galenrox

When do you start getting excused from those tax responsibilities? What about saving before you have kids, even then taxes provide a material hindrance to the practice of their religious beliefs. If you don't think that educating the public is a justifiable aim of government that's completely fine, I disagree, but that is a separate question from the question of free exercise of religion. If you believe in educating the public you should cover part of the bill for religious schools, but that is a different question, the Constitution makes it clear that the free exercise of religion won't be abridged. That means you can't make religious people pay for secular schools.

__________________

FluffyNinja

Actually, I understand the point you are making but must partially disagree. God made it pretty clear in several places in scripture that he would destroy sinful nations which turned against him. Christ also taught us to love him and his Father ( as well as each other) and to keep the commandments. He, also, on several occasions, told his disciples to go out into the world and share his message. I assume that means not only "nationwide" but "worldwide" as well? In my personal belief, I don't feel that Christ meant for his religion to be strictly an "individual" experience. After all, as all true Christians know, Christ died for ALL of humanity in order to give EVERY human an opportunity for redemption. I think it was his intent that this "good news" be spread to EVERYONE. Then the choice of acceptance or denial becomes their "individual" choice.

__________________
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask, "Where's my government handout?"

niftydrifty

I can't assume anything. I'd like for you to show me where Christ, or Paul for that matter, says that a nation can be a Christian one.

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

the makeout hobo

The flaw with your argument is that any tax is a burden on religion. It's money the religious could use towards a new bible, or donate to their church. Any taxation is a burden on religion, it just happens that some of that taxation goes towards education of society. Where the tax money goes is irrelevant, its still a burden. But that doesn't mean that the religious shouldn't have to not pay their fair share of societal burden.Hell, if you want to get into it, speed limits are a burden on religious practice. They prevent me from getting to church in time when I'm running late.

And public decency laws. Mostly because I'm looking for an excuse to not wear pants

__________________
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).Vague is a man of honor

FluffyNinja

"Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,"
Matthew 28:19 NIV (words of Christ)

"But you are a chosen People, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a People belonging to God,"
(words of Peter) 1 Peter 2:9

The silenced majority

Nationalism (or any semblance of it) = Nazism since around the 1960's.

galenrox

If a religious person was forced to buy a secular bible before they could buy a Christian bible, yes, that would be a hindrance to free practice. If you had to build a Unitarian church before you could build a Christian church that would be a hindrance to free practice.
I've never said religious people shouldn't pay their fair share of the burden, all I'm saying is that their right to religious freedom as guaranteed to them in the first amendment should not be violated.

niftydrifty

in both cases the original Greek word is "ethnos." In biblical times, the concept of a "nation" was different than it is today. a nation then was ethnic, and today it is more artificial and political. regardless, there is more evidence that nations are irrelevant for Christians than the other way around.

"ethnos" is often used to mean "Gentiles."

Matthew 28:19 = "go and baptize a lot of people that aren't Jews."

in 1 Peter, whom is being addressed? whom are the "you?" is it a country? a nation? or a small ethnic group, completely different than a "nation" like the US?

1 Peter 2:9 = "a lot of people living there are Christians."

I'm not convinced that your quotes indicate that a modern nation can or should be Christian.

"Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." Colossians 3:11

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

modern western states as we now know them, didn't exist in Christ's time. it is ludicrous to assume that Christ envisioned such a state and that sayings in the bible can apply to them.

Nationalism denies the equality of human beings by pitting them against one another. nationalism, regardless of whether or not it is monocentric or polycentric, is un-Christlike at its core. Patriotism is a form of idolatry.

if any form of nationalism can be compatible at all with Christianity, it must be a polycentric nationalism. in other words, a nationalism that accepts all races, ethnicities, origins, ...as well as all religions. such a nationalism cannot be a wholly Christian one.

Billo_Really

A myth!

That's what it means.

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

independent_thinker2002

Isn't Nazism older than that?

__________________
==]:{o