You must evaluate my statements based on evidence as being true or false.
Alright. So where is your evidence?
Fact #1: There has never been a (Federal) theocratic political structure in this country, nor any threat of one. There is, however, a strong atheistic political structure which has been usurping our freedom for decades.
Fact #2: The expansion of political franchise and “human rights” has come only after the work (and blood) of those Christians (and other religious people) whom you feel so free to disparage. Abolitionists were primarily Christian; the women's suffrage movement was supported by Christians; and the civil rights' movement couldn't have happened without the support of churches.
Fact #3: No increase in the powers of the Federal government can be attributed to (Christian) religious influence. The obverse is unfortunately the norm: atheistic restrictions on speech, imposition of draconian laws specifically against Christian organizations, and illegal (ir)religious tests for Federal appointments.
I know of no prominent individual Christian or Christian organization that advocates civil law based solely on faith. Yet, they do want laws that allow them to practice their faith. At times, that means they will work for, or against, particular legislation.
However, correlation does not equal causality. You cannot outlaw everything that happens to coincide with any religion, nor can you prohibit public discourse or action because a particular subject may include elements of both civil and spiritual relevance.
The question has never really been whether we will have morality imposed on us; it is whose morality. Unfortunately, that answer isn’t being decided by the people, is it?
Perhaps we need a court case to establish the seperation of Atheism and state.
Fact #1: There has never been a (Federal) theocratic political structure in this country, nor any threat of one.
You are correct there has never been such a structure as men of reason have seen that there has not been one since the founding of our country.
“There is, however, a strong atheistic political structure which has been usurping our freedom for decades.”
And where is this strong atheistic political structure.
“Abolitionists were primarily Christian”
As were slaveholders, however the abolitionists have a very short history compared to the slaveholders.
“the women's suffrage movement was supported by Christians;”
Socialist Christians who also brought about the insane debacle known as prohibition, which they have now reincarnated in the current day war on drugs. A plan I might add that didn’t work for prohibition and doesn’t work for drugs. However both were very successful in increasing the size and power of the federal government.
“and the civil rights' movement couldn't have happened without the support of churches.”
Predominantly black churches. Southern Christians were more than willing to kill to thwart the civil rights movement, which is why Johnson had to call out the National Guard
“No increase in the powers of the Federal government can be attributed to (Christian) religious influence.”
Already refuted above.
“The obverse is unfortunately the norm: atheistic restrictions on speech, imposition of draconian laws specifically against Christian organizations, and illegal (ir)religious tests for Federal appointments.”
And which laws are you talking about. Certainly you aren’t talking about the laws we have, which uphold the Constitution, preventing Christians from forcing others to practice their religion in public schools and on taxpayer owned property. Were there some laws passed that prohibited Christians from attending a church of their choice or from practicing their faith in their daily lives that I missed.
“I know of no prominent individual Christian or Christian organization that advocates civil law based solely on faith.”
Nor do I, they advocate civil law based on biblical law, a system that is currently in place by many Muslim country in the world. (Of course based on Islamic law)
“The question has never really been whether we will have morality imposed on us; it is whose morality.”
Am I to gather from this response that you have decided that someone or something will dictate to you your own personal morality and that you have no say in the matter. That’s too bad, however I am not willing to accept that.