Mandatory church attendance?

[brakelite]

Rep. Senator Sylvia Allen has, perhaps inadvertantly, opened a pandoras box of controversy over her remarks, however 'off the cuff' they may have been, regarding a mandatory attendance law for Sunday church attendance. http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/03/27/pkg-arizona-senator-church-attendance-mandatory.ktvk

Very interested in the members opinion on this. Good idea or not? Why would it be a good idea, or why not? Could this even be possible under the present constitution, or could there at some future time, under certain crcumstances, be such a legislative move be made despite the constitution?

 

[Angelina]

I'm not American but I think it's a bad idea. Going to Church is a decision made within individual families or members who believe the word or who have had a divine encounter with God. Making everyone go to Church will certainly help the Church financially but it certainly will not make anyone automatically saved. :unsure: I understand her premise however, forcing people to Church will cause the opposite effect. Mankind needs a heart change not a law change.


A good example of this is the Law vs salvation by grace through faith.

 

[pom2014]

I would oppose it. This is a man that wishes to appear pious before others. He's gotten his reward, the attention of men.

Our King warned us about public piety. But men still do it. Because the old wine tastes better.

 

[River Jordan]

It would be outrageously unconstitutional.

 

[Born_Again]

For as liberal as this country is becoming, it would never be able to pass. That's the facts....... Christians are far too persecuted for something like that to be taken seriously in any amount.

BA

 

[River Jordan]

It shouldn't be taken seriously....it's illegal.

 

[pom2014]

The US is hardly liberal.

Even their democrats are moderates to conservative compared to the democrats before 1980.

Still it doesn't matter because the idea of legally enforced faith is a failure in every way.

Besides the politicians already worship Baal.

 

[StanJ]

Clearly this would be a violation of the "separation church and state" law.

 

[brakelite]

For as liberal as this country is becoming, it would never be able to pass. That's the facts....... Christians are far too persecuted for something like that to be taken seriously in any amount.

BA

So far the comments are what I would have expected, except for maybe this one. Christians persecuted? In America??? I cannot believe that for a moment, unless you have a different idea of what constitutes persecution than me. When presidential/ party hopefuls magnify their Christian connection in order to gain more votes...when the majority of the Supreme Court judges are church members...when the nations own constitution guarantees freedom to worship, or not to worship, according to ones own conscience ...when there are more Christian radio/TV networks per capita in the US than any other country in the world...persecution? Are Christians being forced to move from place to place to avoid torture or death? Are Christians jailed for preaching the gospel? Are churches being shut down? Are Christians being refused employment due to their faith? Are Bibles being burnt in he streets along with their owners? Are armed thugs roaming the streets and towns of the US hunting down church members in order to rid society of their influence? Those things are happening my friend, and that is persecution. But as far as I am aware (I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong) it isn't happening in America. At least, not yet.

 

[Raeneske]

It is wrong to force your fellow man into a religion that they don't want to be in. Plain and simple.

But pay attention to what she says. She says a church of your choice on Sunday. She never said it had to be a Christian Church. She said a church of your choice. So whether it's a Muslim Church, Atheist church (The atheists already have a Sunday assembly), Jewish Church (http://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel-adopts-sundays-off/2013/02/23/), any Church. It won't be hard for some of the people to fall in line with this. But this mandatory proposal is wrong! Yes, those who would take issue with such a law are those who believe that we ought to keep the commandments of God, the 7th Day Sabbath, and not the first day as the sabbath. Upon it's enforcement, the Sunday then becomes the mark of the beast, and all who obey it over the direct and explicit commandment of God will be lost.

Be warned, Sunday Laws are coming!

 

[lforrest]

Rep. Senator Sylvia Allen's off the cuff proposal would help with the declining morals in the US that is leading to increased gun violence. Ironically she hit the nail on the head but all people can see is the compulsory church attendance part.

 

[[email protected]]

Rep. Senator Sylvia Allen's off the cuff proposal would help with the declining morals in the US that is leading to increased gun violence. Ironically she hit the nail on the head but all people can see is the compulsory church attendance part.

I don't think anyone here would disagree that church attendance is a good thing. Religious activity is the only real freedom anyone really has. No one is required to attend, to practice religion or to donate. There simply is not and ought not be any law in this country about it. Unfortunately the laws prohibiting the practice of religion in America as well as a culture that denies its value are increasing. God will judge the land because of it.

The moral decline in America is attributed to many factors, not least of which is the unimportance of religion and participation in it. Morality has become a four letter word that is associated with intolerance and prudishness and the Name of God. Not true of course, but that seems to be the popular conviction.

The remark suggesting that gun violence is on the rise is inaccurate. FBI statistics show that in states where gun carry laws (open or concealed) are in place, violent crime has actually decreased. In states such as California, Illinois and New York where gun carry laws for citizens are in place, violent crime is on the ascendency. What is not recognized is that criminals don't care about gun laws or religion.

Criminals do mind the fact that a citizen may be pointing a gun at them, thus preventing a crime. Nearly every local law office in the land recognizes that guns, legally owned and carried, prevent crime. Some churches, recognizing the fact that Christians are a target, now employ armed persons in attendance at worship services.(1) Recently, an armed female guard prevented an assault upon a congregation by an armed man.(2) Because a gun was used to defend the property and the congregation, no one was hurt - including the attacker.

Religion as a part of life is an inherent right. No man ought to be coerced to participate by law or culture. No man ought to be prevented from participation by force of arms or law. It is a sign of the times in which we live that such a subject should be discussed in America at all. The fact that it is indeed being discussed brings to light the debauchery of the land and the godlessness which pervades our culture to its very root. God will judge.

"So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you."
- Jeremiah 7:16

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

(1) The precedent is Biblically based. When the Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon they were threatened with violence by the surrounding Kings and cities. In response to that threat, every worker who helped rebuild the walls of Jerusalem was armed or had an armed person standing behind him. It should be remembered that the Holy City was held in esteem nearly equal to that of the temple itself. In times when one's life and religion are threatened by ungodly persons, defense is allowed.

(2) FIRST FREEDOM MAGAZINE (2014 National Rifle Association)

 

[lforrest]

I didnt want to draw this into a gun debate, so lets look at violence in general. If people are becoming more immoral violent crime should increase. But I've looked at the statistics and violent crimes have been decreasing since the 90s. What then is the moral decline doing to society?

 

[michaelvpardo]

Clearly this would be a violation of the "separation church and state" law.

There is no such thing. President Jefferson coined the phrase "separation of church and state" but there is no law that says such a thing. The phrase is based upon the first amendment to the constitution and what is referred to as the establishment clause which forbids the establishment of a state religion (such as England once had) and is supposed to guarantee our right to worship as we see fit. Unfortunately, some supreme court justice redefined the constitution as a "living" document the meaning of which changes to accommodate the times, and liberal justices have supported a "law" which doesn't exist except in the minds of a grossly ignorant (but willful) population.
One of the things that the founding fathers may have been concerned with and we should be as well is:
And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. And it was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If anyone has an ear, let him hear.
Revelation 13:5-9 and:
He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. Revelation 13:15

King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon once attempted to do something like this (Daniel chapter 3), but of course Nebuchadnezzar lived more than 400 years before the last book was written. Such behavior isn't uncommon among Imperial monarchies. For example, prior to WWII the emperor of Japan was treated as a divine being and it was required that one bow down before him when approached. However, there haven't been many men who could've been called rulers of the entire world and in the past those that were called such were rulers of the known world and not of the entire earth. Perhaps this is the first time in history when it would actually be possible to rule the entire earth if invested with sufficient political power (In the past world wide public communications and nearly instantaneous translation didn't exist: We've already built what qualifies as a virtual Babylon and there are certainly quite a few computer scientists already working on an omniscient artificial intelligence.)

And the Lord said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Genesis 11:6



Therefore the Lord said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near to Me with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men, Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work among this people, a marvelous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.'' Isaiah 29:13-14

 

[StanJ]

There is no such thing. President Jefferson coined the phrase "separation of church and state" but there is no law that says such a thing. The phrase is based upon the first amendment to the constitution and what is referred to as the establishment clause which forbids the establishment of a state religion (such as England once had) and is supposed to guarantee our right to worship as we see fit. Unfortunately, some supreme court justice redefined the constitution as a "living" document the meaning of which changes to accommodate the times, and liberal justices have supported a "law" which doesn't exist except in the minds of a grossly ignorant (but willful) population.
One of the things that the founding fathers may have been concerned with and we should be as well is:
And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. And it was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If anyone has an ear, let him hear.
Revelation 13:5-9 and:
He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. Revelation 13:15

King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon once attempted to do something like this (Daniel chapter 3), but of course Nebuchadnezzar lived more than 400 years before the last book was written. Such behavior isn't uncommon among Imperial monarchies. For example, prior to WWII the emperor of Japan was treated as a divine being and it was required that one bow down before him when approached. However, there haven't been many men who could've been called rulers of the entire world and in the past those that were called such were rulers of the known world and not of the entire earth. Perhaps this is the first time in history when it would actually be possible to rule the entire earth if invested with sufficient political power (In the past world wide public communications and nearly instantaneous translation didn't exist: We've already built what qualifies as a virtual Babylon and there are certainly quite a few computer scientists already working on an omniscient artificial intelligence.)

And the Lord said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Genesis 11:6



Therefore the Lord said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near to Me with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men, Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work among this people, a marvelous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.'' Isaiah 29:13-14

Yes I understand this issue, but making a law to force people to go to church would in effect get the state into religion. For years they have been taking religion out of their places of purview and now want to tell people they have to go to church on Sundays? It ain't gonna happen.

 

[heretoeternity]

It is wrong to force your fellow man into a religion that they don't want to be in. Plain and simple.

But pay attention to what she says. She says a church of your choice on Sunday. She never said it had to be a Christian Church. She said a church of your choice. So whether it's a Muslim Church, Atheist church (The atheists already have a Sunday assembly), Jewish Church (http://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel-adopts-sundays-off/2013/02/23/), any Church. It won't be hard for some of the people to fall in line with this. But this mandatory proposal is wrong! Yes, those who would take issue with such a law are those who believe that we ought to keep the commandments of God, the 7th Day Sabbath, and not the first day as the sabbath. Upon it's enforcement, the Sunday then becomes the mark of the beast, and all who obey it over the direct and explicit commandment of God will be lost.

Be warned, Sunday Laws are coming!



Right on...it is all about pagan Rome's influence on governments to observe "sunday" as a closing day for businesses, to take away from the true Sabbath day given by God, as per the fourth Commandment and Genesis 2...the beast power of Revelation, in particular Chap 17 will prevail for a time, before God puts an end to this false prophet/antichrist and it's daughters.
Vicarius filii dei = 666

 

[michaelvpardo]

Yes I understand this issue, but making a law to force people to go to church would in effect get the state into religion. For years they have been taking religion out of their places of purview and now want to tell people they have to go to church on Sundays? It ain't gonna happen.

I know one Connecticut politician who suggested (a number of years ago) that we make biblical law the law of the land, but if anything that probably destroyed his presidential bid. I've heard of a number of other politicians in the Midwest suggesting we institute Sharia (?) law, and again at this time you wouldn't find enough radical Muslim voters in the USA to make it happen. However, suppose there were a major national emergency where FEMA was activated and suppose that martial law had to be instituted, and some genius-in-charge instituted a mandatory meeting for worship, not church in the sense we know it, but something entirely generic. Hey, I never thought that President Obama would be elected the first time, yet there was obviously enough cool aid drinkers to put him in office twice. As our economy goes down the toilet, and world food supplies dwindle (as oil supplies dwindle and world wide food transportation becomes prohibitively expensive) and as the climate changes become intolerable in major cities and people are forced to relocate, and as our global enemies of the crazier variety arm themselves with nuclear weapons that they'd just love to drop in our lap, people will become desperate for a "savior" and will be much more likely to accept one who comes in his own name.
I attend a biblically based church, but much of our worship involves the common generic type of worship music which may mention God, but not the name of Jesus. Our Pastor preaches scripture, but there are already people trying to limit what may be preached from a pulpit at the risk of arrest for "hate speech." Public prayer has been banned in some places; at the national prayer meetings generic prayers are encouraged, while prayers to our Lord, Jesus Christ are discouraged. Its not that hard to imagine someone coming to power and enforcing the sort of changes Christians are already actively opposing and you might be surprised what people will be willing to do when they are extremely hungry, or have no shelter, clothing or other necessities. Our government has already made international treaties take precedence over national laws in at least some cases and has loaned US troops to international forces under the command of the U.N.
Never say never:)
I have, for a long time, appreciated the fact that our population has kept itself well armed. I am disturbed by the fact that our schools have already taught a generation of children that the possession and use of firearms is a sign of violent personality, even punishing children for gesturing with their fingers as though they were shooting a gun. I'm also disturbed by the fact that homeland security began spending millions of dollars a few years ago, buying up all the ammunition that they could find (this is no joke as I had been interested in purchasing a 9mm rifle and found both the model I was looking for and the ammunition for it to be scarce and not currently available.) The nation isn't what it once was and neither is the world, but I would have to agree for now that its highly unlikely that any law for mandatory church attendance would be passed in the immediate future.

 

[pom2014]

The states have the highest gun ownership per capita than any other nation on the globe.

Say that with me one more time.

Highest gun ownership on the globe.

They also have the highest rate of gun violence on the globe.

Now before all the gun owners go crackers, know I possess a gun and that worldwide most murders, even in the states, are from blunt force trauma.

But be aware that the most guns and violence with guns is in the states.

 

[StanJ]

The following may be of interest to some.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland

 

[ATP]

God is not building, God is relationship. God is spirit.

Rom 8:9-11 NIV You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.