bitchslapped into irrelevance.

Probably the most notable example in fairly recent history being the Parliament Act of 1911

Prior that, the House of Lords had the actual power to veto legislation entirely as well as amending it. The convention (not rule) however was that the House of Lords would not veto any money bills as the House of Commons was the chamber in charge of actual monetary resources. And that the House of Lords would not oppose any bills backed by the public (as in the current ruling governments policy which they were elected on)

Indeed, prior to the 1911 act, if the government was unable to get a bill past the House of Lords. They would have to just add enough new loyal lords to get an act voted through.

The liberal government of the 1900’s had won a large victory and gained power, and began to make large reforms to various things like primary education, yet the lords amended these bills so much they were barely recognisable.

Eventually this led to an impasse. Where the liberal government had to “prove” their mandate by winning another election after the lords refused all new money bills in an attempt to topple the government, the new re-elected liberal government decided they would simply remove the ability of the lords to block bills permanently entirely. With further amendments allowing enough of a commons majority to simply overturn any lords amendments or delays.

Not too dissimilar from the lords attempting to delay and outright stop brexit happening despite the referendum result. Once the tories won a landslide on an explicit hard brexit campaign. They ceased all of these attempts.

So no. If the church or monarch attempted to exercise power they by convention cannot use. They would be reformed even further into obsolescence. Or cut off the state

>>16883543
>How did evangelical Christians take such powerful control of the Republican Party given their pretty tiny portion of the actual electorate?
Assuming we're talking about the 1980's forward, the real answer to this question is very unfortunate. The main reason for this phenomenon is that certain factions of Judaism – which collectively controls most media and strongly corrupt other institutions – basically hijacked "conservatism" more and more for their own purposes.

Some of these people had worked to invent and promote a "zionist" political version of Christianity, which they thought would benefit them in Israel. Basically, in addition to other factions of Judaism that controlled Democrats, these factions of Judaism wanted to use their media influence to make a political alliance that also acted as a "controlled opposition" of sorts, and they wanted to use it for the purposes of sending Americans to fight in Middle East wars as their proxy. This culminated in 2003 in Iraq. Over time, this became what is known as "neoconservatism."

Of course, neoconservatives were only one group in the Republican party. But the "neocons" were always awarded the highest and most important offices throughout the administrations of Bush Sr and Bush Jr. With Trump's appearance, there is a gradual shift to populism and appealing to working classes. So that in 2024, they have completely abandoned principles like only recognizing traditional marriages. As an aside, this is pretty much insane. Before the Obergefell decision, literally nobody even thought this way. But "they" have been heavily pushing it in the media nonstop since then.

The main group attempting to normalize homosexuality and everything related to HIV-positive fags in the first place, especially for the past sixty years, is Judaism, by the way. This is because their religion allows it according to the Babylonian Talmud. Meanwhile, the same activity is an abomination in Christianity, as the Bible condemns it.

>>16887209
Take your fucking meds you utter lunatic.

>>16883543
Jerry Falwell

>>16888045
See how the truth makes them recoil.

>>16884505
>What's more fascinating is how quickly it all collapsed.
Well it's so shallow overall, and a lot of them were huge hypocrites who were iconclasts yet had their own icons such as the KJB or some relic of old America
>>16886366
Also this, a lot of theological decisions in the US are blatant baiting and outrage farming to try and attract more attention, but since it is all signaling virtue, it had no foundation

File: 40_ronald_reagan(1).jpg (314 KB, 1250x1250)

314 KB JPG

>>16886594
>s, the Evangelicals at least have a spine to save America
>evangelical introduces no fault divorce in USA
>50 years after Soviet commies pioneered it
>proud and brave act to save America!

>>16887209
This. Of course Zionists would be pushing for shit like dispensationalism.

>>16889644
Yes, and giving massive amounts of money and patronage to those who promote it, which then gets distributed to politically connected groups.

They were concocting this all the way back in the early 20th century, based on the writings of Moses Hess (an acquaintance of Karl Marx by the way) and others who came later. One of the main guys they used to push this was Cyrus I Scofield. He was a deadbeat dad and a failed preacher who became a member of secret societies connected to banking families, and they had him write a whole commentary on the Bible, called the Scofield Bible of 1917. Then somehow mysteriously the Bible with Scofield's footnotes was magically pushed into all seminaries across the country. Seminaries are places where American preachers of most denominations often go to get trained. That's where dispensationalism really comes from.

Zionism/dispensationalism has only gotten worse since then. See for instance this guy as an example: https://youtu.be/JE1UnSr1bxk

>>16889654
>Then somehow mysteriously the Bible with Scofield's footnotes was magically pushed into all seminaries across the country. Seminaries are places where American preachers of most denominations often go to get trained. That's where dispensationalism really comes from.
big if true

>>16886273
Wallace was never racist personally, his initial campaign in 1958 for governor was pro racial equality and endorsed by the NAACP, but he lost, so he pretended to be a racist for votes.
After 1972 in the late 70s, he abandoned racism and apologized for his stances, and in 79 won the black vote and appointed tons of black employees.
>>16886594
The entire appeal of trad-cath/trad-ortho larp is how tacky and vapid evangelicalism is. Evangelicals on average are more socially conservative but they aren't particularly religious
https://muslimskeptic.com/2022/12/26/american-christians-are-they-actually-christian/
>>16886698
It's weird how this guy was considered extreme in the old GOP days but nowadays would be fairly centre-right
If it weren't for the secular right wing that has been growing since 2014 (whether it be Trumpist nativists, or the anti-sjw "save the boobies in vidya" types, the Evangelicals would have permanently crippled the right)

>>16889736
*in 83

>>16886271
>muh jooooooos

>>16886634
Why are you changing the subject? Provide a law mandating segregation of churches in the Jim Crow era.

You said it existed.

File: with-jews-we-lose02_k0nsl.jpg (96 KB, 500x555)

96 KB JPG

>>16883543
Jews control both.

>>16890320
Yes, and I cited it several times.
I know you're an almost illiterate brownoid who doesn't understand that people could and would seize any chance to be "separate," up to and including having the State mandate such things.

>>16890331
You didn’t cite anything, and instead attempted to pivot to a debate about the Holocaust.

Where are your citations? I’m not seeing any links bro.

>>16890340
If you don't believe the Holocaust exists, there's no point in providing any links to anything since you won't believe them anyway.
That was the practice at the time, and that was what was done in the American South. Seperate in almost everything and public and private accomodations had to be seperated for whites and blacks. I know you can't seem to understand that since it's not done now, but that was what was done then. The State mandated that there be such separation.

>>16890347
There are in fact racially integrated churches that existed in the Jim Crow era south.

YET, you claim that the law mandated that churches must be separated.

Let’s see the law. Because the US was founded on the separation of church and state, so I am calling you ignorant and flat out wrong for claiming such a law existed.

>>16890366
They still had to maintain separate facilities and in the South the number was like 6% at most.
US law definitely regulates churches to a degree and did then too.

>>16883543
Because specifically evangelical dispensationalists are the biggest zionist voters in the country. Look into dispendationalism and the scofield bible being pushed and bribed to be used by pastors with all it's notes and agenda-driven interpretation.

>>16890369
The 6% implies there wasn’t a law mandating separation of churches, rather people chose to self segregate.

Once again, if such a law existed surely you could provide it?

>>16890385
I already cited the Jim Crow laws which mandated segregated facilities. I'm not sure why you can't understand that. Could it be you're just mashing your keys on the keyboard like a monkey and it's doing something to arrange them in a suppose sensical order? Seems that way.

>>16884505
Didn't the republican party just say they wouldn't vote for a guy because he was Indian?

>>16886577
Interesting how tripfags always seem aligned with some mainstream gay agendas, like you really are all mostly feds and assets

>>16890402
*says the Holocaust happened*
*apparently that means I'm a fed*
Feds seem to be the ones encouraging neonazis to deny the Holocaust and shoot up synagogues lol

>>16890388
Instead of sperging out, I simply request the law which you said existed.

>Jim crow laws said churches must be segregated

Obviously not if integrated churches existed in the open in major southern cities.

>>16884505
Obama's a high-ranking freemason so he probably does believe in at least one higher power, if not a slew

>>16890407
>isn't even comftorable with greentexting on le 4chuds
Stay in your lane glownigger

>>16890402
Anon, a majority of people believe the holocaust happened. Why would that make him a fed?

>>16890408
They still had to maintain separate accomodations. Which was my point.
I don't know if your monkey brain can understand any of that.

File: 1717025501178173.png (642 KB, 700x867)

642 KB PNG

>>16890400
Leftytroons always phrase baseless accusations as disingenuous questions.

>>16890428
So you have nothing to cite?

>>16890439
you mean besides the jim crow laws which I've been repeatedly citing which required separate accomodations for whites and blacks? that citation?

>>16890439
One lady compiled them into a book but it's hard to find. States' Laws on Race and Color

>>16890449
Thank you, I knew I read it some time ago but I forgot the title.
>>16890439
https://archive.org/details/stateslawonracec0000unse/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater

File: IMG_4048.jpg (296 KB, 1699x2560)

296 KB JPG

>>16890445
That’s crazy, because a quick dudckduckgo search on my Arch Linux box using a tiling VM shows plenty of pictures of mixed congregations in the same accommodations during that era.

File: IMG_4049.jpg (229 KB, 820x668)

229 KB JPG

>>16890458
Damn, that’s crazy because this book specifically cites that churches and religious institutions are EXEMPT from Jim Crow laws regarding public gathering places

How embarrassing for you.

>>16890473
The churches still had to have separate facilities like all others did. That was the practice back then.
>>16890459
Not "plenty" in the South considering there were at max 6 %.
I know you can't believe that White people were strangely evil and wouldn't want a brown person like you anywhere near them.

>>16890482
> The churches still had to have separate facilities like all others did

The book (that you never read before you linked it to me) debunks this claim.

>>16890503
Weird, I've been told outright by Whites who lived thru that era that it was so.
Who's right, one non American Filipino or a Southern grandmother?

>>16890518
>it was revealed to me by my grandmammy

A cultural practice is not a codified law. You said the laws existed then cited a book that specifically said churches are exempt from such laws.

File: IMG_4046.gif (1.02 MB, 460x360)

1.02 MB GIF

Radiotran lied

People died

>>16890518
It's not either or when it comes to laws and anecdotes. Granny was probably a Baptist who didn't want to see niggers in their pews, and the law was probably written that way to appease Pentecostals, which had roots in black Christianity and had a lot of interracial communion.

>>16890530
"cultural practice" enabled by the law and the law which mandated there be separate accomodations
I know you can't understand what the Jim Crow South was like, you are after all a non American zoomer

>>16890550
But there is photographic evidence of the opposite being true along with citations of churches being exempt from such laws which you so graciously provided for me.

>>16890565
You cited a picture of a Bahai congregation and the churches still had to have separate accomodations.
I know you can't understand this shit.

>>16890569
The book (You) cited said churches and religious institutions were exempt from these laws.

>>16890572
Most did anyway.

File: IMG_3903.jpg (46 KB, 677x680)

46 KB JPG

>>16890574
As was a cultural practice, but not mandated by the law.

>>16890583
They thought it was mandated by law which was one reason why they did it.
Is English language instruction in the Philippines really this bad?

>>16890591
So you’ve completely switched positions now?

>>16890603
No, also what you cited was just the Texas laws.
Virginia for example had no such exception for churches,

>>16890617
Im citing what you linked me.

And you did change positions- you said the laws were on the books, now you’re saying the people were mistaken bout laws on the books.

>>16890637
It's both, actually.
Laws were on the books, laws against discrimination also weren't enforced but laws which promoted discrimination were.

>thread devolves into two namefags screeching at each other
you fags should go back to your reddit shithole were you belong

File: IMG_4051.jpg (624 KB, 1284x1323)

624 KB JPG

>>16890640
It’s actually not both, as you can’t find evidence for your claims.

>>16890641
Banned for a week for dabbing on Zionist astroturfers

>>16890645
It is both considering that was enforced by the State at the time.
I know you can't understand why White people would enforce laws to not want to be around people like you, and not enforce laws which said otherwise.

>>16890652
If it both you would be able to find a citation instead of linking a book that discredits your argument.

>>16890655
Except I did, and you literally just cited it
>>16890645
with that picture that stated that laws and ordinances affected religious gatherings
That included churches.

>>16890661
>SOME MIGHT HAVE INDIRECTLY

and if it’s true let’s see rhem

16890667
I linked to the fucking book, retard.
Done with this, you're just going to say the same thing 6 gorillon times like a broken record

File: IMG_3172.png (122 KB, 860x850)

122 KB PNG

>>16890673
The book which LITERALLY disproved your claim? Lmfao

File: 1663555084360461.gif (300 KB, 1200x850)

300 KB GIF

trannies absokutely REKT again

File: IMG_3592.jpg (201 KB, 1284x341)

201 KB JPG

>>16890726
LOL he’s sperging out in two other threads now

Absolutely mindbroken

Bump to keep this thread on page one

Lest we forget

Rescued from page 10

>>16884505
Trump larps as a Christian but I don't think he is one either. He might be a deist at most but he doesn't buy any of the shit in the Bible. Regardless, his faith has way less importance on his optics, like most evangelicals like him because of his immigration stance iirc.