Religious Liberty: President Trump's Unmatched Record

[metis]

why can't a land filled with Christians establish the type of society they want to?

There are limits to that based on the 1st Amendment.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Playing semantic games is impolite. But I understand why you skirt the question which invokes fear in non-Christians.


Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
2 Corinthians 3:17

This coming from the man who said he was a 'prisoner in Christ'

 

[Revoltingest]

Do..do you guys not have Christmas holidays?

It seems a secular holiday for most people here.

 

[tytlyf]

Some people just want to be offended over something, I suppose

It's always the Democrats that are to blame for it too!
Another slick trick to keep the bovine's in line and voting Republican. (lesser of 2 evils)

 

[Wrangler]

Let me ask you this simple question; why can't a land filled with Christians establish the type of society they want to?

There are limits to that based on the 1st Amendment.

NOTE: My question forms the basis of the 1A. Moreover, the 1A text is far less restrictive than anti-Christians want to suppose.

 

[SomeRandom]

It seems a secular holiday for most people here.

That’s what I had assumed

 

[SomeRandom]

It's always the Democrats that are to blame for it too!
Another slick trick to keep the bovine's in line and voting Republican. (lesser of 2 evils)

Really? How odd

 

[Wrangler]

Hmm, then I wonder why they set up a secular Constitution.

Secularists today suppose there is too thin a line between any kind of religious relationship with government and a theocracy. NOTE: The Office of the Chaplain has been part of the House of Representatives since the Founding. 100% of the Chaplains for over 230 years have been Christian. So, obviously, the Founding Father's idea that the Constitution did not over-ride the basic Christian nation who established it. How else do you reconcile the prohibition against establishing a religion (1A) and the Office of the Chaplain?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Secularists today suppose there is too thin a line between any kind of religious relationship with government and a theocracy. NOTE: The Office of the Chaplain has been part of the House of Representatives since the Founding. 100% of the Chaplains for over 230 years have been Christian. So, obviously, the Founding Father's idea that the Constitution did not over-ride the basic Christian nation who established it. How else do you reconcile the prohibition against establishing a religion (1A) and the Office of the Chaplain?

How is any of that relevant in light of what you told me in post 86 ?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Jesus death on the cross does not necessarily stop people from sinning.

This fact does not justify people claiming Jesus was not good for religion or religious liberty.

Right, its not Jesus death but our own death on the cross that stops us from sinning -- and defeats Satan --- and brings healing to the world. Like Jesus taught. The absence of that healing can only be our own fault for not denying ourselves. Almost none of us does as far as I can see. We plainly ignore the bulk of Jesus advice. The problems that you and I keep failing to resolve through laws are the kind that the world can't solve. Hence abortion is our own fault not for failing to pass the correct laws but for failing to be who we claim. Why did prohibition fail? Why are there still all kinds of murders and wars? That, too, is on us. We try to stop them with diplomacy, with money, with fighting, with arguments...anything but self denial. Anything but what Jesus says is required, that is what we do. We have to have our comforts, our me time, our own families, own children, own paths, own careers etc. Its all about self realization. Or am I mistaken about that?

Going by his claims in the NT each disciple must also take up the cross and die to themselves. I don't see Christians doing that, today. According to Jesus he is interested in our deaths on the cross and our own denial of ourselves, but what I am seeing is complaining, fault finding, busy-body stuff. That's what I think this legal pressure is on doctors and women. Somebody has us (had me) believing that if we stroked a pen and voted the right way we could defeat abortion. That isn't how things work. I think it should be obvious by now, and I think you're still hoping that politics can fix things that it never could. It never has in the past.

This not being taught by most Christians, so of course our country is going to continue to have problems with excess orphans and questions about abortion will naturally arise. There's no use blaming it on the non Christians. They aren't the ones claiming to be Jesus disciples while basically living like normal people. Its not the laws that are causing us to have problems.

Not everybody should claim to be a Christian. We have this wrong. A Christian should be a Christian, not just somebody who goes to church. Making things illegal (such as alcohol) seems to fail to fix this terrible mistake. Making drugs illegal and makeup and telling the midwives what to do isn't the answer. The Christians should live on the edge or stop calling themselves that, and then maybe God will be willing to step in.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

This not being taught by most Christians, so of course our country is going to continue to have problems with excess orphans and questions about abortion will naturally arise.

The bible says to be fruitful and multiply. Nature however, in crowning us the alpha animal on the food chain, would implore us then to barely replace ourselves. We ring her round with a chain of human bodies at our own peril

 

[Brickjectivity]

The bible says to be fruitful and multiply. Nature however, in crowning us the alpha animal on the food chain, would implore us then to barely replace ourselves. We ring her round with a chain of human bodies at our own peril

To be fair it appears to command Adam to do that, not everybody. Jews seem to think that the command to Adam applies to themselves, which is within their purview to think; but if Adam is told to jump off a bridge are they going to do that, too? No, they are not. I think. Nevertheless there are no bridges in the Bible.

slightly off topic:
Did you know that there are no bridges in the Bible? Its true. There is not a single bridge. People always use fords, paths or roads. No bridges. If somebody needs to connect two hilltops they fill in the valley. If they need to connect an island to the land they fill in the channel. Israel needs to cross the red sea, but do they consider building a bridge? No. Bridge just doesn't occur to them. They need to have the water miraculously spread apart as they walk upon dry land, because for some reason there are no bridges. Show me a bridge in the Bible. Go ahead. You can't! But I digress.

And don't say "Rainbows." They don't count.

Nature however, in crowning us the alpha animal on the food chain, would implore us then to barely replace ourselves. We ring her round with a chain of human bodies at our own peril

I have decided not to worry myself about over population. There are different ways of looking at it, and I don't have any children. One way to look at it is that the more of us there are, the more likely the species is to survive when the next major extinction level event comes. We don't know when something will start killing us, such as a mutant ant or a sun flare or a super volcano. It could be almost anything. Maybe some mischievous teen lets loose a swarm of killer robots? We are already far, far more populous than Economists and others thought possible. Its all in the Maths, but we're pretty driven to multiply. Theoretically we can keep going if we keep improving our food supply, get rid of asphalt roads and decentralize our infrastructure. I think we could, using smart methods, double or triple the current population. That's not based on data but seems true to me.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

If you want to go off topic, I will do that , since some days I can't focus

To be fair it appears to command Adam to do that, not everybody.

Well I thought adam was the plural hebrew word for mankind

Did you know that there are no bridges in the Bible? Its true. There is not a single bridge. People always use fords, paths or roads.

Which reminds me of some anecdote I read in Roman history .. about them building a bridge across the Rhine, and then tribes there were said to fall back in awe or something

And don't say "Rainbows." They don't count.

Actually , in norse mythology , which actually contains obvious variations of the genesis story , (which indicates that there was an old , old testament) the rainbow does symbolize a bridge to heaven

I have decided not to worry myself about over population.

Fair enough , you only live so long after all. You'll never know if the population will hit two trillion or if it will go down to a million

 

[metis]

NOTE: My question forms the basis of the 1A. Moreover, the 1A text is far less restrictive than anti-Christians want to suppose.

The basis of the 1st Amendment was not to make us a theocracy but to prevent us from making a theocracy, and this should be well known since so many of our founding fathers left Europe to come here seeking religious freedom.

 

[Wrangler]

The basis of the 1st Amendment was not to make us a theocracy

Today's secularists falsely equate a State sponsored religion with a theocracy. Is the establishment of the Office of the Chaplain indicative of a theocracy? If not, why not? Where do you draw the line?

Beyond that, are you aware that several of the States, as Colonies had, in fact established religions? All were Christian religions. And the 1A does not restrict the States in this regard; it only restricts the Creature of the Sovereign State compact.

 

[metis]

Is the establishment of the Office of the Chaplain indicative of a theocracy?

It is allowed because it does not pertain to any one denomination or religion.

Beyond that, are you aware that several of the States, as Colonies had, in fact established religions?

So? The Constitution came long after we became a nation per the Second Continental Congress.

And the 1A does not restrict the States in this regard; it only restricts the Creature of the Sovereign State compact.

The Bill of Rights pertains to all states, thus not just dealing with the federal government.

 

[Wrangler]

It is allowed because it does not pertain to any one denomination or religion.

So, a government department that IS religious but not a theocracy, right? In practice, the Office of the Chaplain is ALL Christian. That means nothing to you?

So? The Constitution came long after we became a nation per the Second Continental Congress.

We are not a homogenous nation but a collection of Sovereign States in a federation. See 10A.

The Bill of Rights pertains to all states, thus not just dealing with the federal government.

True but irrelevant to the point. The 1A restricts Congress only. The 1A does not restrict the Sovereign States.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Today's secularists falsely equate a State sponsored religion with a theocracy. Is the establishment of the Office of the Chaplain indicative of a theocracy? If not, why not? Where do you draw the line?

Beyond that, are you aware that several of the States, as Colonies had, in fact established religions? All were Christian religions. And the 1A does not restrict the States in this regard; it only restricts the Creature of the Sovereign State compact.

Did you notice none of them had official religions after the Constitution?
And good riddance! We had people in jail for blasphemy laws then. Clearly, in so many ways, we are tons better off that the Constitution tells religion to "hit the road, Jack," when it comes to the state. Everyone is more free that way, even those who don't believe in sharing equal rights equally. "The United States was not founded upon Christian principles," and we are at our best when we accept this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, a government department that IS religious but not a theocracy, right? In practice, the Office of the Chaplain is ALL Christian. That means nothing to you?

Where did you get that idea from? There is nothing in the Constitution that says the office is Christian, nor have all of the permanent chaplains been Christian. Plus they fairly often have guest chaplains that are Jewish.

We are not a homogenous nation but a collection of Sovereign States in a federation. See 10A.



True but irrelevant to the point. The 1A restricts Congress only. The 1A does not restrict the Sovereign States.

You will find that it does. Guess who interprets the Constitution legally in the US? Not you. Not me. But the SCOTUS. They do not appear to agree with you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, a government department that IS religious but not a theocracy, right? In practice, the Office of the Chaplain is ALL Christian. That means nothing to you?

That's not an official office designated by the Constitution, and people as early as James Madison have been opposed to such a thing based on them being unconstitutional.