 |
Oh I think it is a very fair depiction of his views .He couched his views in WWJD language when in fact ,his philosophical basis is closer to Marx. Just find any scripture where Jesus admonishes the government to be charitible . You can't find it .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You and I are the government, and there are verses admonishing us to be charitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The bible does not address government responsibility . It addresses personal salvation.
It addresses personal responsibility too. Note the second of Jesus' two greatest commandments.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The constitution says we the people are equal. Not some of the people, or the rich, or those that think they are right.
We elect those that govern us, and re elect those that govern well. Not everyone will like everything, but we can all benefit. You Tom will benefit too.So will the ones who chose to be taxed under its guidelines.
Can a church decide to be an insurance company and demand to be treated like a church?
Sure they can demand. But the law is the final arbiter of whether their demands are met or NOT! The church has no authority to write the law. Only the people we elect can!
Don't do me any favors ;and if you pick my pocket ,don't tell me I should be happy about it because of my faith. I'll debate the political aspects of it no problem ;but to couch it in terms of it being my Christian responsibility is a dishonesty reading of the scriptures ;and frankly reeks of hypocrisy knowing what the President really thinks about religious separation.Quote:
You Tom will benefit too.So will the ones who chose to be taxed under its guidelines.
Well there is that complication of the 1st amendment''s free exercise clause.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yes that is part of personal salvation unless you can tell me where Jesus admonished Rome to be charitible .Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Hard for any of us to separate our beliefs from our actions, it's a great balancing act. Now you can judge the motives of others harshly, and use all the adjectives we want, but in the end, the debate is about expression of opinions, and we are a nation of laws, and we are free to debate our opinions.
If you want to elect the POPE, or a RICH business man as president, that's fine (just start a SUPER pac). I chose to elect the community activist as the leader of the free world.
We will see what happens next in November.
We aren't saved because we are being responsible for others. We are responsible for others because we are saved.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
We are the government in this country. Rome's government was mainly in one person, was a monarchy during Jesus' time.
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/A...rs-3656014.phpQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Works for me.Quote:
Perhaps it's time to put the whole of George Washington's Farewell Address back into primary education: "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."
Churches should be left alone to do their own thing not be made to conform to a secular agenda that is what the amendment means
As long as they act within the law, not above it!!
Got it backwards . The law cannot violate the free exercise clause . If a law is crafted that violates that provision it is an unconstitutional law.
No one is above our laws Tom, and that includes the churches all of them, even the Coptic's, catholics and the Muslims. If it were not so, then sharia law could be practiced, and the catholics could bring back the inquisition. As individuals, we can worship whatever church we please, but cannot sacrifice on church holidays.
Both states and federal governments agree to these limits as a part of freedom to worship any institution. Now I know you small government types want the church to be bigger than the law, but it ain't happening, because a small government, weakens your institutions as well as everyone else's. HOW?
Because the church would write the rules for business, and government, and its just to many of them to get equality. Would that be fair to the NON Christian religions? Or would the corporations become the authority for the churches? Or could the churches have authority over the corporations?
No the law is the final authority over ALL the people, and that's how it should be in a country of we the people, and not some of the people! Have you forgotten how we started this country, or what?
Hate to tell you but Saria Law is already here and being practiced in some lawsuits. Its been going on for awhile already.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You mean they are chopping off hands for stealing, or stoning woman for adultry? Tell me more. Links please?
Yeah sharia law like they are bombing churches in Kenya and Nigeria and they say sharia law allows them to do it, so expect that sometime too
Way too much to post. So lets start here.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?page_id=305
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2011/...civil-case.php
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...rs-sharia-law/
http://www.thenation.com/article/168...erican-courts#
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/
So far it has been kept on lower levels like arbitration. But as we all known we all need to keep an eye on things as they progress.
Why?
I am sure stoning some one is against the law no matter what religion they are from. Settling disputes in court, or by an approved arbitrator is the way we all have to go, if we chose to, but physical harm is against the law.Quote:
The true story of Sharia in American courts is not one of a plot for imminent takeover but rather another part of the tale of globalization. Marriages, divorces, corporations and commercial transactions are global, meaning that US courts must regularly interpret and apply foreign law. Islamic law has been considered by American courts in everything from the recognition of foreign divorces and custody decrees to the validity of marriages, the enforcement of money judgments, and the awarding of damages in commercial disputes and negligence matters
So far it has been kept on lower levels like arbitration. But as we all known we all need to keep an eye on things as they progress.
I am more concerned with Christians who deny birth control to women than I am about stoning, but I do know of Americans who have killed because their religion gives them that right, or so they have alleged, but thank god they ended up in jail for murder.
http://www.orato.com/world-affairs/t...suspect-murder
I think we should be vigilante for anyone who breaks the law regardless of religion.
By deny as far as birth control do you mean asking the person to pay for it? Or are you talking about an outright ban?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I was speaking to the context of law as you didn't seem to be aware of how it has crept its way into american law. Of course we all have to be mindful of illegal acts around us and bring the perps to justice.
If I remember correctly employer heath insurance is paid for by contributions from the employer, and the employee, and benefits are paid by insurance companies who set policy standard, not churches. I also know that churches get group rates and participate in a larger group to get better rates.
Now if the church can tell what benefits the policy holder gets, then the employee should have the option of not buy their insurance, and take cash instead of a benefit, which would be fair of any employee, and let the consumer decide. I dare say that employees will be looking around for the employers who have the better benefits, pay, and working conditions.
That's what its all about choices made by consumers, and working people, and has little to do with the right of religion. I don't think churches should make rules for companies, plain and simple, and the states agree because they have already made laws to prevent such policy. At least 34 so far and more are considering it.
Many churches have opted to underwrite their own insurance, but have a hard time finding an insurance company to go along with their rules. So I guess the janitor, or the clerk will be asking for more money to buy their own health insurance that meets their needs, not the churches.
Churches are tax exempt, but are their employees? I haven't checked, but I doubt it. But churches pay for a policy, they don't pay for a benefit of the policy.
Not that it matters one way or the other, but my church body, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, cuts through all this and has its own plan that covers all of its church and parochial workers. Concordia Health Plan - Concordia Plan Services
That's what most church health plans look like, not unlike private sector plans. I fail to see what religiou freedom has to do with health insurance since churches neither pay for the benefits, nor despenses them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Why can't Islamic law be as American as Catholic or Christian laws? Isn't that a basic tenant of American laws, the right of free practice of any religion you choose?Quote:
I was speaking to the context of law as you didn't seem to be aware of how it has crept its way into american law. Of course we all have to be mindful of illegal acts around us and bring the perps to justice.
Being none of the above they all look alike to me, one no better, or worse than the other. Frankly it's the people who practice whatever that turn me off... or on! Agood person, is a good person. And a bad one is just BAD! Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Unless the government can show a compelling interest.
Tom, you left that bit out.
Tut
And that "compelling interest" is?Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
I've read the 1st amendment many times and can't find that compelling interest clause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Hi Wondergirl. Long time no chat.
According to Wikipeda compelling interest in bound up in a legal application allowing the government to regulate a given matter. Religion being just one example. Obviously there are others.
It seems to me compelling government interest can be interpreted in different ways depending on the time and your history seems to show this. Sometimes compelling interest was interpreted in a narrow fashion; sometimes broadly.
I guess the obvious point is that a limited number of religious practices are not acceptable if they are in fact a criminal act. The overwhelming majority are not.
Tut
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
It's there, you are just not looking hard enough.
Perhaps I can borrow from Justice Scalia and get around it using a couple of select phrases:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps I could also find some evidence of absence in there somewhere. Worked for him in Citizens United.
I've looked for his quote in Citizens United a couple times and haven't found it . Do you have that link ?
Yes it's true that human sacrifice or stoning would not be permitted under our laws because they conflict with other people's God given right to life. I won't get into that obvious contradiction in our abortion laws...Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
So the government is now the church?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If the politician and/or the government worker wants to THINK they're doing God's work, why shouldn't they? Don't they have religious freedom?
I just happen to think that children should be able to eat a nice breakfast.. It has NOTHING to do with God.
excon
Wikipedia 1/4 of the way down under the heading of, 'Concurrences'Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Scalia addressing Stevens' dissent... Scalia stated that Stevens' dissent was in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment.. It(First Amendment) never shows why 'Freedom of Speech' that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form.
In other words, absence of evidence
Scalia then goes on to say that the First Amendment was written "in terms of speech, not speakers" and that the text offers no foothold for excluding the category of speakers.
In other words there is evidence of absence.
We could debate the merits or otherwise of his statement but that is not the issue here. For the purpose of this exercise we need to recognize that he has hypothesized in relation into the Amendment.
Why can't we hypothesize in a similar fashion when it comes to the Free exercise Clause?
Besides the state has always shown a compelling in these and similar matters./ Sometimes a broad interest sometimes a narrow interest. But the compelling interest is always there.
Tut
You don't have to be a church to provide for the general welfare of the people.
The composition of the government is irrelevant to Jesus' teachings. He never advocated a secular government perform the functions of the church. In fact He was clear that His concerns were for a spiritual Kingdom which is "not of this world."Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
God is concerned with matters of the heart. The federal government has no heart. But that's OK, you guys are going to miss the church when the feds take over her ministries.
Ok. And??Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I would never have seen you ask that question 5 or 6 years ago. You guys were terrified at the thought of Bush doing God's work.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
OK. And you know good and well that those of us on this side of the aisle believe that as well. My tax money providing a government safety net is a good thing... for those who truly need it. Expanding the safety net to include a cradle to grave nanny for "99 percent" so we can all live the life of Julia is a terribly bad idea and has no connection whatsoever to the bible's teachings as the Obamas would like for you to believe. I'm beginning to think you did drink the koolaid.Quote:
I just happen to think that children should be able to eat a nice breakfast.. It has NOTHING to do with God.
Its in the constitution, and its what the government does.
What constitutes the "general welfare?"
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:16 AM. |