Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You thought wrong. King Alfred's doom's includes a reference to the Council of Jerusalem, which addressed the issue of the relevance of Judiac law to converts to the first century Messianism that was associated with Christianity.
Can your LLB with hons refute the actual facts about the origins of the common law?
Gibberish dude. Blather.
During my three years of study, not once did King Alfred or the Bible come up.
Theism is relevant because of the union of the church and state, in particular the endorsement of the Act of Settlement in the coronation oath.
I'll type slowly then, so you can keep up.
Typing slowly wont help. I need cards, with pictures!
The Monarch is head of the Anglican Church. Yet neither determine the law. Parliament is sovereign.
Yes, the underlying issue one of religious prejudice. According to Pauline doctrine the law was nailed to the cross.
It matters not when those who do have sworn allegiance to someone who has endorsed (by implication) the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.
Your law maybe friend.
I swear allegiance only to the infinite void.
What do masks have to do with religion?
These workers refused the vaccine on religious grounds.
It's a pretty good comparison, imo. Both involve risking the health/lives of others and the government restrictions placed on those behaviours.
Which of course, is not really good enough a reason. Since exemptions on religious grounds on public health matters are seldom given.
That depends on whether or not a person holds a belief related to maskwearing and personal safety. All beliefs are religious in nature as they are extensions of conscience and judgment and point to things not provable or immediately known. If I say "I believe God will save me from getting COVID-19," or I say, "I believe maskwearing will save me from getting COVID-19," I have expresses a religious view in either case. I can't prove either in the moment I speak them. The object of one's belief does not bear on the question of a statement's religiosity; the fact of one's belief is what makes the nature of the statement religious, or not.
On the balance of probability however, beliefs for which there are testable evidences, are superior to those beliefs without testable evidence, such as religious claims. Superior meaning, in this context, more reliable. More probable.
Covid kills..... Misleading people is wrong and one day it should be made illegal. Or like charles Manson, impose a liability for the death(s) caused if proven to come from the person(s) that mislead them.The Biden administration "ran afoul" of the First Amendment by trying to pressure social media platforms over controversial COVID-19 content, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Friday.
Biden administration violated First Amendment over COVID-19 content on social media, court of appeals rules
The Biden administration violated the First Amendment by trying to "coerce" social media platforms to remove coronavirus content it found problematic, a federal court of appeals ruled.news.yahoo.com
I think not only did they pressure websites -- but also silenced opposing medical voices to maintain a narrative. IMV
Makes one wonder how many platforms were forced to police, or make their own decision, as to what was right and what was wrong violating Constitutional free speech and the conversations that were pertinent to the issue.
Agreed, the deliberate and wilful misrepresentation of the facts and or creation of misinformation is bad enough, with regard to a health pandemic, but when these acts are committed wholesale by influential people, disseminated widely, in the public sphere, then they become criminal in my view. Free speech is all very well, but all considerations must be balanced, with pragmatism and realism.
The lost tribes of Israel didn't just cease to exist. Britsh = bryt eysh, meaning covenant male, and Saxon is like Isaac-son. Isaac was the son of Abraham was was of the covenant of circumcision, his half brother Ishmael was not.
Well said.