Where's the Separation of Religion and State?

[HonestJoe]

But however when Muslims goes into another country, they are to comply to that countries laws that they are entering.

What law is she not complying with? She, as an elected Congresswoman, had proposed a change to one of the establish rules in Congress. How can you object to that, even if you disagree with the change she is proposing?

Let's for say that a person from another country goes to a Muslim country,
Does a person really believe that a Muslim country will comply to that person way of thinking, that, that country should changed their laws just accommodate that person or person's that's from another country.

Yes, all the time. That’s why, for example, laws against consuming alcohol are either overlooked or actually altered to accommodate Western immigrants and Western hotels.

But this is what Muslims thinks, that no matter what country they enter into, that Country should change their laws just to accommodate Muslims.

Are you asserting that every single Muslim in the entire world has exactly the same viewpoint on this question (or indeed any question)? Do you share the same opinions with every single Christian in the world?

As in the United States, Muslims for some unknown reason, think their Sharia law over rides the Constitution of the United States.

I’m sure some do but no more than some Christians and Jews believe their various Biblical law overrides the Constitution too. Some “Christian” Americans would have this woman banned from holding office because of her faith.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You realise he paid his pornstar lover to abort their child conceived out of wedlock, right?



Your Christian values, and a Christian God, you mean. Unless the Muslim congresswoman no longers believe in God?



Damn straight. Christian values require a wall to be built to keep out...err...well...Christians. but that's okay, because Jesus taught us to defend what's ours, and fight off the needy. Or something.



No. That would tell me only what people type. Their motivations are sometimes more difficult to discern.
Happily, yours aren't tricky at all.

Also, I've read the thread multiple times, and am happy to directly address any points you might want to make.
So, apologies if my responses are not what you're after. From this side if the screen you appear to have a very limited amount of depth to your argument, and it basically comes down to barracking for 'your team'.

I'm tempted to ask WWJD, but I'm honestly sick of people who are so damn sure they know the answer to that without having to stop and think, so I won't.

Here's what you said , which doesn't make any sense at all ---->( Damn straight. Christian values require a wall to be built to keep out...err...well...Christians. but that's okay, because Jesus taught us to defend what's ours, and fight off the needy. Or something)

The whole reason behind a wall, so that people can not enter the United States illegal, which is breaking the law of the United States, either come in legal or not at all.

Many people have come to the United States and stood in line waiting for their turn, So why is it ok for others to think they can jump ahead of all others who are waiting to come into the United States. By breaking the law of the United States.

You also made mention --->( I'm tempted to ask WWJD, but I'm honestly sick of people who are so damn sure they know the answer to that without having to stop and think, so I won't.)

Well it sure looks like you don't know the answer, why a wall is needed to be built.

The answer is quite obvious, to keep people from entering the United States illegal. If people want to come into the United States than do it the legal way and not break the law of crossing over illegal.

So those people knows first hand, to enter the United States, is to go thru the legal process to get into the United States and not illegal of breaking the law of the United States.

So this Muslim woman knew first hand before she ran for Congress, what the rule/law was of Congress, But now she wants the rule/law of Congress to be changed to accommodate her Religious belief's.
As where no one else since the rule/law was established in 1837, no one ever complained about it, until this Muslim woman, so we're supposed to change our rules/laws just to accommodate her Religious belief's.

Over the years there's been other people of other Faith's that has been elected in Congress, but they never made any fuss about the rule/law of Congress.

There is Mitt Romney -- Mormon -- Republican
President JFK --- Catholic -- Democrat
Ted Kennedy-- Catholic -- Democrat
Bobby Kennedy -- Catholic -- Democrat


But yet no one else complained about the rule/law of Congress.
As there were others in the

US Congress by religion
Religious demographics. The top five religiousaffiliations in the 111th Congress were Roman Catholic (30.1%), Baptist (12.4%), Methodist (10.7%), Jewish (8.4%), and Presbyterian (8.1%). ... In the 111th Congress, 54.7% of seats were held by members of Protestant denominations.

Now isn't that amazing, and not one them complained about the rule/law of Congress.

So what's so special about this Muslim woman.to think the rule/law of Congress should be changed just to accommodate her Religious belief's.
When no one else complained.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Over the years there's been other people of other Faith's that has been elected in Congress, but they never made any fuss about the rule/law of Congress.

So here's a few names
Mitt Romney - Mormon
Persident JFK-- Catholic
Ted Kennedy -- Catholic
Bobby Kennedy -- Catholic

US Congress by religion
Religious demographics. The top five religiousaffiliations in the 111th Congress were Roman Catholic (30.1%), Baptist (12.4%), Methodist (10.7%), Jewish (8.4%), and Presbyterian (8.1%). ... In the 111th Congress, 54.7% of seats were held by members of Protestant denominations.

Now isn't that amazing, and not one them complained about the rule/law of Congress.
So what's so special about this Muslim woman.to think the rule/law of Congress should be changed just to accommodate her.
When no one else complained.

So your argument is that, because nobody else had an issue, we should ignore people who do have an issue?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's what you said , which doesn't make any sense at all ---->( Damn straight. Christian values require a wall to be built to keep out...err...well...Christians. but that's okay, because Jesus taught us to defend what's ours, and fight off the needy. Or something)

The whole reason behind a wall, so that people can not enter the United States illegal, which is breaking the law of the United States, either come in legal or not at all.
Many people have come to the United States and stood in line waiting for their turn, So why is it ok for others to think they can jump ahead of all others who are waiting to come into the United States.

You also made mention --->( I'm tempted to ask WWJD, but I'm honestly sick of people who are so damn sure they know the answer to that without having to stop and think, so I won't.)

Well it sure looks like you don't know the answer, why a wall is needed to be built.

The answer is quite obvious, to keep people from entering the United States illegal. If people want to come into the United States than do it the legal way and not break the law of crossing over illegal.

So those people knows first hand, to enter the United States is to go thru the legal process to get into the United States and not illegal of breaking the law of the United States.
So that Muslim woman knew first hand before she ran for Congress, what the rule/law was of Congress, But now she wants the rule/law of Congress to be changed to accommodate her Religious belief's.
As where no else since the rule/law was put there n place in 1837, no one ever complained about it, until this Muslim woman, so we're supposed to change our rules/laws just to accommodate her.

Over the years there's been other people of other Faith's that has been elected in Congress, but they never made any fuss about the rule/law of Congress.

So here's a few names
Mitt Romney - Mormon
Persident JFK-- Catholic
Ted Kennedy -- Catholic
Bobby Kennedy -- Catholic

US Congress by religion
Religious demographics. The top five religiousaffiliations in the 111th Congress were Roman Catholic (30.1%), Baptist (12.4%), Methodist (10.7%), Jewish (8.4%), and Presbyterian (8.1%). ... In the 111th Congress, 54.7% of seats were held by members of Protestant denominations.

Now isn't that amazing, and not one them complained about the rule/law of Congress.
So what's so special about this Muslim woman.to think the rule/law of Congress should be changed just to accommodate her.
When no one else complained.

Matthew 25:35-40:

35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Here's what you said , which doesn't make any sense at all ---->( Damn straight. Christian values require a wall to be built to keep out...err...well...Christians. but that's okay, because Jesus taught us to defend what's ours, and fight off the needy. Or something)

No sense at all? Funny that. I mean to say, @9-10ths_Penguin didn't seem to have any issue discerning my meaning.

The whole reason behind a wall, so that people can not enter the United States illegal, which is breaking the law of the United States, either come in legal or not at all.

This is interesting in 2 ways.
1) If you think the wall...and in particular Trump's broken promises in relation to it...is only about keeping people out, you've been drinking the kool-aid
2) Trump ties his policies around border protection to a literal concrete wall, reiterates that it's a wall (not a fence!), And says nothing about the 50% of the illegals coming from visa overstays.
But sure, this is about the law. Not perception.

Many people have come to the United States and stood in line waiting for their turn, So why is it ok for others to think they can jump ahead of all others who are waiting to come into the United States. By breaking the law of the United States.

What I think on the matter hardly matters, given that I'm an Australian atheist.
But if I'm understanding you right, US law trumps God's laws?
(Pun not intended)

You also made mention --->( I'm tempted to ask WWJD, but I'm honestly sick of people who are so damn sure they know the answer to that without having to stop and think, so I won't.)

Well it sure looks like you don't know the answer, why a wall is needed to be built.

The walls, fences and electronic survellance which already existed, you mean? Or the new ones which he claimed Mexico would pay for? That were going to be 'walls, not fences'.

The answer is quite obvious, to keep people from entering the United States illegal. If people want to come into the United States than do it the legal way and not break the law of crossing over illegal.

So those people knows first hand, to enter the United States, is to go thru the legal process to get into the United States and not illegal of breaking the law of the United States.

Yep. That's why he moved troops to the border just recently too. To keep the border secure. It had nothing to do with politics. The fact that the troops couldn't undertake a law enforcement role was just an unfortunate circumstance.

So this Muslim woman knew first hand before she ran for Congress, what the rule/law was of Congress, But now she wants the rule/law of Congress to be changed to accommodate her Religious belief's.

That's kinda what Congress does. Change rules to make them more reflective of the values of those they serve.
Like oil companies. Ahem.

As where no one else since the rule/law was put there n place in 1837, no one ever complained about it, until this Muslim woman, so we're supposed to change our rules/laws just to accommodate her Religious belief's.

These are two distinctly inaccurate statements.
1) The rule has been complained about before, as I've mentioned.
2) We're supposed to debate the proposed changes to and determine the best path forwards for society. As with literally ANY OTHER PROPOSED CHANGE.

Unlike the President, she can't just pass an Executive Order.

Over the years there's been other people of other Faith's that has been elected in Congress, but they never made any fuss about the rule/law of Congress.


US Congress by religion
Religious demographics. The top five religiousaffiliations in the 111th Congress were Roman Catholic (30.1%), Baptist (12.4%), Methodist (10.7%), Jewish (8.4%), and Presbyterian (8.1%). ... In the 111th Congress, 54.7% of seats were held by members of Protestant denominations.

Now isn't that amazing, and not one them complained about the rule/law of Congress.
So what's so special about this Muslim woman.to think the rule/law of Congress should be changed just to accommodate her.
When no one else complained.

Yes. That is a stunningly diverse group.
It amazes me that a Muslim women may have a different perspective on things.
At least we can thank God she's still Abrahamaic, or she might want to change other grand traditions, like having 'In God We Trust' on the money. Or 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I do respect your ability to be inconsistent in your judgements without worrying about things like cognitive dissonance.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Matthew 25:35-40:

35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Well seeing you have no understanding what Jesus in saying in Matthew 25:35-40.

Had you notice in Verse 40, Jesus talking about those who are his brothers and sisters, This being those who believe in God and Christ Jesus.

So how exactly does Atheists fit into that, seeing that Atheists do not believe in God or Christ Jesus.
So how is Atheists to fit being brothers and sisters of Christ Jesus, When Atheists do not believe in God and Christ Jesus.

Christ Jesus also said in John 10:1--"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber"

Therefore those illegals that seeks to climb over the border wall, are breaking the law of the United States, otherwise those illegals would go thru the proper process to come into the United States.
Therefore those that entereth not by the border door into the United States, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

 

[Faithofchristian]

No sense at all? Funny that. I mean to say, @9-10ths_Penguin didn't seem to have any issue discerning my meaning.



This is interesting in 2 ways.
1) If you think the wall...and in particular Trump's broken promises in relation to it...is only about keeping people out, you've been drinking the kool-aid
2) Trump ties his policies around border protection to a literal concrete wall, reiterates that it's a wall (not a fence!), And says nothing about the 50% of the illegals coming from visa overstays.
But sure, this is about the law. Not perception.



What I think on the matter hardly matters, given that I'm an Australian atheist.
But if I'm understanding you right, US law trumps God's laws?
(Pun not intended)




The walls, fences and electronic survellance which already existed, you mean? Or the new ones which he claimed Mexico would pay for? That were going to be 'walls, not fences'.



Yep. That's why he moved troops to the border just recently too. To keep the border secure. It had nothing to do with politics. The fact that the troops couldn't undertake a law enforcement role was just an unfortunate circumstance.



That's kinda what Congress does. Change rules to make them more reflective of the values of those they serve.
Like oil companies. Ahem.




These are two distinctly inaccurate statements.
1) The rule has been complained about before, as I've mentioned.
2) We're supposed to debate the proposed changes to and determine the best path forwards for society. As with literally ANY OTHER PROPOSED CHANGE.

Unlike the President, she can't just pass an Executive Order.



Yes. That is a stunningly diverse group.
It amazes me that a Muslim women may have a different perspective on things.
At least we can thank God she's still Abrahamaic, or she might want to change other grand traditions, like having 'In God We Trust' on the money. Or 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I do respect your ability to be inconsistent in your judgements without worrying about things like cognitive dissonance.

Well that explains everything. You said it all in just one sentence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well that explains everything. You said it all in just one sentence.

Was it the one where I suggested you were talking crap about Trump not breaking promises?
Or was it the one where I pointed out your complete and utter hypocrisy on complaining about law changes only where your particular agenda isn't suited, but being fine when it is?

Or are you simply bowing to the incredible intellect of Australians?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well seeing you have no understanding what Jesus in saying in Matthew 25:35-40.

Had you notice in Verse 40, Jesus talking about those who are his brothers and sisters, This being those who believe in God and Christ Jesus.

So how exactly does Atheists fit into that, seeing that Atheists do not believe in God or Christ Jesus.
So how is Atheists to fit being brothers and sisters of Christ Jesus, When Atheists do not believe in God and Christ Jesus.

Neither the Congress woman you are complaining about, nor the vast majority of those crossing the borders are atheists.

But sure... @9-10ths_Penguin is the one not understanding.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well seeing you have no understanding what Jesus in saying in Matthew 25:35-40.

Had you notice in Verse 40, Jesus talking about those who are his brothers and sisters, This being those who believe in God and Christ Jesus.

So how exactly does Atheists fit into that, seeing that Atheists do not believe in God or Christ Jesus.
So how is Atheists to fit being brothers and sisters of Christ Jesus, When Atheists do not believe in God and Christ Jesus.

1. Do you think that the immigrants trying to get into the US are all atheists?

2. Matthew 12:50:

For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Christ Jesus also said in John 10:1--"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber"

This is the same Christ Jesus who said that he himself would come "as a thief in the night?"

BTW: the migrant caravan in Mexico right now did try to enter by the door. They were walking up to a US port of entry to request asylum by the proper procedure.

Therefore those illegals that seeks to climb over the border wall, are breaking the law of the United States, otherwise those illegals would go thru the proper process to come into the United States.
Therefore those that entereth not by the border door into the United States, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

... and therefore come in the same way as Christ?

How do you feel about the conditions in their native countries that prompt them to flee for the US? Do your Christian values suggest that you shoulf do anything about that problem?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Someone please explain the correct use of apostrophes to this guy, maybe he can be correct about one thing, at least.

 

[fantome profane]

Had you notice in Verse 40, Jesus talking about those who are his brothers and sisters, This being those who believe in God and Christ Jesus.

Would that include his brothers and sisters from South America?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

just because she's a Muslim, does not mean the rule/law in Congress has to be changed just to accommodate her Religious belief's

Who said the rule had to be changed? It was done voluntarily. People chose to be tolerant and accommodating. They should be commended for that, not criticized.

it wasn't changed to accommodate anyone else.

That claim has been rebutted here already, but let's grant your point anyway. Let's say that nobody else has ever had their religious belief accommodated by American law and policy. Well, now one has. That's progress.

And your fears that this may represent a slippery slope on the path to Sharia law, note that Muslims did not make this change, nor can they impose their traditions on other members of Congress or anywhere else in America. This is just Americans being tolerant and inclusive, and showing respect for religious freedom - humanistic values.

I myself after 45 years of being a Democrat supporter walk away 15 years ago. No longer could take the Democrats lying, just to get votes.

Did you become a Republican in order to escape the lying? If so, I've got some bad news for you.

everything that Democrats supports God is against

Among other things, Democrats support universal health care, a higher minimum wage, protecting the environment from industrial pollution, and promoting a transition to clean, renewable energy. If your god is against all of that, then that god represents anti-American values, and is therefore not the friend of the average citizen.

The Constitution establishes the mission of the federal government in its preamble, which includes providing for the general welfare of the people. If doing that goes against God, then so be it. The American government has no duty to Christianity and Christians other than to allow them to practice their faith privately. It has no duty to write law in deference to Christian beliefs.

what Trump did back in his personal life is no one's business but Trump's business

Not if it turns out to be money laundering, income tax evasion, charity fraud, or election tampering. Then it's every American's business, especially the prosecutor representing the people in court.

Does a person really believe that a Muslim country will comply to that person way of thinking, that, that country should changed their laws just accommodate that person or person's that's from another country.

Irrelevant to what America should do. The Muslim countries haven't enjoyed the benefit of secular humanism for several centuries, and are thus less interested in religious tolerance. They have a more theocratic approach, wherein their religious beliefs are more frequently encoded into law. Atheism, for example, is often punished, perhaps with death.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But this is what Muslims thinks, that no matter what country they enter into, that Country should change their laws just to accommodate Muslims.

I agree with them, as long as we're talking about accommodations of the nature of being allowed to wear a hijab in the halls of Congress. That is very different from seizing control of the government and imposing Sharia law, which frankly, isn't too different from seizing control of the Supreme Court and imposing Christian values such as no abortions and no same-sex marriages on unbelievers. That's more real threat to Americans than the possibility of Sharia law, for which, unlike Christian theocratic tendencies, there is almost no support.

God against abortions, Democrats supports abortions.

Unbelievers don't care what Christians think their god commands them to do, but seem to be happy to let them observe their faith and allow all of their pregnancies to go to term if that's what they choose. It would be nice if the Christians were as tolerant.

Incidentally, most abortions in America are requested by Christian women: 70% of Women Who Get Abortions Identify as Christians, Survey Finds

And Roe v. Wade is very much the creation of Christian justices appointed predominantly by Republicans. The 1973 decision was 7-2, all seven of the majority being Christians, with five nominated by Republican presidents (Blackmun, Burger, and Powell were all Nixon appointees, a Republican, and Brennan and Stewart were appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower).

To be a Christian, means a person stands with God and not against God.

So those women getting abortions (and any assenting men involved in the decision) that self-identify as Christians are not really Christians after all? If that's so, Christianity is already a minority religion in America. If we go by self-identification, Americans are presently around 70% Christian. But if we use your standard, that number plummets.

Trump stands with Christians and God, The Republican Party's platform up holds Christians values and God.

About half of Americans reject the values of both Trump and the Republicans, and many do not accept Christianity, but Trump and the Republicans would impose them on all Americans.

So this Muslim woman knew first hand before she ran for Congress, what the rule/law was of Congress, But now she wants the rule/law of Congress to be changed to accommodate her Religious belief's.

And she got it. Would you prefer to force her to either remove the hijab or resign from Congress? That's the alternative.

Well seeing you have no understanding what Jesus in saying in Matthew 25:35-40.

Nobody's interpretation of scripture is authoritative. Each reader is free to assign whatever meaning he chooses to its words.

I find the interpretations offered by unbelievers to be more consistent with what the words say. Believers tend to twist meanings and add elements not present in scripture to fit their belief that their god is good and perfect, whereas unbeliever have no incentive to do that. Consider the story of Job, which tells of a god gratuitously tormenting a good man as a demonstration to a demon. That's the whole story, and it's a pretty dismal one, depicting a cruel, capricious, and unjust god.

But ask a believer to tell you what it means, and he will invariably inject something into the story to make it seem more palatable, perhaps that Job's love of God was inadequate, or that he was being tested, or that he was being tempered to become stronger, or whatever the believer can come up with to soften the story.

Or consider the issue of slavery in the Bible. Christians need to justify scripture that plainly condones slavery. So, we hear how helpful slavery was to people because it gave them room and board, or falsely conflate slavery (involuntary servitude leading to stealing the slave's labor and possibly selling off his family) with indentured servitude, a form of paying off a debt with compensated labor offered voluntarily.

The unbeliever will give you an impartial interpretation of scripture, whereas the believer will often improvise an interpretation that sanitizes the passage.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would prefer that you tell me how having a Christmas tree is not simply accomodating the beliefs of those who believe

A Christmas tree in a government building to the exclusion of all other religious symbols is government promoting one religion over the others. People can have their Christmas trees in their homes, businesses, churches, and other privately owned spaces, but are not entitled to adorn public buildings and commonly owned spaces with their religious symbols. If that's what's meant by accommodating Christians, then they ask too much and their request should be refused.

[church-state separation] does not mean that the state cannot pray at meetings or have religious decorations or post the ten commandments on the wall of a court house.

Actually, it does.

Why are Christians allowed to wear crosses? That is a very religious symbol. Why not ban them and Jewish stars of David, etc.? The reason is that by allowing them the government is not pronoting any one religion.

Because the government does not ban personal religious symbols. You are free to wear a cross, the Jew his star of David, and the Muslim his crescent star. But they are not free to use the government to promote their faith.

35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

You might like this modernized version:

"You were hungry and thirsty, so I eliminated funding for Meals on Wheels and food banks. You were a stranger, so I vilified you and demanded that you be deported. You were naked, so I called you an evil liberal who hates conservative family values. You were sick, so I repealed your only hope for health care. You were in prison, so I tortured you." - Matthew 25: 42-43 in The Conservative Bible

Separation is not about giving the powerful and rich State even more power and money. It is about limiting the power of government, when it play with the Churches, so it is a fair competition.

Nothing limits the power of government to enact legislation except the Constitution, which can be changed. The American church enjoys its freedoms at the pleasure of the American government, which chooses not to intrude in church matters. That could change by amending the Constitution if that were the will of the people.

But we can't say the same thing about the church not invading and controlling all Americans' lives given the chance. That what the wall between church and state is for - to keep the church out of the lives of non-Christians. Really, it's not so much church state separation as much as it's church-unbeliever separation enforced by the state.

How is it "Christian branding" when I have a tree??

Is it a Christmas tree? No other religion uses that symbol - a pine tree with electric lights, tinsel, ornaments, and an angel on top. One doesn't have to be Christian to want one in one's home or even in a government building, but it remains a Christian symbol even if that is unrelated to why one chooses to put up a tree, and why you won't find a Christmas tree in the home of an orthodox Jew.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Was it the one where I suggested you were talking crap about Trump not breaking promises?
Or was it the one where I pointed out your complete and utter hypocrisy on complaining about law changes only where your particular agenda isn't suited, but being fine when it is?

Or are you simply bowing to the incredible intellect of Australians?

Since your not any citizen of the United States

Was it the one where I suggested you were talking crap about Trump not breaking promises?
Or was it the one where I pointed out your complete and utter hypocrisy on complaining about law changes only where your particular agenda isn't suited, but being fine when it is?

Or are you simply bowing to the incredible intellect of Australians?

Seeing that you mention in your post #165
( What I think on the matter hardly matters, given that I'm an Australian atheist)

So why I'm I wasting my time with someone who has no idea or clue about the laws of the United States.

 

[Willamena]

Out of all due respect
I didn't ask for someone else's opinions.

You didn't ask for opinions, at all. You asked for Bible versus. Why, I cannot imagine.

I ask you, can you give the book and chapter and verses as to where it's written at in the bible.
Where Moses wore a veil?

It's written in that article. The one you did not read.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does not mean that the state cannot pray at meetings or have religious decorations or post the ten commandments on the wall of a court house.

Where did you get that idea?

All religions are welcome and have the same rights.

In practice, it doesn't mean that at all. What generally happens is that the government body extends an "open" invitation to all religions to, say, participate in prayers before a legislative session or to set up a public display in a park, but as soon as non-Christians start asking for their turn, they change the rules and get rid of the opportunity for everyone. This usually happens when the FFRF or the Satanists show up with their displays.

... So while any individual legislature can claim that they treat everyone equally, the system overall creates a "Christianity or nothing" arrangement.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nope not at all, it shouldn't matter what religion a person is, the rule and laws stands as is, for everyone.

If one person can get rules and laws changed because of their Religious belief's so can Christians, otherwise it's discriminating against another Religious belief's.

Not sure if you've noticed or not, but all kinds of members of Congress where jewelry around their necks in the shape of a crucifix. And this has been happening for years.
I'm sure you are outraged, right? Crucifixes don't belong in Congress, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Out of all due respect
I didn't ask for someone else's opinions.
Which is not according to the bible, Women back during biblical times, women only wore a veil to cover their face was before they got married and that's the only time women would cover their faces. Before they got married.

If it's true that women back in biblical times always wore veils all the time to cover their faces, then why is it in all the pictures of Mary, the mother of Jesus is seen without a veil covering her face.
As with the picture that you given of a woman, her face is not covered by a veil. Her head is some what covered by a head scarf but not her face.

A veil is something that women wore to cover their face with, just before they got married and that's the only time.

Where as the picture that you given, the woman doesn't have a veil covering her face. Just a head scarf that only covers her head and not her face.
I ask you, can you give the book and chapter and verses as to where it's written at in the bible.
Where Moses wore a veil?

Are you sure you've read the Bible?

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 11:4-13 - King James Version