American beliefs

[MisterChester]

And Acts, allows us to eat what we wish. New Testament has priority over Old.

Says who?

 

[ATM]

Should a new constitution be crafted that outlines the parameters of the federal government in today's climate given the ever increasing trend by many that favor a bigger role by the very same government? Should the role of the federal government be expanded in this new constitution? That's a total flip flop from what the founders envisioned.

No, I merely tossed that out there to chum the waters as discussion fodder among other unsavory alternatives.

I propose a return to individual accountability, a voluntary society which does not grant political license to initiate force against anyone.

It would likely have worked just as well as our Constitution for the virtuous and religious society of our founding, but it is the only workable solution for our current society apart from the increasing tyranny of force to which we've acclimated ourselves.

 

[MisterChester]

While that distinction has merit, it opens some questions:

1. How can we not reasonable expect to have .gov problems here when it is already an issue in allegedly free countries of similar national background with ours?

2. Who gets to define 'hate speech'?

3. Given that the Biblical condemnation amounts to declaring certain activities as sin with specific treatment of the fact that this is an different concept from condemning the practitioners thereof as human beings, how can passages which are already prosecuted as 'hate speech' in other western countries be reasonable considered such?

4. What do you do with the First Amendment? My guess is that those who don't like hearing what the Bible says (i.e., don't like being told that they are wrong whether they believe in the faith or not) will liken this to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater when it is in fact suppression of the free exercise of religion given that it is not a matter of doing anything to anyone but merely discussing what practitioners of a given religion believe to be right or in this case wrong.

5. How far do you believe that a single-digit element of the population can push everyone else before some serious pushback occurs?

6. Can I expect anti-Christian statements, likewise, to be branded 'hate speech'. Seriously, I know better than to actually expect such a thing, especially given the sheer volume of publicly declared ridicule directed against people of faith as it is now by the very same people who believe that calling anything a sin is 'hate speech'.

Hate speech is already protected. Keys to persuasion at least.

I Don't like hearing what some of the bible says, but I couldn't care less about people quoting it. I just tune it out or change the channel, with no need to go nuts about it. You'll have your non-religious people that don't care like me and others who'll complain. Just like how there are religious people that complain about the fictional war on Christianity and others who can just tune it out. It really boils down to the offended vs. the apathetic, not so much religious vs. non. You'll have your thought police on both sides. The 1st amendment allows you to complain without government reprieve, but not consequences. I'm equally sick of the easily offended or the thinkers of "there is a war against my beliefs!!1" on either side. But they have every right to be offended regardless of their merit.

Anti-Christian statements are just as bad as Anti-Secular statements. There's no need for one to offend the other when they can live in coexistence. There's always some important idiot somewhere who makes inflammatory statements about their beliefs being attacked for personal gain *cough cough* Ted Cruz *cough cough* when in reality if everyone had a level head both sides could understand one another and do their best to not infringe the other. Neither side, regardless of the greatest authority either side will state, has the right to take away or infringe the rights of others to which they are endowed in the beginning. From the creator, nature, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever. This is why I personally left the church. But I don't care about what others believe, I care about making sure people don't have their rights infringed and get their due process. I care about the laws being made with anti-secular motives and anti-religious motives. Is it so hard to ask for a level playing field, or heck just level heads in our leadership?

 

[KG1]

I propose a return to individual accountability, a voluntary society which does not grant political license to initiate force against anyone.

I'm all for that. Individual accountability is sorely lacking in today's society to be sure but that goes back to the question of having the moral compass to accept accountability. I agree that there can truly be no remedy without accountability.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Hate speech is already protected. Keys to persuasion at least.

I Don't like hearing what some of the bible says, but I couldn't care less about people quoting it. I just tune it out or change the channel, with no need to go nuts about it. You'll have your non-religious people that don't care like me and others who'll complain. Just like how there are religious people that complain about the fictional war on Christianity and others who can just tune it out. It really boils down to the offended vs. the apathetic, not so much religious vs. non. You'll have your thought police on both sides. The 1st amendment allows you to complain without government reprieve, but not consequences. I'm equally sick of the easily offended or the thinkers of "there is a war against my beliefs!!1" on either side. But they have every right to be offended regardless of their merit.

Anti-Christian statements are just as bad as Anti-Secular statements. There's no need for one to offend the other when they can live in coexistence. There's always some important idiot somewhere who makes inflammatory statements about their beliefs being attacked for personal gain *cough cough* Ted Cruz *cough cough* when in reality if everyone had a level head both sides could understand one another and do their best to not infringe the other. Neither side, regardless of the greatest authority either side will state, has the right to take away or infringe the rights of others to which they are endowed in the beginning. From the creator, nature, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever. This is why I personally left the church. But I don't care about what others believe, I care about making sure people don't have their rights infringed and get their due process. I care about the laws being made with anti-secular motives and anti-religious motives. Is it so hard to ask for a level playing field, or heck just level heads in our leadership?

It seems that we would do just fine at a practical level. The problems I see are those who want to silence everyone who disagrees. I probably notice this more from the left since that is where I can find myself in the middle of a sh*tstorm just by making an appearance. It also has complicated the discussion after Pence and the legislature engaged in their recent act of shameless political chicanery. After seeing Pence and the party leadership draft RFRA 1.0 which was very much over-done. If it were done in earnest, it simply could have protected from legal action anyone declining to engage in commerce on account of violation of their sensibilities and appealed to the freedom of religion and the prohibition against involuntary servitude alike. RFRA 1.0 was voted by every Republican including one whose seat I know for a fact was bought with homosexual money from outside his district (the same money that owns the party leadership, incidentally). After passing their law containing a poison pill they put there quite deliberately, they then drafted and passed RFRA 2.0 which did nothing whatsoever for the ostensible purpose aside from providing such protections for institutions of worship only, but codified homosexuals as a protected class for the first time in Indiana history, and they thought they could still look at the people they expect to vote for them and say, 'we did everything we could do for you--that was the only way out'. My own position is that no one should be allowed to force anyone else to do anything for anyone that they are not willing to do.

Perhaps the biggest problem arising from this is that it has definitely poisoned the water concerning productive discussion on freedom and the proper role of government much in the same way that with any mention of states' rights invoking constitutional federalism, a certain group of wags reliably screamed at the top of their lungs "CODE WORD FOR RACISM!" Personally, if I could wave the magic wand I would have those people executed for treason for their efforts to improperly concentrate power in Washington. Back to the point, we now have the discussion framed in the notion that invoking my right not to be dragooned into participating in activities which conflict with my religion is tantamount to discrimination and hating a certain group. We have far too many people who do not think through their own positions and act like children throwing tantrums--and have no respect whatsoever for the rights of anyone else.

As I see it, if we actually have equality before the law, there could be no such thing as a protected class and no need for it. Problematically, it seems that even when laws are written to protect everyone from ill treatment based on apparently fair and open-ended standards, certain groups are routinely 'exempted' from this protection, which is just as troublesome as others needing protection.

In the end, I would say that INGO's present experiment is very telling on the issue. I believe that more productive discussion has taken place in the last few days than has been accomplished in months or years of walking on egg shells dancing around the issues pertaining to religion and its influence on society. On that note, with several people I have had no surprises. A few have surprised me. In all cases, we have risen above the disagreement in the understanding that everyone is entitled to their own belief(s). I would further add that the freedom of religion is abused when some people want to convert it into the freedom from seeing any manifestation of the fact religion exists, and I appreciate the fact that this view is not taken by present company. I also have to say that honest discussion is the first step for resolving any problem situation, and I am happy that it is now happening.

 

[MisterChester]

It seems that we would do just fine at a practical level. The problems I see are those who want to silence everyone who disagrees. I probably notice this more from the left since that is where I can find myself in the middle of a sh*tstorm just by making an appearance. It also has complicated the discussion after Pence and the legislature engaged in their recent act of shameless political chicanery. After seeing Pence and the party leadership draft RFRA 1.0 which was very much over-done. If it were done in earnest, it simply could have protected from legal action anyone declining to engage in commerce on account of violation of their sensibilities and appealed to the freedom of religion and the prohibition against involuntary servitude alike. RFRA 1.0 was voted by every Republican including one whose seat I know for a fact was bought with homosexual money from outside his district (the same money that owns the party leadership, incidentally). After passing their law containing a poison pill they put there quite deliberately, they then drafted and passed RFRA 2.0 which did nothing whatsoever for the ostensible purpose aside from providing such protections for institutions of worship only, but codified homosexuals as a protected class for the first time in Indiana history, and they thought they could still look at the people they expect to vote for them and say, 'we did everything we could do for you--that was the only way out'. My own position is that no one should be allowed to force anyone else to do anything for anyone that they are not willing to do.

Perhaps the biggest problem arising from this is that it has definitely poisoned the water concerning productive discussion on freedom and the proper role of government much in the same way that with any mention of states' rights invoking constitutional federalism, a certain group of wags reliably screamed at the top of their lungs "CODE WORD FOR RACISM!" Personally, if I could wave the magic wand I would have those people executed for treason for their efforts to improperly concentrate power in Washington. Back to the point, we now have the discussion framed in the notion that invoking my right not to be dragooned into participating in activities which conflict with my religion is tantamount to discrimination and hating a certain group. We have far too many people who do not think through their own positions and act like children throwing tantrums--and have no respect whatsoever for the rights of anyone else.

As I see it, if we actually have equality before the law, there could be no such thing as a protected class and no need for it. Problematically, it seems that even when laws are written to protect everyone from ill treatment based on apparently fair and open-ended standards, certain groups are routinely 'exempted' from this protection, which is just as troublesome as others needing protection.

In the end, I would say that INGO's present experiment is very telling on the issue. I believe that more productive discussion has taken place in the last few days than has been accomplished in months or years of walking on egg shells dancing around the issues pertaining to religion and its influence on society. On that note, with several people I have had no surprises. A few have surprised me. In all cases, we have risen above the disagreement in the understanding that everyone is entitled to their own belief(s). I would further add that the freedom of religion is abused when some people want to convert it into the freedom from seeing any manifestation of the fact religion exists, and I appreciate the fact that this view is not taken by present company. I also have to say that honest discussion is the first step for resolving any problem situation, and I am happy that it is now happening.

Yeah, I do agree, protected classes would be unnecessary if there was true equality of the law. Unfortunately it's never, ever been that way, and that's why the protected class was born. But my question is, is the protected class the will of equality and balance in a nation that has many skeletons in its inequality closet? If we never had slavery, entitled every adult to vote, saw men and women as equals, saw heterosexuals and homosexuals as equals, pretty much see all humans as equals and entitled to all the same rights from the very beginning, do you think the protected class would have ever come into fruition?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yeah, I do agree, protected classes would be unnecessary if there was true equality of the law. Unfortunately it's never, ever been that way, and that's why the protected class was born. But my question is, is the protected class the will of equality and balance in a nation that has many skeletons in its inequality closet? If we never had slavery, entitled every adult to vote, saw men and women as equals, saw heterosexuals and homosexuals as equals, pretty much see all humans as equals and entitled to all the same rights from the very beginning, do you think the protected class would have ever come into fruition?

Probably not, but we have a new set of problems. First and foremost, I refuse to own responsibility for things I did not do, especially things that stopped over a century before my birth. That said, while the shadow of history can be long, I am not going to willingly accept the notion that I should be less equal in exchange for the [non-white ethnicity of your choice], woman, or homosexual's great-grandparents not getting a fair shake. I feel no need to make apology or reparation for things one group of dead people did to another group of dead people. I have found that human nature, while couched in such lofty rhetoric most of the time, does not in fact operate on the currency of justice and fairness, but self-interest and objections not against ill treatment but rather the way that ill treatment is apportioned.

Personally, I think the elimination of all protected classes would do us a great deal of good right now. Just as opening the door to this type of discussion has proven to be a good thing, I believe that it would help our society if we could be honest about what we really think. If a certain employer harbors what we would consider irrational problem issues with any particular group, I believe that those people would be better off finding someone who doesn't harbor such rancor rather than having a society operate on false pretense with everyone walking on egg shells and watching over their shoulders not really knowing the fact of the matter in their own life and livelihood. Let's say a given restaurateur doesn't like white folks. I would prefer honesty on the matter affording me the opportunity to go somewhere else and him the opportunity to not have to deal with me rather than having the proprietor smiling as he hands me food he just finished spitting on in the kitchen, and we are both happier for the truth. I can see where in the United States of 1950, such an approach could easily deprive certain people of access to things they need and fundamentally encroach on their way of life. In today's society, you may find the KKK Bar and Grill somewhere, but for the most part I doubt that you will find a lot of the things that encouraged protected classes in generations past. Also different is that opportunity is open to all, and we have pretty good coverage of all engaging in that opportunity. I am also willing to accept that, as in my previous example, I may be on the receiving end of this, but still, I have a problem with forcing anyone into any involuntary arrangement.

 

[RockofStrength]

Says who?

Hebrews 7 offers some insight into the issue, as does the entire book really since the explanation of what is still needful from the Jewish Old Covenant and the New Covenant in Christ.

As for food...well, God made that point Himself to Peter:

"On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” Again a voice came to him a second time, 'What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.' " Acts 10:9-15

 

[indiucky]

Says who?

Eyewitness accounts state it was God....

The New Testament is to the Bible what the addendum is to the second printing of "Sixguns" by Keith....It basically clarified things based on new information that Elmer Keith was not privy to before....

 

[Kutnupe14]

People believe a lot of things. Where exactly did these words actually make it into the Constitution? Last I checked, they didn't make the final cut. Hence, they aren't there.

Nah, I think the Constitution is fine as-written. Sorry...nice try though.

As written? Are you talking originally, or after the BoR, after the 14th, after the 18th, after the 21st. When exactly are you talking about? Apparently there have been a number times people have had issue with the Constitution, "as written."

 

[MisterChester]

As written? Are you talking originally, or after the BoR, after the 14th, after the 18th, after the 21st. When exactly are you talking about? Apparently there have been a number times people have had issue with the Constitution, "as written."

Good point. Slavery is still technically in the constitution.

 

[Mark 1911]

You can have morals and not have religion. For the sake of argument, let's say religion didn't exist in an alternate timeline. I would think we would still have many of the same laws. Killing, stealing, cheating etc. are still very bad things. For the record I do not belong to a particular religion, and I do not consider myself a moral relativist.

I don't disagree with you Mister C. I think you strike on a very interesting aspect of human nature. Depending what dictionary definition you pick for "moral", it is at least a standard accepted by society, in a higher sense it is a law or a code. Ultimately, laws don't just float around out there without a lawgiver of some sort. If nature has laws they have been imposed by a lawgiver. All legislation supposes a legislator.

Perhaps our nation was not founded as a Christian nation explicitly. But our constitution was meant to keep government from limiting a man's freedom, including the freedom to practice his religion free of government intrusion. So America is based on limited government, in order to maximize men's freedom.

Certainly many factors, independent of our Constitution, have transpired over the years that have led to the secularization of a once more Christian society. Generally speaking, men do not grow into the idea of a God; they endeavor to grow out of it. That is the entire concept of atheism. Whether we subscribe to a particular religion or not, there is a sense of moral obligation in every man. In every man there is a sense of right and wrong. A man knows interiorly when he is doing wrong. Something rebukes his conduct. He knows that he is going against an inward voice. It is the voice of conscience, dictating to us a law we did not make, and which no man could have made, for this voice protests whether other men know our conduct or not. This voice is often quite against what we wish to do, warning us beforehand, condemning us after its violation. The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a lawgiver who has written his law in our hearts.

We vehemently protest at the government intruding into our freedom, yet we look to the government as if it were some kind of a parent who should decide matters of morality for us, something we would never do unless we had not first lost sight of what really makes us free.

Atheists may be one of the strongest arguments yet that there really is a God, because no man could spend that much energy denying something unless it did in fact exist, no man could expend that much energy proclaiming what does not exist while at that same time having no concept of what he really DOES believe in, unless it did in fact exist.

We have lost our sense of right and wrong, and perhaps in losing sight of what is most beautiful about life, have also lost sight of what is most beautiful about our country. It is not a question of whether or not we are a Christian nation, or ever have been. Our country is about being a nation of free men, a freedom we somehow have abdicated to the government as if the government had more authority in the realm of morals than free men do. Perhaps our founding fathers understood freedom better than we do because they saw the value of religion, even if that meant not imposing it on any man. We have become adverse to the entire notion of religion, but maybe because we have totally lost an understanding of what sincere religion really is. Sincere religion spells freedom — freedom from vice, from all injustice and want of charity. There is no absolute freedom. You must be free from vice and subject to virtue, or free from virtue and subject to vice.

If we have lost something of our freedom, perhaps it is at least in part due to losing our appreciation for what religion really is.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I don't disagree with you Mister C. I think you strike on a very interesting aspect of human nature. Depending what dictionary definition you pick for "moral", it is at least a standard accepted by society, in a higher sense it is a law or a code. Ultimately, laws don't just float around out there without a lawgiver of some sort. If nature has laws they have been imposed by a lawgiver. All legislation supposes a legislator.

Perhaps our nation was not founded as a Christian nation explicitly. But our constitution was meant to keep government from limiting a man's freedom, including the freedom to practice his religion free of government intrusion. So America is based on limited government, in order to maximize men's freedom.

Certainly many factors, independent of our Constitution, have transpired over the years that have led to the secularization of a once more Christian society. Generally speaking, men do not grow into the idea of a God; they endeavor to grow out of it. That is the entire concept of atheism. Whether we subscribe to a particular religion or not, there is a sense of moral obligation in every man. In every man there is a sense of right and wrong. A man knows interiorly when he is doing wrong. Something rebukes his conduct. He knows that he is going against an inward voice. It is the voice of conscience, dictating to us a law we did not make, and which no man could have made, for this voice protests whether other men know our conduct or not. This voice is often quite against what we wish to do, warning us beforehand, condemning us after its violation. The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a lawgiver who has written his law in our hearts.

We vehemently protest at the government intruding into our freedom, yet we look to the government as if it were some kind of a parent who should decide matters of morality for us, something we would never do unless we had not first lost sight of what really makes us free.

Atheists may be one of the strongest arguments yet that there really is a God, because no man could spend that much energy denying something unless it did in fact exist, no man could expend that much energy proclaiming what does not exist while at that same time having no concept of what he really DOES believe in, unless it did in fact exist.

We have lost our sense of right and wrong, and perhaps in losing sight of what is most beautiful about life, have also lost sight of what is most beautiful about our country. It is not a question of whether or not we are a Christian nation, or ever have been. Our country is about being a nation of free men, a freedom we somehow have abdicated to the government as if the government had more authority in the realm of morals than free men do. Perhaps our founding fathers understood freedom better than we do because they saw the value of religion, even if that meant not imposing it on any man. We have become adverse to the entire notion of religion, but maybe because we have totally lost an understanding of what sincere religion really is. Sincere religion spells freedom — freedom from vice, from all injustice and want of charity. There is no absolute freedom. You must be free from vice and subject to virtue, or free from virtue and subject to vice.

If we have lost something of our freedom, perhaps it is at least in part due to losing our appreciation for what religion really is.

(Slow clap)

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I wasn't being pedantic or trying to be smart. I simply find it an odd practice considering mat. 5:37 im not one of the people who will try to claim our country was not founded with a basis in Christianity. ive never sworn any oath in court or otherwise and don't know exactly what wording they use.

I think you're mistaking the use of the word "swear" in its vernacular meaning "to curse" rather than its meaning of roughly "to make a promise before Deity". For example, I, unfortunately, swear routinely out of habit. I believe General George Washington had some meaningful comments concerning "taking the Lord God's name in vain" and other types of coarse language and their place in the Continental Army. I can't quote them, but they seem germane. Christians aren't forbidden to "swear" they are admonished not to "take the Lord's name in vain". An affirmation of an Oath to God isn't "swearing" in the same sense that shouting "JESUS CHRIST ON A CRUTCH!" is.

 

[rambone]

I think you're mistaking the use of the word "swear" in its vernacular meaning "to curse" rather than its meaning of roughly "to make a promise before Deity". For example, I, unfortunately, swear routinely out of habit. I believe General George Washington had some meaningful comments concerning "taking the Lord God's name in vain" and other types of coarse language and their place in the Continental Army. I can't quote them, but they seem germane. Christians aren't forbidden to "swear" they are admonished not to "take the Lord's name in vain". An affirmation of an Oath to God isn't "swearing" in the same sense that shouting "JESUS CHRIST ON A CRUTCH!" is.

I disagree. Review the context. Christ was not repeating an old commandment about taking his name in vain. He was making a new commandment and forbidding Christians from using oaths. Christians have no use for oaths since they should not be lying, ever. Yes means yes. No means no. Everything you say has an equal burden of truth.

Matthew 5:33-37
“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

 

[RockofStrength]

I disagree. Review the context. Christ was not repeating an old commandment about taking his name in vain. He was making a new commandment and forbidding Christians from using oaths. Christians have no use for oaths since they should not be lying, ever. Yes means yes. No means no. Everything you say has an equal burden of truth.

Matthew 5:33-37
“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

I do not disagree, per se, but I would argue that Christ was rather making clear what had been hinted at regarding oaths in the Law. Deuteronomy 23:21-23, "When you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the Lord your God will surely require it of you.However, if you refrain from vowing, it would not be sin in you. You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God, what you have promised. " Much as He clarified that "adultery" in God's sight extended even to the imagination and eye of a man, rather than following the standard human definition of taking action.

 

[poptab]

Not quite. We are allowed to swear true faith and honesty. And we are only held accountable for idle words. Might want to learn that which you persecute.

Mat 5:34
But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all

Who is persecuting you?

 

[Cerberus]

Says who?

I could give you a fish and let you eat one meal, or I could teach you to fish and let you eat a lifetime. Go get a Bible and read it, and set yourself truly free.

 

[poptab]

Rambone quoted it nevermind. The text it right there to read. It's meaning is plain as day.

 

[2A_Tom]

Christians are forbidden from swearing at all so that does seem a bit odd.

I affirmed that i would uphold the constitution. They always give the option to swear or affirm.