Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Jun 30, 2012, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

I don't think you fairly represent his views, nor do I agree that being forced to pay more taxes is accurate either. I think a good person in position of authority would govern for ALL the people and not just the few.

We sure don't want one church or another to govern people, but we don't want the people to be separated from the church of their choice. Charity comes as the spirit moves you, and is self defined, but governance comes from the collective consensus of all the people.

Taxes are but a vehicle to work for the collective good, and when circumstances change the taxes must change, and when things are good taxes should be lowered, but in times of crisis or need, they must go higher to meet the need.

Its the inflexibility that slows down the need to make proper adjustments that benefit us all. And its in times of need that the church plays its greatest role. The church can't govern, but it can administer good. The government can't minister, but they can govern equally to its people. Its the balances that are out of wack!

Thats where the president sits as he weighs the needs of the few, against the needs of the many.

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 .

Wondergirl · Jun 30, 2012, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Jesus admonishes the government to be charitible . You can't find it .

You and I are the government, and there are verses admonishing us to be charitable.

tomder55 · Jun 30, 2012, 08:42 AM

The bible does not address government responsibility . It addresses personal salvation.

Wondergirl · Jun 30, 2012, 08:45 AM

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.

talaniman · Jun 30, 2012, 08:57 AM

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!

tomder55 · Jun 30, 2012, 09:14 AM

You Tom will benefit too.So will the ones who chose to be taxed under its guidelines.

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.

tomder55 · Jun 30, 2012, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

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!

Well there is that complication of the 1st amendment''s free exercise clause.

tomder55 · Jun 30, 2012, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

It addresses personal responsibility too. Note the second of Jesus' two greatest commandments.

Yes that is part of personal salvation unless you can tell me where Jesus admonished Rome to be charitible .

talaniman · Jun 30, 2012, 09:25 AM

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.

Wondergirl · Jun 30, 2012, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes that is part of personal salvation unless you can tell me where Jesus admonished Rome to be charitible .

We aren't saved because we are being responsible for others. We are responsible for others because we are saved.

We are the government in this country. Rome's government was mainly in one person, was a monarchy during Jesus' time.

talaniman · Jun 30, 2012, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Well there is that complication of the 1st amendment''s free exercise clause.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/A...rs-3656014.php

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."

Works for me.

paraclete · Jul 1, 2012, 03:56 AM

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

talaniman · Jul 1, 2012, 08:58 AM

As long as they act within the law, not above it!!

tomder55 · Jul 1, 2012, 09:34 AM

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.

talaniman · Jul 1, 2012, 09:52 AM

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?

cdad · Jul 1, 2012, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Hate to tell you but Saria Law is already here and being practiced in some lawsuits. Its been going on for awhile already.

talaniman · Jul 1, 2012, 12:36 PM

You mean they are chopping off hands for stealing, or stoning woman for adultry? Tell me more. Links please?

paraclete · Jul 1, 2012, 03:10 PM

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

cdad · Jul 1, 2012, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

You mean they are chopping off hands for stealing, or stoning woman for adultry? Tell me more. Links please?

Way too much to post. So lets start here.

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.

talaniman · Jul 1, 2012, 04:14 PM

Why?

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

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.

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.