You are not speaking to my point, but around it. English Protestantism must be the ideology occupying the value system of the state, in order for it to limit itself. The doctrine of separation caused English Protestantism to vacate the state, making room for Progressivism to enter.
You moved the goal posts away from "Christian" generally. But, even with this, it is not that English Protestantism must be the ideology occupying the value system of the state (See: Anglican Church); it is that English Protestantism must be the value system of everyone to limit the state.
The state will never limit itself and can never be trusted to. This is very nature of the Bill of Rights. Every single Federalist claimed it was silly to make constitutional articles that explicitly limited state power since everyone was going to be represented anyway. They were wrong, and likely lying.
A rabid bear wearing a cross does not make it less dangerous. A rabid bear tied to the ground is what is needed.
I said that there was no guarantee that Christianity would be as forceful with government as Islam. You correctly identified the Christian denomination that is least likely to be forceful using the state. Thank you for improving on my already correct point.
I am an anarchist myself. I am describing the realities of the situation if there is a state.
You are not speaking to my point, but around it. English Protestantism must be the ideology occupying the value system of the state, in order for it to limit itself. The doctrine of separation caused English Protestantism to vacate the state, making room for Progressivism to enter.
You moved the goal posts away from "Christian" generally. But, even with this, it is not that English Protestantism must be the ideology occupying the value system of the state (See: Anglican Church); it is that English Protestantism must be the value system of everyone to limit the state.
The state will never limit itself and can never be trusted to. This is very nature of the Bill of Rights. Every single Federalist claimed it was silly to make constitutional articles that explicitly limited state power since everyone was going to be represented anyway. They were wrong, and likely lying.
A rabid bear wearing a cross does not make it less dangerous. A rabid bear tied to the ground is what is needed.
I said that there was no guarantee that Christianity would be as forceful with government as Islam. You correctly identified the Christian denomination that is least likely to be forceful using the state. Thank you for improving on my already correct point.
I am an anarchist myself. I am describing the realities of the situation if there is a state.