does your religion belong in the United States of Americas Government?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: infolurker



You answer my question with a freshman question? I'll rephrase. How does the concept of "Freedom of Religion" conform to the Bible?

The importance of every single individual in God’s sight is a dominant theme in the Bible. The fact that humanity was created in the image of God, and that Christ sacrificed himself for all of humanity, reveals the universal love of God and His all-inclusive plan of salvation. This equal access to salvation reveals God’s equal treatment of all people as anyone at anytime in their life has the freedom to choose life.

Because of the reality of Christ’s sacrifice that brought salvation to humanity, because Christ died for them on the cross. Jesus Christ reveals that the essence of the Old Testament law is included in the commandment, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself ’” (Matthew 22:37-39). The two commandments, equal in importance, define the relational system of Christianity. Even if one’s neighbor was to have adverse interests, religious, or political views.

Non-discrimination, the promotion of social peace, equal treatment, etc., have mandatory biblical references, which are all absorbed by the golden agape command of Christ.

The Bible sets the standard high, introducing the sacrificial love of Christ, a starting point that should entirely reshape the Christian’s perspective on religious freedom.

This goes far beyond concepts such as respect, tolerance, empathy, non-discriminatory attitudes, no-harm, etc., that are often used in the discourse on religious freedom.

There is, in fact, by far, no equal or comparable term to the love of Christ when talking about the relationship between neighbors. The Bible reveals that God guarantees religious freedom for all people. God does not force anyone to choose him, but gives all a free choice in the matter of religion.

That does not mean that Christians will not try to bring you to Christ, it means that we live in peace with our neighbors.

Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself.

In His plan of salvation, everyone has the option of being fully restored into His image, lost by Adam’s sin, available through Christ’s sacrifice.

This restoration in Christ enables Christians to practice the love of Jesus in daily life. By doing that, Christians can practically improve their relationships with other Christians or non-Christians, which will not only guarantee religious freedom, but will also (and currently does) produce harmony and social peace in society.

a reply to: ketsuko

I agree, people of faith should be able to serve in the government no doubt, if they weren't able to then that would be discrimination. What shouldn't be allowed to happen though is those people's faiths interfering with their jobs as government employees.

Kim Davis should not be allowed to be employed by the government in my opinion, not because she has a certain faith but because her faith interfered with her job.

a reply to: infolurker

Can't answer the question, huh? Do you have a link for that cut and paste, wishful thinking sermon?

The Bible reveals that God guarantees religious freedom for all people. God does not force anyone to choose him, but gives all a free choice in the matter of religion.

That load of rhetorical apologetic prosylization doesn't reflect Judeo-Christian doctrines.

Dueteronomy 13
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

2 John 1:9-11
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

2 Corinthians 6:14
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

2 John 1:7 (
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Please demonstrate, without apologetic prosylization, how "Freedom of Religion" supports Biblical dogma, like the 1st of the 10 Commandments for example.

Because of the reality of Christ’s sacrifice that brought salvation to humanity, because Christ died for them on the cross.

How does US law incorporate this concept of Jesus dying for "them" on the cross?

This whole discussion is weird. We have a on-going discussion with Ben Carson and Trump about a Muslims being president. With all that going, we have the pope who is only a religious figure, being treated as a Head of State. I think that alone is disgusting considering what the founding fathers had in mind for America.

There should not be any pope in congress influencing any decisions. His opinions as it relates to politics and policy should mean nothing.

if memory serves, just 25 years ago, everything was going quite well. black/white relations were the best they've ever been (perhaps in the history of the world), our space program was thriving, silicon valley was coming up with new stuff everyday, people were flocking to the usa for it's social programs, opportunities and educational institutions. the future was bright for children everywhere. unwed mothers had access to solid social programs that provided a nice home and food for the kids

and then it all went to hell over night.

a reply to: FelisOrion

he may be a democratic party supporter, making him a special interest group as it were. i know he prefers marxism to capitalism. he may not be happy about abortion but then he's more progressive than former popes so i really don't know. (he's also a jesuit). the vatican now has its own city state right in the middle of washington dc, granted to them by ronald reagan.

an interesting scenario to be sure.

as regards this topic

watch this

a reply to: FelisOrion

He is a head of state. The Vatican is a country.

a reply to: ketsuko

If I ran for office and made a law that said murder was illegal and gave my rationale as being based on the Commandment, you would be all for murder because how dare I shove my religion down your throat.

A second contemplation on your ridiculous assertion leads me to this:

If you said murder was illegal because of the first Commandment - and only the first Commandment - I would suspect you are one of those homicidal freaks whose only reason for NOT murdering someone is "the first Commandment." So, in your case, you're being a good girl to follow the rules; apparently you wouldn't stop yourself if not for that "Commandment." If you need those rules to refrain from heinous activity, then - well, religion was made exactly for people like you.

Whatever.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

billions need those laws to keep things sane around here and without them those of you that may not need such would sadly need protection from those billions out to get you.

yes I would fight for you if that were the case

a reply to: deadeyedick

ya got me, dick.

Yep, apparently billions DO need those rules; because they are basically weak, selfish, angry, lacking in self-control, and hate everyone else. Also hate themselves because they are, you know, worthless sinners, unfit to eat the crumbs from under their sky-king's table, and been have been brow-beaten into deeply seated self-loathing.

Telling someone from the cradle that they are gravely flawed and can really do nothing about it except follow these "rules" results in them being incapable of humane behavior without their imaginary overlord watching every move they make???


How childish. Oh well - most of the world is of average or lower intelligence. So, I get it.

Apparently the Muslims WANT to slaughter me anyway, having been given a different set of rules. What's to stop radical extreme Christians from doing the same?
But, I appreciate your having my back in a pinch.
I'd cover you, too, if you had to run through a sniper's alley.

At least you're not routinely hateful, and we have the ability to communicate to a decent extent.
Love ya!
Jill

a reply to: ketsuko

If we are a representative Republic, then people of faith deserve a place in government as much as secular people do. And if we are obsessed with making sure every skin color is represented as well as male and female and will celebrate every person of sexual diversity, then it is no more inappropriate for people to see those of their faith representing them.

Did someone say something about not "allowing" Christians to be in the Oval Office or Congress or State Leg or School Boards?

Where (if you please and have a sec) did you hear that?

Seems my brain has a thought that says there's a rule that no person running for government should be given a religious test.....
is that not the case?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

We just can not call it a religious test.

We must call it a morality test.

I think the reason for some of these threads is the question of a muslim president holding beliefs in sherias law would stand in contrast with our collective morality which resembles Christian views.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I think the reason for some of these threads is the question of a muslim president holding beliefs in sherias law would stand in contrast with our collective morality which resembles Christian views.

How is a Muslim holding to Sharia law any different than a "Christian" who holds to all kinds of warfare, slavery, stoning, shushing women, etc and Deuteronomy and Leviticus?

"God" told George W to bomb Iraq.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
well Jill glad you asked.lol

Simple answer is that modern Christians do not hold to those views.

Now days our most radical views are believing in traditional marriage and that humans live in mothers wombs

that same can not be said about many other religions and too much of sherias law is in contrast with the shared views of America and Christianity.


Do you find it troubling that bills views are now more in line with the right than the left. He is constantly going against the left now days even though he does not fit with the right either. 10 yrs ago his views were much the same yet he was more left than most of the dems

Well this post blew up unexpectedly. I have been working up in the mountains without internet all day. I haven't read all the comments as of yet. No I am not a mod and what I meant was I would ask a mod to remove flame posts.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: crustyjuggler27
Well, some seem to think so, but since our government is secular, and not theocratic, no. Religion has no place in our government in any way, shape, or form.

this is not a bash the other guys religion thread. if i see it i will remove it

Psssst. You have to be a mod to remove posts.

I think you can edit your OP to be blank. Or ask that it be removed.

Yes you can, but the OP was talking about removing other members posts. Not your own.

Ohhh...ok. Reporting is not the same as 'having it removed'. So I have no idea what he means.
The conspiracy gorws.....lol.


I am not being mean...but reg in 2008 and OP could have had a better score just by being asleep. Though there are lurkers...7 years????

I am a frequent visitor to this site. I sometimes post comments. But I rarely start threads

to Seeker 1963......I know it seems hypocritical to seem "religious" i the sense that non-believers try to force people to assimilate their ideologies, but i will honestly sit here and say that when you have atheism, which has never produced an atrocious crime against humanity vs religion, which has been the source of all kinds of inhumanity, then the ideology that is morally superior and is more apt to the human species should be, i guess you could say "forced" upon others. If my reply seems rather harsh or hypocritical then so be it, i dont see it that way because i believe that atheistic socialism reflects human morality far more than religion, greed, and discrimination, persecution, etc. I think also that my generation(millennials) must be the ones to take humanity to the next level of existence, after all, it is fact that society, and the level of morality and tolerance in that society are always evolving, phase after phase.