I just feel that Christians have to be proactive about their beliefs and stop thinking for anyone else. The world does not care about fairness or protecting others freedoms. They should use all legal means to continue to influence the government. Or society will turn hostile towards Christians as they have

Quote:

---

I just feel that Christians have to be proactive about their beliefs and stop thinking for anyone else.

---

But you're advocating "thinking" for others by using government force to take away their choice.

Quote:

---

The world does not care about fairness or protecting others freedoms. They should use all legal means to continue to influence the government. Or society will turn hostile towards Christians as they have

---

Instead of worrying about influencing an inherently violent institution, such as government, how about we seek to influence society by being the hands and feet of Jesus regardless of what government says or whatever sense of "hostility" you feel from society?

No it's not childish it's proactive. No one will protect the rights of Christians except for Christians. Any policy that is not biblical that is legalized makes Christians a target

Doc Daneeka said:

---

No it's not childish it's proactive. No one will protect the rights of Christians except for Christians. Any policy that is not biblical that is legalized makes Christians a target

---

No, it's childish to think "well, if they don't respect my freedoms, then I won't respect theirs". It's also in direct contradiction to what Christ said.

And let us be a target (we're far from a target in the US though). That way, when we do get targeted, we can respond in love and self-sacrifice, and in doing so, be a witness to Christ crucified. The way of Caesar will not draw hearts to Christ.

So you are saying gays are tribal and tyrannical also then?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

No it's not childish it's proactive. No one will protect the rights of Christians except for Christians. Any policy that is not biblical that is legalized makes Christians a target

---

Its bigoted and tribal at a minimum and seems entirely tyrannical to me.

---

Any religion getting grasp on the monopoly to use violence, is a recipe for disaster. The problem is that attaining that kind of power always seems to go hand-in-hand w/ the belief that it's divinely sanctioned. It will always end up being tyrannical and will not draw people closer to the religion that government recognizes.

I'm not sure how this isn't obvious, given the track record of government and religion getting in bed together.

Of all groups and religions in America it blows my mind that everyone cheers on native Americans, gays, Judaism, and every other minority groups in society to vie for influence in government. But when it comes to Christians it's looked down on... Why?

Edit: question is for Vonnegut... Retired you are a troll.

Doc Daneeka said:

---

So you are saying gays are tribal and tyrannical also then?

---

So would you ban homosexuality? If so, what would the penalty be?

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Of all groups and religions in America it blows my mind that everyone cheers on native Americans, gays, Judaism, and every other minority groups in society to vie for influence in government. But when it comes to Christians it's looked down on... Why?

Edit: question is for Vonnegut... Retired you are a troll.

---

Because they are traditionally marginized groups and some people value diversity of opinion. What's wrong? Are Christians under represented and oppressed in this country? Are you finally fed up with the gays and atheists picking on Christians and calling them names and ostracizing them? Maybe some day Christians can openly be represented in government..

Do you see any irony in a Christian in America complaining about the influence of non-Christians?

RetiredAg said:

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

No it's not childish it's proactive. No one will protect the rights of Christians except for Christians. Any policy that is not biblical that is legalized makes Christians a target

---

No, it's childish to think "well, if they don't respect my freedoms, then I won't respect theirs". It's also in direct contradiction to what Christ said.

And let us be a target (we're far from a target in the US though). That way, when we do get targeted, we can respond in love and self-sacrifice, and in doing so, be a witness to Christ crucified. The way of Caesar will not draw hearts to Christ.

---

The Maronites/Coptics/Syriacs/Assyrians do more for the advancement of Christianity by responding in love than they could ever do by challenging the government or seeking to suppress other religions.

Quote:

---

Do you see any irony in a Christian in America complaining about the influence of non-Christians?

---

Ironic indeed. And to say Christians are looked down on for trying to influence government, when virtually every politician drapes themselves in Christianity in order to win elections. To the point that 80% of white evangelical society embraced a man who possesses a blatantly anti-Christ worldview.

This faux-persecution complex only makes the church look petty and childish.

powerbelly51 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

No it's not childish it's proactive. No one will protect the rights of Christians except for Christians. Any policy that is not biblical that is legalized makes Christians a target

---

No, it's childish to think "well, if they don't respect my freedoms, then I won't respect theirs". It's also in direct contradiction to what Christ said.

And let us be a target (we're far from a target in the US though). That way, when we do get targeted, we can respond in love and self-sacrifice, and in doing so, be a witness to Christ crucified. The way of Caesar will not draw hearts to Christ.

---

The Maronites/Coptics/Syriacs/Assyrians do more for the advancement of Christianity by responding in love than they could ever do by challenging the government or seeking to suppress other religions.

---

AMEN! This is spot-on! Witnessing the Coptic response to attacks is what changes hearts. You see glimpses of it here, such as the response of the victim's families in the Dylan Roof shooting, or the Amish schoolhouse shooting response. Those responses came from the heart (more accurately, the Spirit working through them) and the moved the hearts of nonbelievers.

I thought this was a great point, and I think goes to much of the issue we have w/ this obsession w/ gaining political power:

I understand groups are marginalized... Christians should fight to influence government as they become more marginalized...

No where in the bible does it outlaw influencing government...

You guys are hilarious

Quote:

---

I understand groups are marginalized... Christians should fight to influence government as they become more marginalized...

---

Christians aren't marginalized. Not even remotely close to being marginalized. Heck, a man who has been married 4 times (or is it 3?), said his favorite book is Two Corinthians and his favorite verse is one that Christ explicitly repudiated tried his hardest to sell to Americans that he was a devout Christian. He doesn't get elected without pandering to Christians.

Anyways, we are to stand w/ the marginalized, not seek power to marginalize others.

Quote:

---

No where in the bible does it outlaw influencing government...

---

If you follow the method that Christ displayed, then seeking political power becomes meaningless. Especially considering political power is a temptation He explicitly rejected.

Quote:

---

You guys are hilarious

---

Thank you. My son thinks I tell too many lame dad jokes. I'll tell him I was vindicated today.

I expect no sympathy from any group... whether I "marginalize" them or not... Because I live in reality where no one cares about reciprocating... or fairness... or lofty ideas... We are either to act in the interest of ourselves or we WILL be marginalized with no sympathy...

Kind of my point...

Doc Daneeka said:

---

We are either to act in the interest of ourselves or we WILL be marginalized with no sympathy...

Kind of my point

---

Uh...do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. (Philippians 2:3-4)

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think there are more clear cut examples of TexAg91's point though - like same sex marriage. Placing a value on a definition of marriage in such a way that it denies legal rights to someone else is radical, in my book.

---

It's not quite apples to apples. The Constitution says gay marriage is equal to male-female marriage (see disclaimer above). My religion says that only male-female marriage is acceptable, and gay marriage isn't actually marriage. If I placed the Constitution above my religious beliefs, then I would have to say gay marriage is equal to "traditional" marriage. I don't believe that, because of my religious beliefs.

---

I don't understand the relevance of the gay marriage argument. See here:

Quote:

---

With all the talk about the pro's and con's about gay marriage I would like to open a discussion regarding what our Constitution says about it.
Does the Constitution forbid gay marriage?
No.
Does the Constitution allow gay marriage?
No.
How can that be?
The answer is actually very simple. As I tried to put forth in my book, "A Charter of Negative Liberties," the Constitution does not mention marriage. In fact, the Constitution does not discuss any issues concerning morality. The Constitution and therefore the federal government is not allowed to have an opinion on gay marriage and when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

---

It is my personal feeling that federal and state governments should butt out of marriage entirely. Marriage is a construct of religion only. But as is said above: "the Constitution does not discuss any issues concerning marriage".

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Don't over analyze it. There are some oppressive governments that I would not goal tend for their constitutions. But I do for ours in its current form.

---

The Constitution has been in it's current form since 1992 (not even counting the major Supreme Court decisions that effectually change it every few years). I've been a Christian longer than that, but I'm supposed to put this ever-shifting document on a higher footing than the most integral part of my life and being? Like I said, sounds like straight-up idolatry to me.

---

What is it you want to do, not believe, but do that your religion asks you to do, but is forbidden by the Constitution?

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

If the SC says you can have an abortion that doesn't mean you must have an abortion. I don't understand the problem.

---

The problem is not that the belief says that having an abortion is wrong. The problem is that the belief says that an unborn child is a human life every bit as much as you or I are, therefore allowing abortion is the equivalent of sanctioning murder. That's why it's not as simple as "don't want one, don't get one".

---

So if you believe that abortion is murder and don't want to or your s/o to have an abortion I wouldn't call you a radical, because you have the option to do it or not to do it and you have freedom of religion.

---

still not a great example though, because i believe most abortions to be murder, i don't believe anyone else has the rights to them either.

---

The Constitution does not specifically address abortion, so now we're getting into grey areas that are up to court interpretation. The thread is "Religion vs US Constitution", not "Religion vs US Supreme Court". I have seen Supreme Courts violate the Constitution (i.e. when the court approved Obamacare. It didn't start in the House. Anything that requires funding must start in the House. Also the Obama administration said all along there was no tax. That people had to buy insurance, which was unconstitutional. The court said basically "I think you meant to say it's a tax, so we'll allow it"). If you deducted your Obamacare taxes that you gave to the IRS based on this reasoning, I'd say you have a good argument that's even based on the Constitution.

So with regards to Religion vs the SC:
The SC said that the 14th amendment protects the right to an abortion by saying: "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action includes a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy and that this right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." That only discusses a woman's rights. In '97 the SC said the fetus's rights do not override the mother's rights until the fetus is viable.

So you're saying you don't believe anyone has the right to abortion. You're free to believe that. The Constitution isn't going to mandate what you believe. If you take physical action to prevent an abortion though, that's another matter, especially in a case where you had no relation to the woman who wanted the abortion. Then I'd say you're a radical. You might say, but that's a viable human being in there. If it's past 20 weeks (the point where many states say the fetus is viable), you'd probably be in the right because it's an illegal abortion. If it's before 20 weeks, we get into some real grey area and you'd be a real radical to go prevent that abortion. If you had some relation to the wife and/or baby, that's another story though.

RetiredAg said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I see anyone putting their religion over a document like the Constitution which grants freedoms including freedom of religion as a radical.

---

First, the Constitution doesn't "grant" freedoms. It may attempt to protect freedoms against government intrusion, but it is not the source of those freedoms.

That said, what is wrong with being a radical? As a follower of Christ, I tend to believe we should look like radicals to the world.

---

If you're happy with being a radical, fine. I'd still call you one though if your religion caused you to act in violation of the Constitution.

TexAgs91 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I see anyone putting their religion over a document like the Constitution which grants freedoms including freedom of religion as a radical.

---

First, the Constitution doesn't "grant" freedoms. It may attempt to protect freedoms against government intrusion, but it is not the source of those freedoms.

That said, what is wrong with being a radical? As a follower of Christ, I tend to believe we should look like radicals to the world.

---

If you're happy with being a radical, fine. I'd still call you one though if your religion caused you to act in violation of the Constitution.

---

So, for example, my faith guides me to care for the foreigner. Are you saying I'm a radical because I actively seek to help undocumented individuals, even if that help includes helping them evade detection? What are some examples of what you're referring? Were people who helped slaves escape "radical"? I would assume even if you consider them radical, that you'd agree that being a radical is a good thing in their case.

I'm not talking about people like Doc wanting to create a theocratic tyranny by tossing the Constitution so as to have no restrictions on using a violent government to oppress nonbelievers. You and I would agree that that's wrong, although I believe it's wrong because it is contrary to the way of Christ. I couldn't care less about the Constitution. I'm just trying to get a better idea of what you're referring to, given the Constitution applies to government, not individuals.

Doc Daneeka said:

---

I expect no sympathy from any group... whether I "marginalize" them or not... Because I live in reality where no one cares about reciprocating... or fairness... or lofty ideas... We are either to act in the interest of ourselves or we WILL be marginalized with no sympathy...

Kind of my point...

---

And I thought I was a misanthrope . . .

R said:

---

TexAgs91:
If you're happy with being a radical, fine. I'd still call you one though if your religion caused you to act in violation of the Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

RetiredAg:
So, for example, my faith guides me to care for the foreigner. Are you saying I'm a radical because I actively seek to help undocumented individuals, even if that help includes helping them evade detection?

---

You'd be at least an accessory to a crime. If your religion asks you to do that, then yeah, radical. Think if all christians did this. This country would go down the tubes. We don't get the advantages that Christians in the NT had. We can't wave a wand and provide unlimited bread and fish for illegals. Those resources come from people who live here.

What people never grasp is that the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of American government that other countries should try and model. It's not a Statue of Immigration that says bring all your problems to the US. If other counties overthrow their dictators, lose the socialist governments, lose the theocracies, implement a system of justice and accountability, then they wouldn't have to come here. So that's the solution. Using the US as a model, other countries can help their own people. We simply do not have the resources to directly help all the people in poverty in the world and doing so does not teach other countries to help themselves. In fact it hurts them. If we take the people on other countries that at least have the drive to help themselves by coming here those countries lose people who have that drive. See this:

Quote:

---

What are some examples of what you're referring? Were people who helped slaves escape "radical"? I would assume even if you consider them radical, that you'd agree that being a radical is a good thing in their case.

---

As I said earlier, I'm not talking about the Constitution when it allowed slaves in this country. That was a huge mistake that libs (who used to be pro-slavery) will always make sure we never forget even though the country is trying to move on. Let's not make the same mistake by bringing illegals into the US. I always hear one reason to do so is that they're cheap labor. Guess what... that makes them the next version of slaves that we'll be made to feel guilty about for centuries. No thanks. Keep them out and let's have Americans be responsible for our own prosperity for once.

Quote:

---

I'm not talking about people like Doc wanting to create a theocratic tyranny by tossing the Constitution so as to have no restrictions on using a violent government to oppress nonbelievers. You and I would agree that that's wrong, although I believe it's wrong because it is contrary to the way of Christ. I couldn't care less about the Constitution. I'm just trying to get a better idea of what you're referring to, given the Constitution applies to government, not individuals.

---

I'm just referring to the OP:

Quote:

---

If your religion told you to do something or believe something that was not allowed in the constitution which would you follow?

For example, Hannity had a segment (a while back) about Sharia law and the Constitution and how Muslims believe in Sharia over the Constitution?

Is this right or wrong...?

---

The Sharia Law example is a good example.

The Constitution doesn't say what citizens can or cannot do. The Constitution restricts what government can do.

It details specific powers the government has; how those powers are distributed across the branches of government; how the members of those branches of government are selected. Then, the Bill of Rights identifies specific actions, or powers the government CANNOT do or have.

It's not a "bestowing" of rights or powers on the citizens, it is a restriction of the power of government.

If someone is a Christian should they not try and spread Christianity? I think maybe some people in this forum come from Peculiar Christian perspectives. It's not bad to try to convert people it's actually a mandate. If you don't agree with the method then I can understand. But we must be proactive and part of our job is to spread Christianity. Government is one vehicle. Charity is another. Hospitals, schools, NGO's are all examples of Christians using a variety of avenues to spread Christ. I don't think quoting scripture and being silent is the course of action.

So try not to convert people?

"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words"

"They will know we are Christian by our Love"

Quote:

---

But we must be proactive and part of our job is to spread Christianity. Government is one vehicle. Charity is another. Hospitals, schools, NGO's are all examples of Christians using a variety of avenues to spread Christ.

---

Government is one vehicle. Except in this country government is precluded by its founding vehicle (that Constitution) from being a vehicle for religious belief.

There are options. If you can get enough people to agree, you can amend the Constitution. Otherwise, there are a number of countries where governments don't reject religion as a permitted influence, or for that matter an outright determinant. One of those might be a reasonable place to begin.