FluffyNinja

Peter's letter is addressed to "the scattered" which many theologists believe refer to the Jewish Christians scattered among many cities. After all, Peter was the "Apostle to the Jews" (Galatians 2:7). However, some of his dialogue also indicates that his message was addressed to Gentiles as well
as he speaks of "futile ways inherited from your fathers," and goes on to record a list of typical Gentile vices (1Peter 1:18, 4:3-6). I believe the best way to view 1Peter is as a letter to all believers, everywhere. This does not comply with the reference that a "nation" would only apply to one ethnic group.

This goes without saying, but I would not presume to limit the "scope" of what Christ envisioned for his followers.
I agree, to a certain extent, but isn't it possible to be a NATION without being NATIONALISTIC?

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

niftydrifty

in a perfect world, yes. but nations tend to arise out of nationalist movements. ours is no exception.

__________________
"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

You're putting the cart before the horse here. The point isn't what the money is going towards. The point is that by your logic as I'm understanding it, the money paid to finance education is a burden on religious folk. Therefore, taxes are a burden on religious folk. Am I making sense?

__________________
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

galenrox

How could where the money goes not be the point?

I am saying that taxes that go to finance secular education are a material hindrance in the free religious practice of religious folk, yes.

__________________

OKgrannie

If the religion in question is that of worshipping money, then paying taxes is a hindrance.

Where the money goes is not the point, your point is that religious folks who choose should have enough money left over after taxes to pay for sectarian schools. What religion REQUIRES sectarian schooling? I would think that any religion requiring sectarian schooling would also have a means of providing it for those who can't afford it. Paying taxes doesn't prevent anyone from worshipping as he chooses, because worshipping doesn't cost money, it is a mental/emotional thing.

__________________
The greatest danger to liberty lurks in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.---Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

galenrox

How is where the money goes not the point?

Which religions require sectarian education is none of your concern, nor is whether or not they provide free education because neither of those points bear any consequence to the violation of the religious person's first amendment rights. Similarly your personal definition of worship is also of no consequence as if it were of consequence it wouldn't be religious freedom, as you'd be allowed a veto on the validity of the religious practice.

I notice you keep stating that being forced to pay for a secular education before you're free to pay for a religious education isn't a hindrance as if you believe that if you simply continue stating it I'm going to forget that you're yet to make an argument that in any way, shape, or form justifies you holding such a position.

So I'll make it very easy for you. Explain to me exactly how being forced to pay x+y to buy x and only y to buy y isn't a hindrance to buy x.

the makeout hobo

Stop reflecting the question. How IS where the money goes the point? After all, it still hinders you no matter what.

So are the taxes that go to roadwork, those hinder you just as much as the taxes going to education.

OKgrannie

Because your concern is that the religious follower have enough money left after taxes to pay for religious school, it is not your concern where the tax money is spent. Where the tax money is spent does not affect how much money an individual taxpayer has left in his pocket.

Paying taxes doesn't violate anyone's First Amendment rights. Collecting taxes differently on the basis of religion from different religious followers would violate First Amendment rights.

You have failed to justify collecting taxes differently for certain religious followers. Religious followers are not entitled to tax breaks because they need to pay for religious items such as sectarian schools, Bibles, candles, appropriate church clothing, etc. It is the duty of all citizens to pay their fair share to support y because it benefits all of society, that is a totally separate issue from whether or not the taxpayer can afford to pay for x. All of society benefits when children have basic needs met, that is food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and y. It is of no benefit to society for children to receive x and so no reason for government to pay for it or assist parents in paying for it.

Jerry

It means that this nation was founded on the Christian understanding of the Natural Law premis.

__________________
Lerxst was right
......Lerxst is always right
!Lerxst in 2012!

Jerry

Road work is not comparable to religious expression in the public school, because while one can have any bumper sticker or other religious decorations while on the public road, try wearing a tee shirt to high school that references a bible quote against same-sex relations. Better yet, try to pray in class.