First Amendment in Action

[Wrangler]

Imagine if you will the Catholic church gaining such influence over the US Congress that they feel obliged to pass legislation supporting Catholic dogma. Do you understand what that would mean for true protestants who repudiate everything the Roman church stands for?

It’s absolutely no different than any other group who loses politically.

 

[Brakelite]

there is no 1A right for a State to be left alone by religion.

Until the religion itself is sufficiently empowered to legislate particular components of its belief system that impose themselves upon the inalienable rights of others.

Why is a different question

It's an all important question, as per my comment above.

Therefore, the people of the congregation are not "interfering" but participating in the State government, which in this country is their RIGHT.

Certainly. I am not arguing against the state-granted right of any individual to participate in government. I think Ben Carson is doing an admirable job from what I hear, the fact that both political sides have retained him is testament to his work ethic. Those rights however to participate must be subordinate to the inalienable rights of others to the "Free Exercise" of others.

There are all sorts of institutions that are created for political action - including churches

I would challenge you to biblically justify a NT church being created for political action.

It’s absolutely no different than any other group who loses politically.

Are you serious?? Your "free exercise" rights to worship according to conscience is trumped by a majority opinion from another religion and you wrote it off as a political loss? Do when the mark of the beast is imposed forcibly on the world that standardized worship on a global scale, you're okay with that because it's a political majority that legislated it?

 

[Wrangler]

I would challenge you to biblically justify a NT church being created for political action.

Irrelevant.

I had to double check the thread title before responding. Why are you using a religious text to confine political discourse?

Are you serious?? Your "free exercise" rights to worship according to conscience is trumped by a majority opinion from another religion and you wrote it off as a political loss?

We are talking politics. How else to write it off other than a political loss?

Do when the mark of the beast is imposed forcibly on the world that standardized worship on a global scale, you're okay with that because it's a political majority that legislated it?

You are confused. Nowhere did I state what I am OK with.

For some reason, you are denying the existence of PAC's, which religious PAC's may exist and participate - in our country, if not 1st century Palestine - to advance their agenda.

This thread is about the 1st Amendment. That is, this thread is about the US Constitution, in general. The Bill of Rights to the US Constitution restrict government. It does not restrict politically minded Christian groups. Just because you may not be a politically minded Christian does not mean such a species of creature is non-existent.

Too often I get the sense that people in this forum suggest that to be a Christian means one ought not be politically active. Thank God others reject the sentiment.

Above, you embraced the language of the enemy. The enemy seeks to reduce freedom of religion to merely freedom of worship. Totalitarians are OK with recognizing "freedom of worship," where one hour per week you may go to a building of your choice, chant and speak platitude as a opiom for the masses. They are OK with that as long as every other moment of your life you do as the satanists in government dictate. Freedom of religion expands to the totality of ones life - so long as you do not interfere with the equal rights of others to do the same. Big difference.

 

[Brakelite]

Irrelevant.

I had to double check the thread title before responding. Why are you using a religious text to confine political discourse?

We are talking politics. How else to write it off other than a political loss?


You are confused. Nowhere did I state what I am OK with.

For some reason, you are denying the existence of PAC's, which religious PAC's may exist and participate - in our country, if not 1st century Palestine - to advance their agenda.

This thread is about the 1st Amendment. That is, this thread is about the US Constitution, in general. The Bill of Rights to the US Constitution restrict government. It does not restrict politically minded Christian groups. Just because you may not be a politically minded Christian does not mean such a species of creature is non-existent.

Too often I get the sense that people in this forum suggest that to be a Christian means one ought not be politically active. Thank God others reject the sentiment.

Above, you embraced the language of the enemy. The enemy seeks to reduce freedom of religion to merely freedom of worship. Totalitarians are OK with recognizing "freedom of worship," where one hour per week you may go to a building of your choice, chant and speak platitude as a opiom for the masses. They are OK with that as long as every other moment of your life you do as the satanists in government dictate. Freedom of religion expands to the totality of ones life - so long as you do not interfere with the equal rights of others to do the same. Big difference.

I have good reason for limiting the focus of this conversation to worship in context of the free exercise clause, and to the damage a Christian institution could cause to the liberty of conscience.
Daniel 3 and Daniel 6 informs us of 2 incidents under the rule of Babylon. At the time, Babylon was a local power, and it's influence limited to a specific geographic area. Today we live in expectation of a spiritual Babylon with a global influence and a global authority. Revelation informs us that like those 2 incidents in Daniel, the future issue will be over worship. In the local edition, Daniel. 3 tells us of 3 Hebrew slaves who chose to worship the one true God, as opposed to an image, and Daniel himself in chapter 6 continued to follow conscience and pray to his Father in heaven, both incidents a type of the global issue about to fall upon all mankind and the choices we will all have to face in the near future...KJV Revelation 13:15
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

The above decree by a religiously motivated political power will centre around worship, in direct contravention of the Constitution of the US. There lies the danger of religious institutions getting such empowerment as to legislate in areas that conflict with the rights of others. This act within the purview of spiritual Babylon, is an act of legislation that directly transgresses the Ten Commandments.
This scenario isn't imaginary, it's imminent. A global power that will establish a religion, (Daniel 3). and that will prohibits the free exercise thereof (Daniel 6). That is what Christians will do when they have power to create legislation in favour of their faith, to establish a moral standard, bring back righteousness, etc etc. Revelation 13 is all the evidence we need to understand what will happen.

 

[Brakelite]

Why are you using a religious text to confine political discourse?

I am pointing out the very real and present danger of Christian institutions gaining such power in politics and government that the line between ecclesiastical and political legislation become so blurred that like the counterfeit theocracy in the Vatican, and in mediaeval Europe they become essentially one and the same thing. That's what Revelation 13 is all about. Government enforced worship.

 

[Wrangler]

I am pointing out the very real and present danger of Christian institutions gaining such power in politics

Wow. 1st, Christian political power is diminishing around the world. 2nd, disregarding the point of enemies of religion referring to it only as worship is the clear and present danger.

Why? See the case of a baker being forced to bake a cake.

Regarding your fear of government enforced worship via Revelation 13, the candidate for that is no Christian denomination but Paganism, "Mother Earth" and the mantra that we must "save" the planet. The biggest sign is not from an ascendent Christian denomination who seeks to have the government do its bidding.

The biggest sign is the converse, where the global government seeks to have religion do its bidding. See the difference?

 

[Brakelite]

Wow. 1st, Christian political power is diminishing around the world. 2nd, disregarding the point of enemies of religion referring to it only as worship is the clear and present danger.

Why? See the case of a baker being forced to bake a cake.

Regarding your fear of government enforced worship via Revelation 13, the candidate for that is no Christian denomination but Paganism, "Mother Earth" and the mantra that we must "save" the planet. The biggest sign is not from an ascendent Christian denomination who seeks to have the government do its bidding.

The biggest sign is the converse, where the global government seeks to have religion do its bidding. See the difference?

I think you are mistaking the making of an image in revelation 13 with an OT type image such as Moloch or Diana. Many are doing this in modern Christianity, and it is a grave error. The text says it is an image to the beast. The beast being the just previously mentioned beast that rises from the sea a few verses earlier. This is a metaphorical beast, and throughout prophetic scripture we see beasts as representative of political powers or empires/nations. Daniel 7 and 8 and Revelation 13 are prime examples. The angel even told Daniel, "these 4 beasts are 4 kings". The nations these kings ruled over lasted centuries, thus each beast represented a succession of kings over an empire... Until the next empire took over
The beast in Revelation 13 is a NT era composite of those 4 beasts of Daniel. Where the OT beasts were literal local political powers, the NT era beast is a globally influential spiritual power, but still political, and it grew directly from the 4th power, pagan Rome , from whom also it received its power, throne, and authority. It is in fact a union of church and state that endured 1260 years.... The papacy. Sometimes the state controlled the church, sometimes the church controlled the state. But the important thing is that this particular beast inherited the same pagan characteristics of the 4 former powers of history.... Babylon, Meda Persia, Greece, and Rome.
The second beast of revelation 13 is a form of democracy, having horns (power) of the lamb, but speaks (legislates) as the dragon, Satan. Outward appearance Christian, inside, at its heart, satanic and led by him. This political power arises at the same time as the first beast received its mortal wound. In 1798 the papacy was stripped of us political power, and was reduced once again to being just a church. What nation with the appearance of a democratic Christ-like character was coming to power around 1798? It is this power through its political legislation makes am image to the first beast...a union of church and state.

 

[Wrangler]

I think you are mistaking the making of an image in revelation 13 with an OT type image such as Moloch or Diana.

No. I'm not focused on Rev 13 in this thread. This thread is about American politics, where government is restricted from interfering with religion, not the other way around.

It's that simple.

 

[Brakelite]

No. I'm not focused on Rev 13 in this thread. This thread is about American politics, where government is restricted from interfering with religion, not the other way around.

It's that simple.

I agree that government interference is a bad thing, but of a Christian institution or movement influences government to legislate worship in such a way that is against your personal principles and understanding of God's will, is that not also a bad thing?

 

[Wrangler]

I agree that government interference is a bad thing, but of a Christian institution or movement influences government to legislate worship in such a way that is against your personal principles and understanding of God's will, is that not also a bad thing?

It is a constitutional thing.

And again, you're using the language of the enemy. It is not merely worship but religion and religious practice in total that is the subject, which is much larger than merely the 1 hour worship service.

Your question is equivalent to, "is freedom also a bad thing?" No. The answer is no.

You may not see this but you are setting religion up to fail in the public square. And it is not against other Christian denominations but against secularism and satanism.

 

[Brakelite]

It is a constitutional thing.

And again, you're using the language of the enemy. It is not merely worship but religion and religious practice in total that is the subject, which is much larger than merely the 1 hour worship service.

Your question is equivalent to, "is freedom also a bad thing?" No. The answer is no.

You may not see this but you are setting religion up to fail in the public square. And it is not against other Christian denominations but against secularism and satanism.

You do realise do you not that the Puritans fined and whipped those who they disapproved of in their religious practice? That for well over 120 years, the Sunday Laws Reform movement has been lobbying government to introduce Sunday Laws to the disadvantage of Sabbatarian Jews and Christians, and would have been successful but for the voice of Seventh Day Adventists before Congress in the Kate 19th century? I am not concerned about what government can or cannot do regarding Christian behaviour and lifestyle. That's their business, a limited administration of the second table of the covenant. History however speaks loud and clear that the ultimate goal of the Christian lobby groups is to legislate in favour of their interpretation of the first table. That is none of their business, bring between God and the individual alone, and the only one that is constitutionally challenging.

 

[Wrangler]

You do realise do you not that the Puritans fined and whipped those who they disapproved of in their religious practice?

Yup

That for well over 120 years, the Sunday Laws Reform movement has been lobbying government to introduce Sunday Laws to the disadvantage of Sabbatarian Jews and Christians, and would have been successful but for the voice of Seventh Day Adventists before Congress in the Kate 19th century?

Yup. Growing up in Massachusetts, it was that way. And there is a Supreme Court case that supports these Sunday Law Reforms.

I am not concerned about what government can or cannot do regarding Christian behaviour and lifestyle. That's their business, a limited administration of the second table of the covenant.

Shocking confession. The 1st Amendment states religion is NOT the business of governemnt.

History however speaks loud and clear that the ultimate goal of the Christian lobby groups is to legislate in favour of their interpretation of the first table. That is none of their business, bring between God and the individual alone, and the only one that is constitutionally challenging.

I don't know what these 1st and 2nd tables you are referring. However, you are ignoring the heart of the entire matter. I'll repeat it one more time.

You may not see this but you are setting religion up to fail in the public square. And it is not against other Christian denominations but against secularism and satanism.

 

[Brakelite]

Yup



Yup. Growing up in Massachusetts, it was that way. And there is a Supreme Court case that supports these Sunday Law Reforms.



Shocking confession. The 1st Amendment states religion is NOT the business of governemnt.



I don't know what these 1st and 2nd tables you are referring. However, you are ignoring the heart of the entire matter. I'll repeat it one more time.

QUOTE:


Regarding the constitution of the United States and in reference to those who lived by it and the religious freedoms of the first amendment, Malachi Martin said in his book, The Keys to this Blood...
"In their eyes every person must have the right not only to believe in Hell of the Damned and Heaven of the Saved. Every person must literally be assured the right to choose Hell over Heaven.
That obligation carried to that extreme not only sets the minimalists apart from John Paul II, it sets them against him as well.'
John Paul II denounced the separation of church and state June 17 1991.
The Catholic Church throughout history has had the attitude of doing whatever it takes to make people accept Christianity ( Catholicism and papal authority) so they can be saved. It is completely antithetical to constitutional freedom. And now we have a majority of Catholic justices on the USSC.
Is the current holy war in America over religious rights and freedoms a deliberately organised conflict in order to induce a state of intolerance toward Christianity that an opposing swing the other way might induce an intolerance toward religious liberty as in the dark ages? Prophecy says yes. Prophecy declares that soon there will be in America a state of coerced and legislatively enforced religion, a state opposed to constitutional freedom and the separation of church and state.
In recent years the courts have removed God from the public sphere altogether. Today we are witnessing a push back. How far will that push back take us? Will Christians still believe that there ought to be a guaranteed right to choose Hell over Heaven?

In the, 1940s SCOTUS shaped religious freedom and freedom of conscience jurisprudence.
In one case the SCOTUS ruled that children of Jehovah’s Witnesses did not have to salute the American flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. To underscore the sacred regard for conscience, Justice Robert H. Jackson penned this famous quote: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Christ servanthood’s “transvaluation of values” is what revolted Friedrich Nietzsche, the self-described antichrist, because, as he argued, “a higher culture can come into existence only where there are two different castes in society.” He derisively called the gospel “slave morality.” For by elevating the weak it destroyed the “master morality,” pagan aristocratic values, and culturally the consequence was—mediocrity and degeneration. “We must all agree to the truth, which sounds cruel,” wrote Nietzsche, “that slavery is essential to culture,” and a strong, healthy society. That’s why democracy and equality, “Christianity made natural,” as he called them, are a cultural catastrophe, an “abolition of society.”

White American Christianity, to be sure, was not influenced by Nietzsche, but judged by its justification of slavery, embrace of White supremacy, its cruelty and violence—it’s not Christian but Nietzschean. It “covers [its] infernal business with a garb of Christianity,” to cite Frederick Douglass. Indeed, below the garb is a “will to power,” Nietzsche’s counter-gospel of the Superman and the elite, which sacrifices the weak to the gods of culture and aristocratic way of life. It’s pagan, all too pagan. It reflects the dictum of Tacitus, the Roman historian that “the gods are on the side of the stronger.” Essentially, like Nietzsche, White American Christianity is a revolt against the fundamental message of the Hebrew prophets and of Jesus, that God is on the side of the weak, the poor, the stranger, the widow, and the orphan.

“The God-given gift of religious liberty is best exercised when church and state are separate.” Since the first issue rolled off the presses, at a time when America’s Protestant Christian majority was calling for a national Sunday-keeping law, Liberty (from which this error is derived) has argued for “secular governance.” This reflects biblical ideas of separate realms of authority for “God” and “Caesar” (Matthew 22:21) as well as classical liberal philosophy, such as that of John Locke’s strict separation of “magistrate” and “church.”

American founders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison echoed these ideals. They were anxious for their new republic to avoid the wars of religion that had devastated Europe for centuries. So through the First Amendment’s establishment clause, they hoped to preserve both a government free from sectarian influence and a society in which religious diversity flourished. America would be a place where different religious sects could put forward their best arguments, neither hindered nor advanced by government disapproval or favoritism.
Increasingly, those who push for robust church-state separation have lost sight of the “why” of separation.

Separation exists so that religion and religious expression—even of unpopular beliefs—can flourish. Separation exists to advance freedom for religion, not freedom from religion.

 

[TinMan]

Freedom of religion expands to the totality of ones life - so long as you do not interfere with the equal rights of others to do the same. Big difference.

Like the right of a minority to be treated the same as everyone else by a business.

 

[TinMan]

Wow. 1st, Christian political power is diminishing around the world. 2nd, disregarding the point of enemies of religion referring to it only as worship is the clear and present danger.

Why? See the case of a baker being forced to bake a cake.

You must be talking about Lloyd Marsh of the Marsh family bakery of Birmingham Alabama who in 1964 was forced to start allowing black people into his shop and had to start baking cakes for them.

 

[Wrangler]

John Paul II denounced the separation of church and state June 17 1991.

Separation exists so that religion and religious expression—even of unpopular beliefs—can flourish.

Not sure where that long rant came from. This thread is about the Constitution in general and the 1A in particular. It seems you keep trying to make it about something else.

There is no ‘separation of church and state’ in the US Constitution.

freedom for religion, not freedom from religion.

This we agree on.

 

[Wrangler]

Like the right of a minority to be treated the same as everyone else by a business.

There is no such right to dictate to another. Most States are ‘at Will’ employment.

 

[Wrangler]

You must be talking about Lloyd Marsh of the Marsh family bakery of Birmingham Alabama who in 1964 was forced to start allowing black people into his shop and had to start baking cakes for them.

You keep falsely equating being Black with acting homosexually.

 

[TinMan]

Not sure where that long rant came from. This thread is about the Constitution in general and the 1A in particular. It seems you keep trying to make it about something else.

There is no ‘separation of church and state’ in the US Constitution.

The phrase may not be in the constitution but that doesn't mean that separation of church and state is not there or a cornerstone of our country. Many rights are not explicitly stated in the constitution. No where does the constitution explicitly say that people have the right to a fair trial for example.

 

[TinMan]

There is no such right to dictate to another. Most States are ‘at Will’ employment.

the 14th amendment's equal protection clause