Will true marriage return to America via Texas?

[DCandtheUTBand]

Its short on details but lets hope Texas has found the loophole to OIgberfell

Will true marriage return to America via Texas? * WorldNetDaily * by Scott Lively

Scott Lively spotlights legislator's strategy that could nullify Obergefell decision

www.wnd.com

 

[BSC911]

Its short on details but lets hope Texas has found the loophole to OIgberfell

Will true marriage return to America via Texas? * WorldNetDaily * by Scott Lively

Scott Lively spotlights legislator's strategy that could nullify Obergefell decision

www.wnd.com

You mean my marriage isnt real?

 

[park_mike]

This is an interesting topic for me. While I personally believe homosexuality is immoral based on the teachings of the Bible, which I believe is God's inerrant word, I don't believe that the state should engage in legislating morality on these types of issues. The problem is when you do that, you have to pick a morality based on a religious or other moral system which may be different than your own. Everyone seems to think that their morality is correct and is willing to force the "nonbelievers" into submission for their own good.

This is precisely what drove the founding of the American colonies in the first place as individuals were were seeking to escape religious persecution from Catholic Europe. The death and destruction from those years in Europe were based on groups of people who believed essentially the same thing and in the same God, just interpreted scripture differently. How much more violent can it get when opposition groups who fundamentally disagree on virtually every point regarding a world view clash on these topics. We are starting to see that play out right now.

To that end, I think the government should get out of the marriage business all together. If there are no benefits to being married, then there is no real fight over marriage. In all his teachings, Jesus never suggested to overthrow the Roman political system in favor of his moral agenda and the Roman system was far more oppressive to traditional Judaism upon which the Judeo-Christian belief system is based than current Western society.

People trying to make other people moral through government intervention will never work. In my opinion, the government should do nothing more than set limited rules to govern such as protecting individuals from harm, national defense, and enforcing property rights and leave morality to each individual. Then, no one can complain and no one can force morality upon another. Ironically, Christians unknowingly are acting in the same manner they are railing against by demanding LGBT people adhere to their moral standards while simultaneously lamenting the fact that LGBT people are attempting to enforce their moral agenda upon them.

We are never going to achieve a utopian society where everyone believes the same thing. We can only strive toward a society where we are truly free to make our own decisions regarding how to live our lives free from the imposition of another's morality upon us. Unfortunately, that seems like a lost cause in this world. One possible suggestion is that the government no longer defines or even acknowledges marriage as a legal entity and allows religious groups to do that. To the extent that people enter into legal contracts regarding the joint ownership of assets, the court system can still manage that. Also, the court system can continue to engage in the protection of minor children through the imposition of visitation and child support. While I think this will further devolve society, it appears to be the only logical solution at this point given the vast disparity in beliefs regarding morality and marriage.

 

[Uniformed_ReRe]

Those are all good points, park_mike. But the important thing here is that two gay guys getting married violates @DCandtheUTBand ’s rights.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Those are all good points, park_mike. But the important thing here is that two gay guys getting married violates @DCandtheUTBand ’s rights.

It violates the Biblical teachings on which this Christian country was founded.

I wish dems were as eager to defend Americans who live by the teachings of the Bible, as they are the ones that refuse to.

 

[park_mike]

The question is are we a Christian nation or one of religious freedom for all?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

The question is are we a Christian nation or one of religious freedom for all?

Not sure I understand the question. Who's religious freedoms are under assault if gay marriage being legal is overturned?

We know that making it legal goes against Christian teachings. Is there another religion that teaches that gay marriage is the acceptable form of marriage?

It's curious how we keep passing laws that go against Christian teachings, then when Christians object and want to overturn said laws, then Christians are told we need to respect the religious freedoms of all.

What the what????

 

[park_mike]

Not sure I understand the question. Who's religious freedoms are under assault if gay marriage being legal is overturned?

We know that making it legal goes against Christian teachings. Is there another religion that teaches that gay marriage is the acceptable form of marriage?

It's curious how we keep passing laws that go against Christian teachings, then when Christians object and want to overturn said laws, then Christians are told we need to respect the religious freedoms of all.

What the what????

Don't misunderstand me. I agree that Christianity clearly teaches that homosexuality is an abomination to God. What I am saying is that it is debatable whether or not the United States is a "Christian" nation given our constitution. While certainly the majority of those who founded the country were of a Christian persuasion, the Constitution establishes that the government shall not establish a state religion and protects all religions. I would not want the majority of Americans to be Muslim and enact Sharia law if they obtain the majority and enforce that on the population.

My point is that morality is an internal heart issue. Jesus clearly spoke to this when the religious leaders of the day were trying to get him to condemn the Roman governance of the day. Recall he did not and stated "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is Gods" meaning your heart. We cannot govern people into believing in Christianity or force them to be moral internally. However, changing individual hearts is the only way to change society. I am saying that government should stay out of the morality business and allow individuals to change hearts.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Don't misunderstand me. I agree that Christianity clearly teaches that homosexuality is an abomination to God. What I am saying is that it is debatable whether or not the United States is a "Christian" nation given our constitution. While certainly the majority of those who founded the country were of a Christian persuasion, the Constitution establishes that the government shall not establish a state religion and protects all religions. I would not want the majority of Americans to be Muslim and enact Sharia law if they obtain the majority and enforce that on the population.

My point is that morality is an internal heart issue. Jesus clearly spoke to this when the religious leaders of the day were trying to get him to condemn the Roman governance of the day. Recall he did not and stated "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is Gods" meaning your heart. We cannot govern people into believing in Christianity or force them to be moral internally. However, changing individual hearts is the only way to change society. I am saying that government should stay out of the morality business and allow individuals to change hearts.

I think you are confusing freedom of religion with the passage of laws that go against a particular faith. There have been numerous national laws that go against the Christian faith. Legalized gay marriage and abortion are two huge examples.

We can have the freedom to follow any religion we choose, and we do, but passing laws that go against the core teachings of a religion and forcing the entire nation to be bound by those laws, is completely different.

And it seems that such laws only target the teachings of one religion: Christianity. See legalized gay marriage. See legalized abortion. See forcing Christian bakers to make 'gay' cakes.

This isn't about trying to give Christian 'special' rights, hell this is simply about treating us as everyone else! If there were national laws being passed that went against the core tenets of Islam, or Hinduism or Buddhism, there would be outrage from the left in particular.

But when it is done to Christians, somehow the issue is being reframed as being about 'religious freedom', when in reality, the religious freedom of Christians is what's under assault.

 

[instaGATOR]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams

This Republic was founded on 'In God We Trust' and based on Christianity. IF you want to pursue another religion, then go elsewhere to do it, or keep your own religion to yourself.
Don't Ask - Don't Tell

"I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong." -- Abraham Lincoln

 

[park_mike]

I think you are confusing freedom of religion with the passage of laws that go against a particular faith. There have been numerous national laws that go against the Christian faith. Legalized gay marriage and abortion are two huge examples.

We can have the freedom to follow any religion we choose, and we do, but passing laws that go against the core teachings of a religion and forcing the entire nation to be bound by those laws, is completely different.

And it seems that such laws only target the teachings of one religion: Christianity. See legalized gay marriage. See legalized abortion. See forcing Christian bakers to make 'gay' cakes.

This isn't about trying to give Christian 'special' rights, hell this is simply about treating us as everyone else! If there were national laws being passed that went against the core tenets of Islam, or Hinduism or Buddhism, there would be outrage from the left in particular.

But when it is done to Christians, somehow the issue is being reframed as being about 'religious freedom', when in reality, the religious freedom of Christians is what's under assault.

Ghost, I am not confused. As an attorney, I am well acquainted with laws and their purpose and effect. As a history scholar, I am well aware of the reason the founding fathers set up our country in the manner they did.

My point was the United States is not a theocracy. The reason the laws were originally closely aligned with Christian values was simply because the vast majority of the population had those values. As society has changed/degraded, so have the morals of society which is reflected in the change in laws. If we want the country to go back to laws based on the Bible, the hearts of society must be changed in order to do that, it cannot be done legislatively.

I agree there is a double standard in the culture regarding Christianity where we believers are now marginalized because of our "mainstream" beliefs. This is an outgrowth of the culture war of the left which is trying to grab power and moral high ground for their alphabet soup religion. However, it is not like there has never been a time in history where organized "Christianity" has forced its morality on societies through the sword. In my opinion, America is great because it allows for different peoples to cohabitate in peace. As I stated above, Jesus did not come to change the geopolitical world, he came to change people's hearts and the eternal world.

If what you are saying is that half of the American population is trying to eradicate the moral underpinnings which led the founding fathers to establish this country along with all those peoples who came here to have religious freedom, I would agree with you. However, I don't want America to become a theocracy as we have seen what happens in those types of governments when the power is taken from the people in the name of God and then wielded by an individual in God's name to do terrible things to some members of society who disagree with that leader's personal philosophy. As Lincoln said, this nation is a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people...therefore, the laws reflect that truth. That is what I am saying.

 

[park_mike]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams

This Republic was founded on 'In God We Trust' and based on Christianity. IF you want to pursue another religion, then go elsewhere to do it, or keep your own religion to yourself.
Don't Ask - Don't Tell

"I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong." -- Abraham Lincoln

insta,

I agree that this country and the world would be much better off if Jesus was the benevolent dictator of the world. He will be one day, just not yet. That being said, the United States is not a theocracy, but a representative republic, as I know you know, which is reflective of the people. Unfortunately, the people have degraded themselves into the current state where morality no longer really has any meaning. In order to get back to a moral society, as you and I understand morality, the people, not the government, need to change. If the people change, the government will reflect that.

I like your quotes above. However, they can be taken to mean something different. What if Adams was talking about Catholicism over Protestantism? If we established Catholicism as the state religion, would we then persecute Protestant's like they did in England under Mary? Would we burn people at the stake as heretics? To what extreme would we go to enforce our version of true Christianity. The Catholic church's official position is that it is the only legitimate body of Christ and all others are heretics and doomed to hell.

Also, Lincoln understood the nature of the American government as reflected in his Gettysburg Address where he stated that the government is of the people, by the people and for the people. The laws, for better or worse, reflect the popular moral opinion. In order to have them align with Judeo-Christian beliefs, the majority of the elected officials of any government body must have that belief system.

I believe it is dangerous for any government to use religion as a basis for governance. Even the best people can use God as an excuse for any action as there is no higher authority to appeal to. How many times have I heard a pastor say, when they fire someone, that God is calling them to another position. God is blamed for all kinds of stuff He never had a hand in. Until such time as Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom on the new earth, I think we should leave religion out of government as an authority for laws. Let the represented people's conscience, guided by whatever they deem moral, be the basis for law, apart from religious dogma. If that is the case, then all will be free to worship including us.

 

[BSC911]

This is an interesting topic for me. While I personally believe homosexuality is immoral based on the teachings of the Bible, which I believe is God's inerrant word, I don't believe that the state should engage in legislating morality on these types of issues. The problem is when you do that, you have to pick a morality based on a religious or other moral system which may be different than your own. Everyone seems to think that their morality is correct and is willing to force the "nonbelievers" into submission for their own good.

This is precisely what drove the founding of the American colonies in the first place as individuals were were seeking to escape religious persecution from Catholic Europe. The death and destruction from those years in Europe were based on groups of people who believed essentially the same thing and in the same God, just interpreted scripture differently. How much more violent can it get when opposition groups who fundamentally disagree on virtually every point regarding a world view clash on these topics. We are starting to see that play out right now.

To that end, I think the government should get out of the marriage business all together. If there are no benefits to being married, then there is no real fight over marriage. In all his teachings, Jesus never suggested to overthrow the Roman political system in favor of his moral agenda and the Roman system was far more oppressive to traditional Judaism upon which the Judeo-Christian belief system is based than current Western society.

People trying to make other people moral through government intervention will never work. In my opinion, the government should do nothing more than set limited rules to govern such as protecting individuals from harm, national defense, and enforcing property rights and leave morality to each individual. Then, no one can complain and no one can force morality upon another. Ironically, Christians unknowingly are acting in the same manner they are railing against by demanding LGBT people adhere to their moral standards while simultaneously lamenting the fact that LGBT people are attempting to enforce their moral agenda upon them.

We are never going to achieve a utopian society where everyone believes the same thing. We can only strive toward a society where we are truly free to make our own decisions regarding how to live our lives free from the imposition of another's morality upon us. Unfortunately, that seems like a lost cause in this world. One possible suggestion is that the government no longer defines or even acknowledges marriage as a legal entity and allows religious groups to do that. To the extent that people enter into legal contracts regarding the joint ownership of assets, the court system can still manage that. Also, the court system can continue to engage in the protection of minor children through the imposition of visitation and child support. While I think this will further devolve society, it appears to be the only logical solution at this point given the vast disparity in beliefs regarding morality and marriage.

Well said. I agree that the state should stay out of the marriage game and leave it to the church’s and individuals. However, the problem with that is that it would leave many women destitute after bearing children.

 

[NavigatorII]

You mean my marriage isnt real?

What does your spouse say about this? His opinion matters.

 

[BSC911]

Ghost is ignorant of history.

European Persecution​

The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed as heretics. The dominance of the concept, denounced by Roger Williams as "inforced uniformity of religion," meant majority religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst. In some areas Catholics persecuted Protestants, in others Protestants persecuted Catholics, and in still others Catholics and Protestants persecuted wayward coreligionists. Although England renounced religious persecution in 1689, it persisted on the European continent. Religious persecution, as observers in every century have commented, is often bloody and implacable and is remembered and resented for generations.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I agree there is a double standard in the culture regarding Christianity where we believers are now marginalized because of our "mainstream" beliefs. This is an outgrowth of the culture war of the left which is trying to grab power and moral high ground for their alphabet soup religion. However, it is not like there has never been a time in history where organized "Christianity" has forced its morality on societies through the sword.

An otherwise decent post, but I have no idea why you included this bit as it is totally irrelevant. This was my point: Laws are passed that target the core tenets and beliefs of Christianity, when Christians object, excuses are made for the behavior. Such as 'well Christians were mean to someone else 1000 years ago, so they kinda deserve what's happening to them now'.

Christians ARE having immorality forced upon them. Remember Kim Davis? She refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because she said it went against her beliefs. She was jailed for it.

Again, show me where people who practice Islam, or Hinduism or Buddhism are being jailed for following their religious beliefs.

This isn't about forcing everyone to practice Christianity. This is about Christians being allowed to practice their religion without being jailed for it.

That's what religious freedom is about. It breaks my heart to see so many people who are so willing to make excuses for the trampling of those freedoms, or attempting to paint Christians as being deserving of such treatment

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

@park_mike

The quote feature is lacking so:
Your posts in quotes with key words bolded my replies/words in bold and underlined for those to follow at home.

First you said:
"I don't believe that the state should engage in legislating morality on these types of issues."

Then:

"The laws, for better or worse, reflect the popular moral opinion."

"Let the represented people's conscience, guided by whatever they deem moral, be the basis for law, apart from religious dogma."

As for where people get their moral guidance you imply anything is ok except religion? The totality of your posts are one giant non sequitir. Rousseau would be proud. Burke and Locke not so much.

"This is precisely what drove the founding of the American colonies in the first place as individuals were were seeking to escape religious persecution from Catholic Europe."

No they fled the Church of England

"People trying to make other people moral through government intervention will never work."

Restricting the regulated privilege of marriage to one man and one woman is not intended to make LGTBQwerty people moral. It is to prevent the government from doing things that are immoral or proposing to the society that such things are moral by their promotion. LGTBQwerty can continue to do whatever they want behind closed doors.

"While I think this will further devolve society, it appears to be the only logical solution at this point given the vast disparity in beliefs regarding morality and marriage."

There is this thing called the 10th amendment. SCOTUS should have left this up to the states. TN voted 80-20 to restrict marriage to one and one woman. I believe the peoples conscience in TN was pretty clear. So there is a more logical conclusion. Its called the Constitution and more precisely the 10th amendment. Maybe SCOTUS (aka national gubmnint) should stay out of these issues as you say and leave it up to the people in their various states to decide.

Short of getting rid of Ogberfell, I am for any workaround that puts the power back in the hands of the local peoples conscience.

Lastly:

"If that is the case, then all will be free to worship including us."

Worship is a subset of ones exercise of religion not the totality.

 

[park_mike]

An otherwise decent post, but I have no idea why you included this bit as it is totally irrelevant. This was my point: Laws are passed that target the core tenets and beliefs of Christianity, when Christians object, excuses are made for the behavior. Such as 'well Christians were mean to someone else 1000 years ago, so they kinda deserve what's happening to them now'.

Christians ARE having immorality forced upon them. Remember Kim Davis? She refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because she said it went against her beliefs. She was jailed for it.

Again, show me where people who practice Islam, or Hinduism or Buddhism are being jailed for following their religious beliefs.

This isn't about forcing everyone to practice Christianity. This is about Christians being allowed to practice their religion without being jailed for it.

That's what religious freedom is about. It breaks my heart to see so many people who are so willing to make excuses for the trampling of those freedoms, or attempting to paint Christians as being deserving of such treatment

I whole heartedly agree. That is why I am saying that the government should now stay out of the marriage game. I don't think we should have laws about discrimination either. Everyone should be free to discriminate as they wish. I am not a bigot or racist, but if you don't want to associate with a particular person, you should not have to. If you are a racist and don't want to make a cake for a certain minority, the market is the best way to take care of that economically. People wont go to you place of business.

As for the other faiths, if an Islamic father in the US murdered his daughter in an honor killing, I think he would be prosecuted even though he would not be in other Islamic countries...we had that example a year or two ago. I agree Christians are currently singled out by the left as targets right now. I don't think that is right but it has nothing to do with laws. As I stated earlier, I think we should have less laws, not more, and only those upon which we can agree.

To some degree, all criminal laws are morally based. They have to be. But they are not necessarily based on a particular religion but an agreement regarding morality by the majority of the population in general. Before you start, I fully understand the difference between relative and absolute morality and agree that relative morality is not morality at all and that all morality ultimately derives from God. I am just saying we can have laws which keep us from killing each other and which organize society which are not necessarily based solely on the Bible, even though I wish they were.

Final thought, I am a Jesus following, conservative, Bible believing fundamental Christian. I wish all society would be based on Biblical teaching. However, given the world we live in, it cannot and because of the nature of humanity and our propensity to twist good things into bad, allowing a government to legislate based upon a higher authority opens up a Pandora's box of problems depending on who is in power. Hope that makes sense.

 

[park_mike]

@park_mike

The quote feature is lacking so:
Your posts in quotes with key words bolded my replies/words in bold and underlined for those to follow at home.

First you said:
"I don't believe that the state should engage in legislating morality on these types of issues."

Then:

"The laws, for better or worse, reflect the popular moral opinion."

"Let the represented people's conscience, guided by whatever they deem moral, be the basis for law, apart from religious dogma."

As for where people get their moral guidance you imply anything is ok except religion? The totality of your posts are one giant non sequitir. Rousseau would be proud. Burke and Locke not so much.

"This is precisely what drove the founding of the American colonies in the first place as individuals were were seeking to escape religious persecution from Catholic Europe."

No they fled the Church of England

"People trying to make other people moral through government intervention will never work."

Restricting the regulated privilege of marriage to one man and one woman is not intended to make LGTBQwerty people moral. It is to prevent the government from doing things that are immoral or proposing to the society that such things are moral by their promotion. LGTBQwerty can continue to do whatever they want behind closed doors.

"While I think this will further devolve society, it appears to be the only logical solution at this point given the vast disparity in beliefs regarding morality and marriage."

There is this thing called the 10th amendment. SCOTUS should have left this up to the states. TN voted 80-20 to restrict marriage to one and one woman. I believe the peoples conscience in TN was pretty clear. So there is a more logical conclusion. Its called the Constitution and more precisely the 10th amendment. Maybe SCOTUS (aka national gubmnint) should stay out of these issues as you say and leave it up to the people in their various states to decide.

Short of getting rid of Ogberfell, I am for any workaround that puts the power back in the hands of the local peoples conscience.

Lastly:

"If that is the case, then all will be free to worship including us."

Worship is a subset of ones exercise of religion not the totality.

DC, the ironic thing is that you and I probably agree on 99.9% of stuff, given you comments. I used to think exactly like you but have changed my thinking after a tremendous amount of thought.

Marriage was never a governmental institution, but one ordained by God in Genesis with Adam and Eve. That being said, the government took it upon itself to grant special status to those married couples basically because they wanted to help those who were rearing children. Then those who could not have children said they were being discriminated against, so it opened it up to all married people. Then same-sex couples argued they were being discriminated against since married hetero couples enjoyed tax advantages from marital status unconnected with kids...and we had Obergefell v. Hodges.

The point is we are fighting over marriage primarily because of the economic advantages given to married couples. If we eliminate those, we eliminate the underlying basis for disagreement. We can have social programs which will provide the same benefit but base it on the existence of minor children.

LGBT individuals will always try to attack Christian values as they hate all they stand for with regard to calling their decision to engage in their sexual lifestyle as sinful and wrong. That won't change regardless of the marriage issue.

As for the religious basis, what about churches such as Methodist and Lutheran portions who not only allow but promote same-sex marriages? Are we going to say that their interpretation of Scripture is incorrect and enforce our morals on them? I agree they are interpreting the Bible wrong, but when you start basing law on fallible human interpretation, we open ourselves to some real issues. What about Paul stating that slaves should obey their masters? I know that is taken out of context, but it was used by Southern "Christians" to justify chattel slavery where people were treated as livestock.

As for the state vs. federal issue, I agree with you 100%. While I love Lincoln as a person, he was dead wrong in his crusade to enforce federal supremacy over the States. The United States were a collection of individual sovereign States who voluntarily joined together in a confederation for mutual benefit and protection. They were never supposed to be subsets of a larger nation in the manner currently thought. It was the height of arrogance for Lincoln to shed blood to force Southern States to involuntarily stay in a voluntary union of sovereign States when they decided they no longer wanted to be a part of it.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I whole heartedly agree. That is why I am saying that the government should now stay out of the marriage game.

You mean now that gay marriage is legal?

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

DC, the ironic thing is that you and I probably agree on 99.9% of stuff, given you comments. I used to think exactly like you but have changed my thinking after a tremendous amount of thought.

Marriage was never a governmental institution, but one ordained by God in Genesis with Adam and Eve. That being said, the government took it upon itself to grant special status to those married couples basically because they wanted to help those who were rearing children. Then those who could not have children said they were being discriminated against, so it opened it up to all married people. Then same-sex couples argued they were being discriminated against since married hetero couples enjoyed tax advantages from marital status unconnected with kids...and we had Obergefell v. Hodges.

The point is we are fighting over marriage primarily because of the economic advantages given to married couples. If we eliminate those, we eliminate the underlying basis for disagreement. We can have social programs which will provide the same benefit but base it on the existence of minor children.

LGBT individuals will always try to attack Christian values as they hate all they stand for with regard to calling their decision to engage in their sexual lifestyle as sinful and wrong. That won't change regardless of the marriage issue.

As for the religious basis, what about churches such as Methodist and Lutheran portions who not only allow but promote same-sex marriages? Are we going to say that their interpretation of Scripture is incorrect and enforce our morals on them? I agree they are interpreting the Bible wrong, but when you start basing law on fallible human interpretation, we open ourselves to some real issues. What about Paul stating that slaves should obey their masters? I know that is taken out of context, but it was used by Southern "Christians" to justify chattel slavery where people were treated as livestock.

As for the state vs. federal issue, I agree with you 100%. While I love Lincoln as a person, he was dead wrong in his crusade to enforce federal supremacy over the States. The United States were a collection of individual sovereign States who voluntarily joined together in a confederation for mutual benefit and protection. They were never supposed to be subsets of a larger nation in the manner currently thought. It was the height of arrogance for Lincoln to shed blood to force Southern States to involuntarily stay in a voluntary union of sovereign States when they decided they no longer wanted to be a part of it.

And we will leave it here and agree to disagree (slightly)

 

[BayouGator1995]

It violates the Biblical teachings on which this Christian country was founded.

I wish dems were as eager to defend Americans who live by the teachings of the Bible, as they are the ones that refuse to.

Demo-Communists are just evil people, period. They spit in God Almighty's face with their lifestyles, behavior, and draconian measures taken against the American people. They have no soul in their bodies. And their end game is that sulphur-hot fiery furnace called Hades.

 

[park_mike]

Demo-Communists are just evil people, period. They spit in God Almighty's face with their lifestyles, behavior, and draconian measures taken against the American people. They have no soul in their bodies. And their end game is that sulphur-hot fiery furnace called Hades.

And yet I feel compelled to pray for their salvation and God's mercy on them the same as everyone else. I don't want anyone to suffer an eternity without God but know the vast majority of humanity will. I try not to paint all opposing viewpoints with too broad a brush as I know some good friends who love Jesus and have different opinions regarding the role of the government and economic which could be construed as closer to Marxism. On the other moral issues, they align with Biblical teachings. It is an interesting subject. I just don't want to miss loving people and showing them the compassion and mercy Jesus did to the outcasts and sinners in His ministry while still lovingly and strongly disagreeing with their lifestyle.

 

[park_mike]

You mean now that gay marriage is legal?

No. Not at all. I am not for gay marriage. I am saying that if the government is going to define marriage as something other than between a biological man and biological woman, we should get the government out of the marriage issue all together and leave it up to the churches.

 

[park_mike]

Apparently, we should switch to some less controversial subject like 5 point Calvinism vs. Arminianism, once saved always saved, or baptism for the dead...lol

 

[instaGATOR]

Mike,
There is no 'The People' in the nation the way you are using it.
There are only individuals that can be as different from each other as night and day. It is my personal belief that the vast majority of those people are good and decent people. It's about a 70/30 mix imo, which is about the same mix as the 2020 election split, before the evil Rat fraud was committed. It's the loud $$$ billionaire sponsored evil 30% vs the vast mostly silent majority, but that majority is fast becoming less silent. The problem is that Evil people rise to the top by doing the evil deeds that the good have chosen not to engage in.

Thus, eventually the top becomes a swamp/cesspool that the good, by necessity not desire, must occasionally flush out, just as Thomas Jefferson has suggested.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
=====

Mike says - "I believe it is dangerous for any government to use religion as a basis for governance."

And you are allowed to believe whatever and however you choose to, but this nation was still founded on a Christian God and the Ten Commandments are still the foundations of our laws, as twisted as some of those laws have become through the machinations of evil people.

We don't need Spanish Trials of Inquisition to remain a Christian based country, nor have I suggested that we do. But religious tolerance does have it's limits.

I don't suggest that the Muslims should be burned at the stake (even when they do pursue that for Christian Infidels in countries that they control), nor do I want them making over this country in the image of their Quran. If they want to live under Sharia law, then they need to go to a country that was founded on, and is following it. The same goes for any of the other world religions.

Now, if any group attempts to put my Constitutional Republic under their laws, improperly using my religious freedoms to do so, then I will attempt to burn them at the stake, or otherwise end them. And the same goes for the Godless Socialist-Marxist-Communists that are attempting to overthrow this Constitutional Republic, that I have taken a SACRED OATH to protect and defend.

 

[instaGATOR]

And yet I feel compelled to pray for their salvation and God's mercy on them the same as everyone else. I don't want anyone to suffer an eternity without God but know the vast majority of humanity will. I try not to paint all opposing viewpoints with too broad a brush as I know some good friends who love Jesus and have different opinions regarding the role of the government and economic which could be construed as closer to Marxism. On the other moral issues, they align with Biblical teachings. It is an interesting subject. I just don't want to miss loving people and showing them the compassion and mercy Jesus did to the outcasts and sinners in His ministry while still lovingly and strongly disagreeing with their lifestyle.

Those repenting and coming to Jesus get a much different response than those that chose an evil path. Some with their own agenda's, try to overlook the response of Jesus to the buyers and sellers over-running the Temple of God....

"Christ casts the buyers and sellers out of the temple. The first public work in which we find Christ engaged, was driving from the temple the traders whom the covetous priests and rulers encouraged to make a market-place of its courts. Those now make God's house a house of merchandise, whose minds are filled with cares about worldly business when attending religious exercises, or who perform Divine offices for love of gain."

Mark 21 -- For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”.

John 2:15 -- Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and cattle, scattered the money changers’ coins over the floor, and turned over their tables.

Anyone claiming that Jesus was non-violent, in the face of perceived evil, is a liar.

 

[Illegal-shift]

park_Mike - Good discussion, I think you raise a lot of well thought out points of view. I have made the argument with friends that the way to reduce abortions is not through the supreme court. The best you can hope for there is a temporary victory that likely will have only a minor affect on the #'s anyway. Seems more like a moral victory (sorry, bad pun) and not a real one.

The only way is changing the hearts and minds of people......and then letting the people make their own choice.

 

[instaGATOR]

park_Mike - Good discussion, I think you raise a lot of well thought out points of view. I have made the argument with friends that the way to reduce abortions is not through the supreme court. The best you can hope for there is a temporary victory that likely will have only a minor affect on the #'s anyway. Seems more like a moral victory (sorry, bad pun) and not a real one.

The only way is changing the hearts and minds of people......and then letting the people make their own choice.

And should we then address arsonists, murders, rapists, and pedophiles in the same manner as those that have committed 62+ million infanticides?

A 6 million HOLOCAUSE, is just a drop in that infanticide bucket....

 

[Illegal-shift]

And should we then address arsonists, murders, rapists, and pedophiles in the same manner as those that have committed 62+ million infanticides?

A 6 million HOLOCAUSE, is just a drop in that infanticide bucket....

Nah, everybody agrees those are crimes, apples and oranges. You have a different morality than pro choice people do. You have to change the hearts and minds of enough people to become the majority. That's the only long term solution.

 

[EvilWayz]

We know that making it legal goes against Christian teachings. Is there another religion that teaches that gay marriage is the acceptable form of marriage?

*raises hand*

Satanism.

Further:

Either marriage is a religious institution and the government should butt the hell out of it and offer no financial or tax incentives for it, or it's a government institution and the churches should butt out of it or do their own thing.

Can't do both with the rules as written. You don't get to deny a minority of citizens a right because you don't approve of how they do things.

 

[Mr.Eko]

It violates the Biblical teachings on which this Christian country was founded.

I wish dems were as eager to defend Americans who live by the teachings of the Bible, as they are the ones that refuse to.

The ones that do, own all the power in America. Not only do they not need additional help, America must be protected from these people who want to terrorize other Americans with their particular belief system. God save us from the old school Un-American Fundamentalist.

 

[Mr.Eko]

Mike,
There is no 'The People' in the nation the way you are using it.
There are only individuals that can be as different from each other as night and day. It is my personal belief that the vast majority of those people are good and decent people. It's about a 70/30 mix imo, which is about the same mix as the 2020 election split, before the evil Rat fraud was committed. It's the loud $$$ billionaire sponsored evil 30% vs the vast mostly silent majority, but that majority is fast becoming less silent. The problem is that Evil people rise to the top by doing the evil deeds that the good have chosen not to engage in.

Thus, eventually the top becomes a swamp/cesspool that the good, by necessity not desire, must occasionally flush out, just as Thomas Jefferson has suggested.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
=====

Mike says - "I believe it is dangerous for any government to use religion as a basis for governance."

And you are allowed to believe whatever and however you choose to, but this nation was still founded on a Christian God and the Ten Commandments are still the foundations of our laws, as twisted as some of those laws have become through the machinations of evil people.

We don't need Spanish Trials of Inquisition to remain a Christian based country, nor have I suggested that we do. But religious tolerance does have it's limits.

I don't suggest that the Muslims should be burned at the stake (even when they do pursue that for Christian Infidels in countries that they control), nor do I want them making over this country in the image of their Quran. If they want to live under Sharia law, then they need to go to a country that was founded on, and is following it. The same goes for any of the other world religions.

Now, if any group attempts to put my Constitutional Republic under their laws, improperly using my religious freedoms to do so, then I will attempt to burn them at the stake, or otherwise end them. And the same goes for the Godless Socialist-Marxist-Communists that are attempting to overthrow this Constitutional Republic, that I have taken a SACRED OATH to protect and defend.

Right now, America needs your help defending against this 'new Facist Republican Party', which wants to destroy our American Democracy and make itself rulers of all America.

Quit worrying about who loves who, our new American citizens, or forcing pregnancy on millions of women against their will! All that stuff is just Fox News trying to confuse you so you won't fight for America against the Satan-like, Trump led, Facist Republicans.

 

[GatorTheo]

Homosexuality is gross and perverted.....unless it's two good looking women, of course.

 

[NorthJerseyGator]

Nah, everybody agrees those are crimes, apples and oranges. You have a different morality than pro choice people do. You have to change the hearts and minds of enough people to become the majority. That's the only long term solution.

Different morality than pro choice people, eh? What concept of morality is consciously and intentionally terminating created life, praytell?

 

[NorthJerseyGator]

Right now, America needs your help defending against this 'new Facist Republican Party', which wants to destroy our American Democracy and make itself rulers of all America.

Quit worrying about who loves who, our new American citizens, or forcing pregnancy on millions of women against their will! All that stuff is just Fox News trying to confuse you so you won't fight for America against the Satan-like, Trump led, Facist Republicans.

The pregnancy of millions of women, as you say, occurred before any third party inputted their sanctity of life moral upon said women. Sex is sex, pregnancy is pregnancy, life is life, murder is murder, guilt is guilt. Getting emotional and defending the termination of life is just a coping mechanism for guilt of the conscious and intentional taking of life.

 

[NorthJerseyGator]

Ghost, I am not confused. As an attorney, I am well acquainted with laws and their purpose and effect. As a history scholar, I am well aware of the reason the founding fathers set up our country in the manner they did.

My point was the United States is not a theocracy. The reason the laws were originally closely aligned with Christian values was simply because the vast majority of the population had those values. As society has changed/degraded, so have the morals of society which is reflected in the change in laws. If we want the country to go back to laws based on the Bible, the hearts of society must be changed in order to do that, it cannot be done legislatively.

I agree there is a double standard in the culture regarding Christianity where we believers are now marginalized because of our "mainstream" beliefs. This is an outgrowth of the culture war of the left which is trying to grab power and moral high ground for their alphabet soup religion. However, it is not like there has never been a time in history where organized "Christianity" has forced its morality on societies through the sword. In my opinion, America is great because it allows for different peoples to cohabitate in peace. As I stated above, Jesus did not come to change the geopolitical world, he came to change people's hearts and the eternal world.

If what you are saying is that half of the American population is trying to eradicate the moral underpinnings which led the founding fathers to establish this country along with all those peoples who came here to have religious freedom, I would agree with you. However, I don't want America to become a theocracy as we have seen what happens in those types of governments when the power is taken from the people in the name of God and then wielded by an individual in God's name to do terrible things to some members of society who disagree with that leader's personal philosophy. As Lincoln said, this nation is a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people...therefore, the laws reflect that truth. That is what I am saying.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

 

[Mr.Eko]

The pregnancy of millions of women, as you say, occurred before any third party inputted their sanctity of life moral upon said women. Sex is sex, pregnancy is pregnancy, life is life, murder is murder, guilt is guilt. Getting emotional and defending the termination of life is just a coping mechanism for guilt of the conscious and intentional taking of life.

No, not at all. Women should have control over their own bodies! They don't need government or antiquated religious mores interfering. Let them alone and they will make the decision that is best. When you get pregnant, make your own choice.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

No, not at all. Women should have control over their own bodies!

Unless they refuse to get the jab, right?

 

[Illegal-shift]

Unless they refuse to get the jab, right?

Doesn't that argument cut both ways?