@suzianne saidI think it's a good idea that the government does not establish a state religion or that a religion is designated and endorsed by the state. And the First Amendment provides for exactly that when it makes it clear that the state has no business making laws with respect to the establishment of religion.
Religion and government should not mix.
Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?
The church should have zero say in government.
Don't like it? Change the Constitution. Good luck with that.
Is anyone trying to establish a 'state religion'? If they are, they have the First Amendment to contend with.
But the same First Amendment forbids state action that prohibits the free exercise of religion or that abridges the freedom of speech and the press, that restricts the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
The churches are comparable to trade unions: they are organizations that represent the beliefs and interests of their members and amplify their voices - including their grievances and petitions and their opinions about policies based on their perspectives.
As long as the state is not trying to establish a government-backed national religion, I think the First Amendment protects the right for religious people and religious institutions to lobby and pressure and demand government policies consistent with their worldviews and beliefs.
08 Dec 18
@suzianne saidSo scripture is subservient to man’s laws? Is there any place the Sovereign God’s Word is to be placed above our laws and desires?
Depends on what you're talking about.
Talking about religion or church, then scripture.
Talking about government, then the Constitution.
Ne'er the twain shall meet. Period.
@kellyjay saidYes. I figured it out. It wasn't at all difficult.
Didn’t you say Leviticus, then he says Exodus, now you say he figured it out! I suppose he could of said Dr Seuss, for all I know, since he didn’t go to the book you referred to.
First of all she provided a thumbnail description of what she had in mind. Secondly she wrote, "I think it is in Leviticus" - which indicates that she was unsure of the book. The passage from Exodus came to mind since it fit so well.
The rest of what she wrote in her post was spot on. As was her subsequent observation that you need work on your reading comprehension skills. If they were better, you may have been able to figure it out also.
Seriously KJ. As I've suggested several times before, set your pride aside and take a class in reading comprehension. You'll be the better for it. Plus it'll be better for everyone else. Everyone wins.
Who knows, afterwards you might even be able to comprehend my earlier post and understand the implications for your beliefs.
08 Dec 18
@thinkofone saidYou figured it out how? He said one book you quoted another, you mind read?
Yes. I figured it out. It wasn't at all difficult.
First of all she provided a thumbnail description of what she had in mind. Secondly she wrote, "I think it is in Leviticus" - which indicates that she was unsure of the book. The passage from Exodus came to mind since it fit so well.
The rest of what she wrote in her post was spot on. As was her subsequent observati ...[text shortened]... u might even be able to comprehend my earlier post and understand the implications for your beliefs.
There are several verses in scripture, if he didn't know what he was talking about
you could have picked anything and he could have said yes to it.
Do you think killings one's own child was addressed by that verse that was
used? Another killing a child not attempting to is one thing, doing it yourself with
intent is quite different. The only thing close to that would be sacrificing one's
child to make one's life better, and those that did that God frowned on. If you are
going to compare something to it, at least try to find something that fits.
@fmf saidThat's fine as long as one religion (for example Christianity) is not given exclusive access (thus potentially having a de facto government-backed national religion) which is what many Christians (including some ersatz Christians IN government) want.
I think it's a good idea that the government does not establish a state religion or that a religion is designated and endorsed by the state. And the First Amendment provides for exactly that when it makes it clear that the state has no business making laws with respect to the establishment of religion.
Is anyone trying to establish a 'state religion'? If they are, they have t ...[text shortened]... s to lobby and pressure and demand government policies consistent with their worldviews and beliefs.
08 Dec 18
@suzianne saidAre you upset about what is being said about abortion in some/many churches all around the U.S.?
That's fine as long as one religion (for example Christianity) is not given exclusive access (thus potentially having a de facto government-backed national religion) which is what many Christians (including some ersatz Christians IN government) want.
08 Dec 18
@suzianne saidWhy do you call anti-abortionist Christians "ersatz Christians"?
That's fine as long as one religion (for example Christianity) is not given exclusive access (thus potentially having a de facto government-backed national religion) which is what many Christians (including some ersatz Christians IN government) want.
08 Dec 18
@suzianne said"Religion and government should not mix."
Religion and government should not mix.
Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?
The church should have zero say in government.
Don't like it? Change the Constitution. Good luck with that.
Doesn't say that in the constitution.
"Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?"
First Amendment: An Overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.
"The church should have zero say in government."
Show me where it says that in the constitution. Members of the church can be and are also citizens of the United States.
"Don't like it? Change the Constitution. Good luck with that."
I've heard that there are as many as 2000 amendments being brought before the Supreme Court last year. Someone is intent on changing it. All to often though is the constitution ignored.
08 Dec 18
@Suzianne
@Suzianne
"The issue is why do you take the sovreignty of a woman's body away from women and give it to a bunch of old, white men?"
On a secular level, as upheld by the Supreme Court, and guaranteed by the constitution as expressed in the Bill of Rights, a woman owns her body, but she doesn't own the child in her womb.
That's God's domain. And if you can't see that, then I don't know what else to tell you.
@kellyjay saidYou figured it out how? He said one book you quoted another, you mind read?
You figured it out how? He said one book you quoted another, you mind read?
There are several verses in scripture, if he didn't know what he was talking about
you could have picked anything and he could have said yes to it.
Reread my earlier post. I explained how I figured it out. Ability to "mind read" is not required. You only need three things:
1) Knowledge of scripture
2) Adequate reading comprehension skills
3) Adequate critical thinking skills
For someone lacking in all three like you, it probably DOES seem like the ability to "mind read" would be required. It isn't.
There are several verses in scripture, if he didn't know what he was talking about you could have picked anything and he could have said yes to it.
Right. Except for the fact that the passage and interpretation that I quoted fully support everything she wrote. If you had any intellectual honesty, you'd actually address the points she made in her post and the points I made in mine instead of continuing to sidestep them.
@kellyjay saidYou continue to sidestep the actual points made by caissad4.
Do you think killings one's own child was addressed by that verse that was
used? Another killing a child not attempting to is one thing, doing it yourself with
intent is quite different. The only thing close to that would be sacrificing one's
child to make one's life better, and those that did that God frowned on. If you are
going to compare something to it, at least try to find something that fits.
08 Dec 18
@thinkofone saidAnd when you use it you know how it should be used, what the proper interpretation is because ...?
Presumably you mean this passage from Exodus.
Exodus 21
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, to ...[text shortened]... t only of abortion but slavery, capital punishment, race, women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on.