This silly and baseless claim is reminiscent of the claim of fake-victimhood and fake-threat to the "pure Aryan race" lies of the 1930s.   It's a rallying point for extreme radical christian "dominionists"*  in their never-ending effort to impose their primitive beliefs onto our government for the eventual establishment of a "christian" state.  It would be that perverted "christian" version of Saudi Arabia.  

*en.wikipedia

When a movement sees the kind of decline in membership like Christianity has, it's natural for it to lash out and claim victimization.  

 And like any rabid, desperate animal, it's dangerous. 

Their beef is with Christianity.....they let other religions slide.  But, you know what?  It doesn't really matter.  All of their talk doesn't sway us.  And, that's what gets their goat!  We won't apologize or back done and that ticks 'em off.  Yippee for us!!!!!

All of their talk doesn't sway us.  

You seriously don't think anyone's trying to "sway" you, do you?  Fanatics cannot be swayed.  Besides, fundamentalists are doing their own swaying.  Fundie and extreme rightwing "christians" are driving their own spawn away.  That shrinkage is what's driving the remainders to more extreme political expressions of white supremacism, racism and fascism.

Fundie and extreme rightwing "christians" are driving their own spawn away.

 I am compelled to agree with Atheist on this statement. Right-wing fundamentalism is becoming cultish as it casts off compassion and demands 1787 constitutionality. No one today can be seriously be expected to adhere totally to 18th century virtues on their face!

 Fanatics?  Excuse me.  You are saying that I am fanatic because I go to church on Sunday and believe in God?

You are the fanatic as you are constantly degrading Christianity and those of us who believe.

You don't seem to understand that I don't care what you are!  You could worship a tree and I don't care.  But, you seem to care what Christians do.   Why is that? 

Do I care if Christianity is the right religion?  Hell, no!  It is my religion. 

To me, God is the Great Spirit and I believe In him through my religion. 

The ability of the state to dictate to religion and for the church to dictate to the state is what separation is to prevent.

Yes and no. The Church does not have complete autonomy from the state.

Jefferson, our government has no vested interest in religious doctrine. Exception: Doctrine that can potentially impact the state. Pointedly, this is what right-wing churches are doing in making strides to control secularized, irreligious, and outcast communities in the United States.

Separation of church and state is why we don't tax churches or religion on this country as the power to tax is the power to destroy and government should not have that power.

That's a bizarre idea even by your standards, C4P.  The reason we don't tax churches is the same reason we don't tax any other secular non-profit (now there's a laugh when you look at the rich "mega-churches" whose leaders live like emirs) organization.  The Constitution has nothing to do with it.  It all comes from the tax code. 

 No, I consider you fanatical based on your comments here.  You can go to church every day of the week and not be one.  Or never go to a church and be one.  

Is this what you call tolerance by the Christians XX? Seems that the meaning of the word isn't something that you/they understand. 

Is it religion before country XX?

"What makes you think that Christianity is the ''right religion'', XX?"

I am not affiliated with any religious sect or organization. I practice the religious beliefs of my Cherokee ancestors. And to me, the only 'right' religion is the one that each individual chooses for themselves. If anyone truly cared about the 'souls' of others, they would support the kind of belief each individual chooses that brings them the most comfort, joy, enlightenment, inspiration, peace, fulfillment and Spiritual uplifting to their life, whatever name it may or may not have. 

And that kind of thinking is called Tolerance and Acceptance. Something that we should all practice. However, it seems to be something that some people just can't seem to bring themselves live by.

Just my own opinion. 

Raven, it is a good opinion too. It is highly responsible to the ideal in the US Constitution too. Right-wing evangelicals are in manifest error to try to force people into acceptance in God, our Christian faith, by pushing their version, their dogma, upon people. So far, the larger majority of citizens have not taken stock of what has "blossomed" in the world of social media and politics.  But once they do— persecution outcome .

I am gravely afraid that Right-wing insistence upon dominionism is going to setback all religion in this republic beyond its start point. "The Great Commission" is about sharing the gospel with the world and letting God produce the yield. *   This must not and can not be flipped to compelling people to come in by coercion and political might.

__

* King James Bible
   I Corinthians 3:6. I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

 Thank you calbab. It is not my wish to engage in religious conflicts, as I have no issue with the religious or belief choices that others make that they feel gives their life the happiness they seek. I am a firm believer that such is an important choice for each individual to make. All I ask in return is that they accept my right to have my own belief that brings me the same things they seek in their own life.

However, there are those who say one thing out of one side of their mouth, and do the opposite in actuality. The fact that some Christians do their best to live by the laws of their faith, there are those who use the name of God to engage in activities that are truly unChristian and inhumane. Their actions create a very negative view of all Christians, which is very unfair. Christianity itself is not a perfect religion, but, there are those who feel that it is and as long as that is how they feel and insist that the rest of the world should feel that same way, as it is to them the only right religion.

What they try to promote is that the millions of humans that lived on the earth prior to the birth of Christianity were never allowed into Heaven. A belief that I cannot accept as true. As if we are all children of the Creator, why would He not accept those who were on earth long before there was a Christian religion into Heaven if they lived a good life? 

I am sure there are many here who will disagree with me, but, that is OK.

Just my thoughts.

 How do you force anyone to believe in Jesus Christ?  Do you threaten them with life imprisonment, firing squad?  How do you go about that?

All I ask in return is that they accept my right to have my own belief that brings me the same things they seek in their own life.

 This is the power and the purpose of diversity "spirit" woven into the Constitution. Freedom of religion is intended to constitutionally guarantee all religions time and space to exist in one land alongside irreligion. It is diversity of the grandest scale when all sides can co-exist without menacing one another.

Sadly, some among us fight to claim the whole of the land for themselves and their specific worldview/s. To be fair, the Constitution was borne out of conflict between conventioneers jostling for superiority and not equality or diversity. In the end, those involved all decided to settle for "incompleteness of worldview" in order to seal and forge a new nation. On further reading, it is my understanding they, one side or the other or both, wanted future generations of men and women to fix what time and space denied them to secure: diversity.

Grossly inadequate have we been to our founding fathers, that we, a percentage of us, are still found wanting to be. . .them. We can not be them—they are them. O my people, evolve yourself, grow the national constitution, and sprout diversification.

 O Magnoliaave, it is even worse than that. It is to shape others realities into outcast, second-class citizenry, and/or invisibility. It is to live a lifetime stuck outside the lines of "normalcy" as determined by your more or less equals.

 Then why all the cheering for keeping certain populations of the people rendered ineffective in society. Why Dominion Theology strategies and tactics? Why not a "joyous" nation as the founders' hoped for, where all people blend together in the sense of not tearing each other down and out? It will change this nation's projected course in history upward if it stops with the incessant noises and activities of trying to make outcast of people-groups who have been associated with this national experiment from its beginning.

The use of political might and coercion to compel people to join ended with the creation of this country.

 That comment is simply a lie.

 Indeed it is, Kavika! 

 It is the right religion to him.  It doesn't matter what others think. 

 It matter a hell of a lot of he feels that he can force his religion on others. BTW, read your American history, Christians were the ones that outlawed Native religions in the U.S.

So much for the BS of religious freedom in the U.S. 

 Totally agree, Kavika. While the "Good Book" teaches tolerance, acceptance and Brotherly love, there are a great many who call themselves Christians that do anything but what they so ardently preach.

Granted, there are also a good many people who do follow that path, and without those who do the world as a whole would be in much more turmoil. 

To me personally, hate and intolerance are the most evil of all human emotions, and create the most hostility and division in our world, no matter what the religion or belief. 

 He doesn't try to force his religion on anyone.  If his articles have to do with his religion he has every right to do so.

Is he emailing you insisting that his is the right religion?  I doubt it.

No.  If you don't agree, then, fine.  Maybe, he doesn't agree with you.  Then, fine.

 I have not seen him spread hurt and hate!  Show me where he has.

 Well, they are not outlawed now.  I know my American history!

 Sorry magnoliaave, who are you referring to? He who? ???

 The seeder who you alluded to.

 I did not allude to the seeder, magnoliaave. I made no reference to him. If that is what you thought I apologize that I did not make myself more clear. I was speaking in generalization, not specifics. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I totally respect XX's right to post whatever religious thoughts and beliefs he has, as I do all others. I don't not accuse him of trying to poke his religious beliefs down anyone's throat, but, there are those in our world who do, and those are the ones I was referring to. 

 My apology.

 No apology necessary, magnoliaave, the fault is mine for not being more clear who my comment was aimed at. (smile)

 And ''there not outlawed now'' Wow isn't that great, hundred of years of persecution of Indian religions and the best you have is ''they are not outlawed now...LOLOL, geez the last 40 years we have been free to practice our religions...Praise the Lord and thank the Christians for their ''enlightened'' view it only took 500 years to get there.

 questions::

Where all Nations united?

Were there wars amongst them?

Were some of the wars they fought over " Faith "?

Did some of the Nations have different " gods"?

 '' The gospel will be taken to all the world til every ear has heard and every eye seen the good news of the gospel no matter the efforts of the secular and Islam to stop it.'' These are XX words. 

Oh and BTW since you know your American history explain what the ''Indian Boarding Schools'' were and what was their goal, Magnoliaave.

 The answer EA is that we didn't have wars over religion. Nor do we proselytize to any group Indian or other.

And no we don't have different gods.

The answer EA is that we didn't have wars over religion. Nor do we proselytize to any group Indian or other. And no we don't have different gods.

 Wow,  so no wars between tribes?

and no fighting Over Totems?

And No one killed for Marrying into a " forbidden Clan " Talking about " sanitizing ";!

 To Clarify::

The Numbers of white settles Killed by Amero-Indians has always been greatly exaggerated, During the Westward March, more where killed by Rattlers then Amero-Indians something like 300 Vs 900, so this is not to exonerate anyone, but Twisting the FACTS of History does not assist in a " Forwards March to Unity " Lies unity do not make!

 Source

INTERTRIBAL WARFARE

Intertribal warfare was intense throughout the Great Plains during the 1700s and 1800s, and archeological data indicate that warfare was present prior to this time. Human skeletons from as early as the Woodland Period (250 B.C. to A.D. 900) show occasional marks of violence, but conflict intensified during and after the thirteenth century, by which time farmers were well established in the Plains. After 1250, villages were often destroyed by fire, and human skeletons regularly show marks of violence, scalping, and other mutilations. Warfare was most intense along the Missouri River in the present-day Dakotas, where ancestors of the Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras were at war with each other, and towns inhabited by as many as 1,000 people were often fortified with ditch and palisade defenses. Excavations at the Crow Creek site, an ancestral Arikara town dated to 1325, revealed the bodies of 486 people–men, women, and children, essentially the town's entire population–in a mass grave. These individuals had been scalped and dismembered, and their bones showed clear evidence of severe malnutrition, suggesting that violence resulted from competition for food, probably due to local overpopulation and climatic deterioration. Violence among farmers continued from the 1500s through the late 1800s.

Archeological data on war among the nomadic Plains hunters are few, but some nomads were attacking farmers on the edges of the Plains by at least the 1500s. By the eighteenth century, war was common among the nomads, apparently largely because of conflicts over hunting territories.

Prior to the introduction of European horses and guns, Plains warfare took two forms. When equally matched forces confronted each other, warriors sheltered behind large shields, firing arrows; individual warriors came out from behind these lines to dance and taunt their opponents. This mode of combat was largely for show and casualties were light. However, sometimes, large war parties surprised and utterly destroyed small camps or hamlets. Increasing interaction with Europeans from the eighteenth century on changed these patterns dramatically. Massed shield lines could neither stand against mounted warriors nor protect against firearms; this mode of battle largely disappeared with the introduction of horses and guns, although equally matched mounted war parties sometimes used the old tactics. Early access to horses also allowed some groups, notably the Comanches, to overwhelm and displace neighboring tribes who lacked such access. Documentary and archeological evidence indicate that horses and guns contributed mightily to this more destructive mode of Plains warfare, most intensively along the Missouri River.

Raids for horses by small groups of warriors became a primary form of conflict after about 1750, particularly among the nomadic groups. Horse raiders usually entered enemy camps at night to take horses picketed close to their owners. Such raids were dangerous–raiders were killed when caught in the act–and successful raiders often achieved high status. The relation between war and status in the Plains is similarly evident in the practice of counting coup, in which a living enemy (or sometimes a dead enemy) was touched with the hand or a special stick. This act signified ultimate bravery in most Plains tribes and gave a warrior great prestige.

The prestige attached to stealing horses and to counting coup rather than killing has contributed to the view that Plains warfare was a moderately dangerous kind of game driven by individual quests for status rather than "real" war driven by competition for resources. This is misleading. Individual warriors sought status and sometimes avoided killing enemies in battle, but destructive high-casualty warfare was widespread, with documented battles involving thousands of warriors and hundreds of fatalities. Other massacres like that at Crow Creek are known from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and archeological and documentary evidence show great changes in tribal territories resulting from war before and after white contact.

". This mode of combat was largely for show and casualties were light. However, sometimes, large war parties surprised and utterly destroyed small camps or hamlets."

 " Other hostilities continued, and expanding European Americans exploited them: for example, Crows and Pawnees scouted in military campaigns against the Cheyennes and Lakotas. Intertribal violence in the Plains subsided with the confinement of the tribes to reservations in the late nineteenth century.

Douglas B. Bamforth University of Colorado at Boulder

Bamforth, Douglas B. "Indigenous People, Indigenous Violence: Pre-Contact Warfare on the North American Great Plains." Man 29 (1994): 95–115.

Galloway, Colin G. Our Hearts Fell to the Ground: Plains Indian Views of How the West Was Lost. New York: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1996. "

 I didn't say there was no fighting between tribes. There was. Don't put words in my mouth EA.

I said we didn't war over religion, is that plain enough for you EA?

We  were discussing religion and the outlawing of native religions, not warfare between tribes. 

 Link

A totem is a spirit being, sacred object, or symbol of a tribe, clan, family or individual. Native American tradition provides that each person is connected with nine different animals that will accompany him or her  through life, acting as guides.

Different animal guides, also called spirit guides and/or power animals, come in and out of our lives depending on the direction that we are headed and the tasks that need to be completed along our journey.

Native beliefs further explain that a totem animal is one that is with you for life, both in the physical and spiritual world. Though people may identify with different animal guides throughout their lifetimes, it is this one totem animal that acts as the main guardian spirit.

With this one animal, a connection is shared, either through interest in the animal, characteristics, dreams, or other interaction.

This Animal Guide offers power and wisdom to the individual when they "communicate” with it, conveying their respect and trust. This does not necessarily mean that he or she has actually touched or spent time with this animal, more that, they are open to learning its lessons.

For some, knowing what is their totem animal is almost an innate process. It’s as if they’ve always known, inexplicably drawn to the animal or having a special feeling for the animal’s energy. For others, they wonder how to tell what their animal totem is.

 EA, I'll say it once again I NEVER SAID THAT THE TRIBES DIDN'T WAR BETWEEN THEM. You posted links stating warfare between tribes. If you can't see the connection or none connection that's your problem. 

1. No not all tribes were united, some were, Iroquois confederacy, Three Fire Nations, and others.  

2. Yes there were

3. No they were not fought over faith

4. No, tribes have one as you call it a God.

 ok why get upset over a discussion?

 I'm not upset over a discussion EA. You are the one that is going off topic, to want end I have no idea.

3. No they were not fought over faith

4. No, tribes have one as you call it a God.

E.A 3  So different tribes did not have a Different Totem, and hence a " Faith " in a Different " animal " as their protector?

4 Who said god is a singular entity or thing?

Did they ban intermarriage between some Clans, and why?

 

 E.A 3  So different tribes did not have a Different Totem, and hence a " Faith " in a Different " animal " as their protector?

4 Who said god is a singular entity or thing?

Did they ban intermarriage between some Clans, and why?

Yes, tribes did have different totems..(Totem comes from the Ojibwe word odoodem or doodem) and if you want to call it a ''faith'' fine. It has nothing to do with being a God or as we call it, Gitchi Manidoo (Manitou).

Who said God is isn't a singular entity or thing?

I cannot speak for every tribe in the U.S. there are over 500 but in my tribe, intermarriage WITHIN the same clan is forbidden, to put it in a white/European frame of reference it would be like marrying your cousin. The majority of tribes are matrilineal (mother's bloodline)

WITHIN the same clan is forbidden

 E.A what is the Punishment?

 Waiting

 The Cherokee have the same law, intermarriage within the same Clan is forbidden. This is to prevent inbreeding among Tribal member.  This is a law of nature even among many animals, as inbreeding will soon mutate and eventually destroy the species. The punishment in the Cherokee Tribe for forbidden marriage is banishment of both the man and woman. Banishment might seem to some to be a very insignificant punishment, but, in reality, they will never be accepted by their family nor taken in by any other Tribe and will have to survive on their own.

I'm not sure what other Tribe's laws are regarding this, but, that is what the Cherokee law is.     

 E.A What is the Punishment?

RW Banishment might seem to some to be a very insignificant punishment, but, in reality, they will never be accepted by their family nor taken in by any other Tribe and will have to survive on their own.

E.A so then Judging does take place, and in some cases " death is the end result " is that right?

 Still ..... Waiting, well Kavika

 Kavika, that chaplain is just being more honest Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]

Christians were the ones that outlawed Native religions in the U.S.

Often with brutal reprisals for defying those laws.  And that's just a tiny part of the atrocities meted out by "Christians."  That not much has changed with a very nasty but obnoxiously loud minority of them is obvious reading the religious crap they still spew. 

 Give it up!

 He can't give up what he doesn't know. LOL

 Kavika, what do you have to say about those denying the atrocities committed against First Nation children (not to mention all First Nation people)?

 Hypocrites that can't admit their own history.

'Undeniable': Hostility toward free religious exercise in U.S.

The Above is the Tittle of this SEED

How can Making any comments about the Different " religions  in The Americas "  be " Off Topic?

You have done so well EA in your comments in my opinion.

I don't think one Chaplin out of all the Chaplins in the military is any more on topic than your legitimate questions you posed.  I believe I can speak for those I'm aligned with to say none of us agree with that Chaplin.

You're questions may have been off topic as well, but were done in such a way that they weren't expressed with hostility and also provided information in conjunction with them that was informative.  Often we think our way of believing is the only way and all others are the wrong way.  Nice to see an unbiased comment without outward hostility, not that we don't have many other comments of the same caliber.

Here is another off topic comment from me, but first, let me address the article.  I'm a firm believer if the job doesn't suit you, then find another job if you can, such as the health worker in the article.  And also, I find myself to be more spiritual today than I was when I was in church every time the door was unlocked.  There are a lot of people who are this way today.  Quite a few in church aren't as spiritual as they could be because they are trapped by the building fund, the request for more and more money, preacher ran off with the treasurer or whatever the case.

I believe in holding onto your religious freedoms as much as you can and being able to live in line with your religious beliefs as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

Thanks for the comment EA.

Here are a couple of links including a video that may be of interest.

The Crusades: Urban Legends and Truth

Link

 thank you 6P, I can Only but try, you know what they say " one can not make a silk purse out of a sows ear " : :-)

 You can't seriously be ignorant of European military conquest of Muslim countries, colonization and exploitation....oh wait, you obviously are.  

The European invasion of the Islamic world was not uniform, but it was thorough and effective. It began in Moghul India. During the latter half of the 18th century, British traders had established themselves in Bengal, and at this time, when modernization was still in its infancy, the British lived on a par with the Hindu and Muslim merchants. But this phase of British activity is known as the "plundering of Bengal," because it permanently damaged the local industry, and changed its agriculture so that Bengalis no longer grew crops for themselves but produced raw materials for the industrialized Western markets. Bengal had been reduced to second-class status in the world economy. Gradually as the British became more "modern" and efficient themselves, their attitude became more superior, and they were determined to "civilize" the Indians, backed up by the Protestant missionaries who started to arrive in 1793. But the Bengalis were not encouraged to evolve a fully industrialized society of their own; the British administrators introduced only those aspects of modern technology that would reinforce their supremacy and keep Bengal in a complementary role. The Bengalis did benefit from British efficiency, which kept such disasters as disease, famine and war at bay, and the population increased as a result; but this created new problems of overcrowding and poverty, since there was no option of migration to the towns, as in the West, and the people all had to stay on the land.

The plundering of Bengal economically led to political domination. Between 1798 and 1818, by treaty or by military conquest, British rule was established throughout India, except in the Indus Valley, which was subdued between 1843 and 1849. In the meantime, the French had tried to set up an empire of their own. In 1798 Napoleon Bonaparte occupied Egypt, hoping to establish a base in Suez that would cut the British sea routes to India. He brought with him a corps of scholars, a library of modern European literature, a scientific laboratory and a printing press with Arabic type. From the start, the advanced culture of Europe, coming as it did with a superbly efficient modern army, was experienced in the Muslim Middle East as an assault. Napoleon's expedition to Egypt and Syria failed. He had intended to attack British India from the north, with the help of Russia. This gave Iran a wholly new strategic importance, and for the next century Britain established a base in the south of the country, while the Russians tried to get control of the north. Neither wanted to make Iran a full colony or protectorate (until oil was discovered there in the early twentieth century), but both powers dominated the new Qajar dynasty, so that the shahs did not dare to make a move without the support of at least one of them. As in Bengal, both Britain and Russia promoted only the technology that furthered their own interests and blocked such inventions as the railway, which might have benefited the Iranian people, in case it endangered their own strategic positions.

The European powers colonized one Islamic country after another. France occupied Algeria in 1830, and Britain Aden nine years later. Tunisia was occupied in 1881, Egypt in 1882, the Sudan in 1889 and Libya and Morocco in 1912. In 1915 the Sykes-Picot agreement divided the territories of the moribund Ottoman Empire (which had sided with Germany during the First World War) between Britain and France in anticipation of victory. After the war, Britain and France duly set up protectorates and mandates in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Transjordan. This was experienced as an outrage, since the European powers had promised the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire independence. In the Ottoman heartlands, Mustafa Kemal, known as Ataturk (1881-1938), was able to keep the Europeans at bay and set up the independent state of Turkey. Muslims in the Balkans, Russia and Central Asia became subject to the new Soviet Union. Even after some of these countries had been allowed to become independent, the West often continued to control the economy, the oil or such resources as the Suez Canal. European occupation often left a legacy of bitter conflict. When the British withdrew from India in 1947, the Indian subcontinent was partitioned between Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, which are to this day in a state of deadly hostility, with nuclear weapons aimed at each other's capitals. In 1948 the Arabs of Palestine lost their homeland to the Zionists, who set up the Jewish secular state of Israel there, with the support of the United Nations and the international community. The loss of Palestine became a potent symbol of the humiliation of the Muslim world at the hands of the Western powers, who seemed to feel no qualms about the dispossession and permanent exile of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

Probably more Muslims were subjected to British rule in India and Pakistan alone than Christians anywhere under Islamic occupation in the entire history of that. 

Tell me again what happened before the 18th century.

 You act like the peace loving muslims were minding their own business.

In the first 40 years of it's existence Sicily was attacked and less than 100 years of existence Spain was under their control.

Islam has been at war with the west since about 650 AD.

Islam has been at war with the west since about 650 AD.

And you should be ecstatic about that since the West has killed far more of them than they of us right up to the present moment. 

Got any numbers to back up your claim?

 Since they attacked the west first they got what they deserve.  

What I feel is irrelevant.  History is what it is.

  Here's something to think about;  You could give any one of these religions an entire planet to inhabit and I would wager that within no less than 3 and no more than 5 generations there would be schisms and wars

 I tend to somewhat agree with you Tom.  Even too much of a good thing will make you sick.

It seems most religions, at this time, have progressed beyond the violence perpetrated by each of them in the past.

 You can wager and from what we see in our present reality and there is reasonable chance you could win it.

However, the model you draw on is not wholly pure-nothing ever is with humankind: Apostle Paul wrote, "For now we see through a glass, darkly;" (I Corinthians 13:12.) to wit, in my opinion, meaning their are mysteries specifically in the Christian faith, and in other faiths generally, for instance, that lend themselves to uncertainty and a free-exchange of ideas. Apostle Paul called it (religion), "liberality."(I Corinthians 8:9.)

Consequently, taking our perpetual mysteries to a new planet simply would give a different set of people a similar set of questions and actions according to their new levels of understanding. It is the human condition to not know everything, despite knowing an immeasurable "lot."

Apparently, spirituality rivals the natural world in what can be considered knowledge.

 We're dealing with "human nature".  Over time the "I'm right/you're not" would prevail.  Violence may not be used initially.  But over time the changes that would occur, either out of need or misunderstanding of texts, will eventually bring about schisms and a need to control/bring them back into the fold the "heretics and their followers".

Could happen, though you will have to better define, "over time." In general I agree with you. People divide over spiritual subtleties and brazen ideas all the time; see protestant (dissent). I need not remind you that this problem is pervasive in our species, nevertheless.