Praying in Jesus' name angers democrat lawmakers

[marke]

Is this emotional mess the best argument that you can compose to oppose equal rights for others? This is the very reason that all religions and religious beliefs and the government are to be kept seperate by a very high wall. Others are not asking to be liked or for your appproval, despite what you appear to believe.

I can't wait for you to be forced to obey the relgious beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, Pagans and others by the power of the state because your shrieking would be heard on the far side of the moon.

The democrat wall of separation between God and country is strange. It does not allow references to God to influence government but it does allow homosexuals to sue Christians if they exercise their religious beliefs in public.

 

[Lisa]

It does not make sense to declare that whatever cannot be seen and measured is not real. What can be seen and measured about the big bang so many people insist invented the universe from nothing?

The big bang can be measured and detected, unlike any evidence of your god.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang

Where is the empirical evidence of your supernatural sentient creator existing? the fact that we exist doesn't evidence that your god created us.

 

[trouble13]

How can you possibly pay tribute to what you cannot prove exists in any empirical manner? Maybe your god doesn't want you to pay tribute in a public manner, as instructed in Mathew 6:6-7? Why are you working so hard to ignore the gospel of mathhew? If you claim to be Christian then the gospels are to be paramount to decide your actions and not to be seen as a hindrance. Keep those supposed tributes on your own time and not on time funded and set aside to manage taxpayer dollars and programs that are meant for people who are not always Christians.

After many years of observance and interaction with conservatives, I have come to the logical conclusion that conservative Christians would claim to be victims of pernicious religious persecution if they were required to live by the teachings of the man that they claim to be their personal savior and son of God. Why are you a Christian if you oppose living by the teachings of Jesus?

What gave you the idea that im a Christian? Just because i practice tolerance towwrd others does not mean i believe what they do. I am an athesist who is very secure in my beliefs. I dont need other people to validate my beliefs nor am arrogant enough to not consider the possibility that i am wrong.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[vegas giants]

The democrat wall of separation between God and country is strange. It does not allow references to God to influence government but it does allow homosexuals to sue Christians if they exercise their religious beliefs in public.

Yeah its great

 

[Fishking]

You should try facts and dates.


1783 was before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written and adopted.



Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was written in 1802.

Jefferson's letter doesn't mean what you think it means, and it wasn't an act of Congress.

 

[Fishking]

I referenced the Constitution they "wrote" and "supported". It's still with us if you would like to read it.

What part of the Constitution were you referencing?

 

[marke]

The big bang can be measured and detected, unlike any evidence of your god.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang

Where is the empirical evidence of your supernatural sentient creator existing? the fact that we exist doesn't evidence that your god created us.

So what if scientists attribute the data which proves God created the universe to their own unproven speculative conclusions? That does not mean they have seen and measured the supposed natural force which caused the big bang.

 

[marke]

Yeah its great

The godless wall of separation democrats have erected between themselves and God is high and will have a great fall when Jesus returns to earth to judge and destroy all sin and rebellion against God.

 

[Lisa]

The democrat wall of separation between God and country is strange. It does not allow references to God to influence government but it does allow homosexuals to sue Christians if they exercise their religious beliefs in public.

This is absurd. Who said that gay people or anyone else can sue Christians if they exercise your religious beliefs in public? Who has been arrested or warned because of this wild claim, or did you dream it up when your tinfoil wrapped bible was in for repair? You have the right to exercise your beliefs in public. banning that would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

The fact that many gay people are Christian appears to elude you.

 

[Lisa]

So what if scientists attribute the data which proves God created the universe to their own unproven speculative conclusions? That does not mean they have seen and measured the supposed natural force which caused the big bang.

Either it can be empirically proven by people of any faith or it can't. There is no attribution. That would be a hypothesis and subject to verification.

 

[vegas giants]

The godless wall of separation democrats have erected between themselves and God is high and will have a great fall when Jesus returns to earth to judge and destroy all sin and rebellion against God.

No one is afraid of your fairy tale

 

[Lisa]

The godless wall of separation democrats have erected between themselves and God is high and will have a great fall when Jesus returns to earth to judge and destroy all sin and rebellion against God.

Jesus as the son of God never existed. That idea was the work of his followers.

Revelation was about the fall of Rome.

 

[ataraxia]

The godless wall of separation democrats have erected between themselves and God is high and will have a great fall when Jesus returns to earth to judge and destroy all sin and rebellion against God.

Well then all the dems will have the founding fathers of this country to keep them company.

"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
-James Madison


"Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America."
-Thomas Payne

"'The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
-John Adams

 

[JackA]

What part of the Constitution were you referencing?

The Constitution has a famous "First Amendment"; it contains two clauses that are pertinent to your question. Look them up. You may find them instructive

 

[COTO]

Democrats may be a house divided, but they seem universally opposed to praying in Jesus' name. This Christian lawmaker opened a legislative session with a prayer and by the time she had mentioned Jesus several times in her prayer the democrats had become unhinged. They were especially outraged in sympathy with the new Black Muslim lawmaker there who was outraged by the prayer.

It grieves the heart that the nation has turned so far away from God, His Law, and His Christ, but politicians still have to acknowledge this reality.

The halls of government are no longer replete with Christian men of faith. They're increasingly host to other religions, agnosticism, atheism, and even neopaganism. While I agree with you that a call to prayer is appropriate in the face of a few dissenting voices, there are no longer just a few dissenting voices. Christians are to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16) when conducting themselves in public. This includes not giving spiritual things to people who can't understand or appreciate them (Matthew 7:6).

While it's good for lawmakers to pray, and even to pray communally in a public place, it seems to me we've reached the point where a lawmaker wanting to petition God should set aside a time and place beforehand, somewhere people aren't required to be, so that observance is voluntary. The prayer is still offered in the midst of a community of believers, but the peace is kept between Christians and non-Christians.

My $0.02, at any rate. :shrug:

 

[marke]

This is absurd. Who said that gay people or anyone else can sue Christians if they exercise your religious beliefs in public? Who has been arrested or warned because of this wild claim, or did you dream it up when your tinfoil wrapped bible was in for repair? You have the right to exercise your beliefs in public. banning that would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

The fact that many gay people are Christian appears to elude you.

Sodomites not only can sue Christians for not catering to sodomites, but they have done it and at least one case went all the way to the Supreme Court and was decided in favor of the Christian against the sodomites.

 

[marke]

Either it can be empirically proven by people of any faith or it can't. There is no attribution. That would be a hypothesis and subject to verification.

Just because unbelievers favor attempts to explain the origin of the universe by speculative theories which are deliberately purged of any possibility of God's involvement does not mean their unproven speculations are accurate or true.

 

[vegas giants]

Sodomites not only can sue Christians for not catering to sodomites, but they have done it and at least one case went all the way to the Supreme Court and was decided in favor of the Christian against the sodomites.

Fake news

 

[veritas1]

Then “others” would be wrong. The separation of church and state is not debatable.

All the Constitution says is that the Congress can pass no law establishing a national religion and that prohibition has been imputed to the states as well. That's it. It nowhere prevents ANY public official from making a statement of faith or belief or offering an opinion of the same. The invocation may not have been popular among some but it is NOT illegal nor is it un-Constitutional. Any person offended could easily have gotten up and left.


Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either.

George Washington 1st Inaugural Address -April 30, 1789

 

[marke]

Fake news

Not fake. Read this and weep:

Supreme Court religion case could be a huge win for the Christian Right - Vox

 

[Fishking]

The Constitution has a famous "First Amendment"; it contains two clauses that are pertinent to your question. Look them up. You may find them instructive

It says Congress shouldn't make any laws respecting an establishment of religion, meaning there shouldn't be a Church of America like there is a Church of England and such. That's the extent of it. It doesn't say what you're trying to make it say.

 

[veritas1]

It says Congress shouldn't make any laws respecting an establishment of religion, meaning there shouldn't be a Church of America like there is a Church of England and such. That's the extent of it. It doesn't say what you're trying to make it say.

Of course not. They think freedom of religion means freedom from ever having any exposure to a religious idea if it is expressed by an elected official.

 

[JackA]

Of course not. They think freedom of religion means freedom from ever having any exposure to a religious idea if it is expressed by an elected official.

Well, that's nonsense. The objection non religious people like myself usually have is not that, it's with elected officials or anyone else imposing religion on others in a secular setting, as in quieting everyone for a moment of prayer. However, should Donald Trump, for example, be moved to confess his discovery of the Lord in a personal interview, I would be delighted to hear it.

 

[Lisa]

Of course not. They think freedom of religion means freedom from ever having any exposure to a religious idea if it is expressed by an elected official.

An elected official isn't supposed to be endorsing religious belief or one religion over the other as part of his duties. This is the core idea of the separation of church and state. Religion or religious belief isn't part of his civil servant office.

 

[Lisa]

Just because unbelievers favor attempts to explain the origin of the universe by speculative theories which are deliberately purged of any possibility of God's involvement does not mean their unproven speculations are accurate or true.

First you need to proove that god exists in some empirical form. Your belief or faith does not create god.

Can you prove that Thor, Zeus, Jupiter, Krishna, Ra and Quetzalcoatl do not exist because there are many believers who have equal religious faith?