Mean for politics

Itself?

Agreed wholeheartedly, my ally.

I pray like many do here to our Lord; to understand his will. Especially his will for us in this time. It has surprised me how much more tolerant God is for us than we are for each other.

It has been mentioned by more than one exorcist that you can tell the difference between a demon and oppression by the amount of destruction involved. Keep that in mind as Putin, or any dictator, remains in control or is controlled by demonic forces.

If we know that Lucifer is smarter, more cunning, and a liar- don't be surprised if what you think is right, is actually not the will of God.

Knowing that Putin is a master manipulator and former KGB, would it surprise anyone that his real objective is to choke out support for Ukraine through the hearts and minds of well meaning Christians?

For what's it's worth, homosexuality is not a crime. Keep an eye out for a path of destruction.

ETA: Wow, that was fast.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Religio in Latin means religion, reverence, scruple, scrupulousness, honesty, honor…

Philosophy is made up two Greek words. Philos meaning love and Sophia (the Greek goddess of wisdom).
The love of wisdom.

You can't really separate the two anyway from political philosophy.

But I understand why we try to have two separate boards and agree with the set up.

---

Well said. If your religious beliefs do not influence your political beliefs you have no religious beliefs

---

Would you agree that if it is your belief that people with different political / religious beliefs should be persecuted, then you do not believe in religious freedom?

One of my biggest issues with the Russian court ruling that we're supposed to support and the title of this thread continues to be the picking and choosing of which sins to condemn. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism are all 'sins' from a Christian perspective, but legally recognized in Russia and one is not considered an extremist for participating or advocating for that 'sinful' belief.

Every Christian on this board will deny it, but sexual sins (homosexuality in particular) are ones that you all care about far far more than any other sin. Laziness, greed, hate, pride, gluttony runs rampant in this world, but we must stop the gays! Putin started a war to invade and take Ukraine in which 500,000 people have died and an entire country's economy and livelihood has been destroyed . . . but omg! the gays!?? Half a million dead human beings as a result of a prideful, greedy, violent, and bloody grab for power, but at least he opposes gay rights. Thank God!

How many times on this board has someone started a thread to condemn corporate greed? Or laziness? Or jealousy? Or commercial materialism? Or the immorality of overeating and obesity? And personal greed? And where are the threads condemning the 5.5 BILLION world-wide sinners that actively reject Christ? There is no shortage of condemnation about gay pride, but you all do realize that there are other types of pride, right? If one knew ONLY what was posted on this board, one would never know that other prides exist. If one only knew what was on this board, I think that one might think that abortion and homosexuality are the only sins that matter.

Christians (many of them) are obsessed with condemning those identifying as homosexuals and then they have the balls to accuse homosexuals of an inflated sexual identity. Its ****ing hilarious that none of you see it.

---

I have no clue why any Christian paying any sort of attention would fail to say that we care more about sexual sins than any other. The entirety of institutional liberalism has a full-on press towards acceptance of any and all bizarre sexual inclination and identification; hence the attention and the pushback. If your advice to us is "be more judgemental" then I accept your challenge, but until the "Body positivity" and "greed normativity" mafias start on all out assault on normalization they'll continue to be minor irritants.

"Would you agree that if it is your belief that people with different political / religious beliefs should be persecuted, then you do not believe in religious freedom?"

Homosexuality and transgenderism is a religion?

We have freedom of religion granted to us in our 1st amendment. The promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism among our youth violates both the Torah
and our Freedom of Religion rights to establish justice policies in a free Republic of the electorate.

I believe in the separation of church and state. Which means that our founders did not want another state Church of England situation occurring in government. And when the state legislates sinful morality or leaves injustice undone for our posterity, then the state is violating the separation of Church and State agreement.


Sharia law is actually a religion. But that's another topic and vacuum that the left is leaving for Muslims to suck up if Christians don't get a hold of the Puritan hope once again.

canadiaggie said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

"Would you agree that if it is your belief that people with different political / religious beliefs should be persecuted, then you do not believe in religious freedom?"

Homosexuality and transgenderism is a religion?

We have freedom of religion granted to us in our 1st amendment. The promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism among our youth violates both the Torah
and our Freedom of Religion rights to establish justice policies in a free Republic of the electorate.

I believe in the separation of church and state. Which means that our founders did not want another state Church of England situation occurring in government. And when the state legislates sinful morality or leaves injustice undone for our posterity, then the state is violating the separation of Church and State agreement.


Sharia law is actually a religion. But that's another topic and vacuum that the left is leaving for Muslims to suck up if Christians don't get a hold of the Puritan hope once again.

---

Sharia law, much like chai tea, naan bread, and other redundant double-words, is not a religion. Aqidah and maddhab are two entirely different things in Islam.

---

Sharia is in Quran.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

And when the state legislates sinful morality or leaves injustice undone for our posterity, then the state is violating the separation of Church and State agreement.

---

Huh? Does the state exist to legislate your church's beliefs? How is that separation of anything?

---

Once again, separation of Church and State meant simply that there was not to be a state church like the Church of England.
In other words, Congress is not to make any law in respect to establishing a single denomination or Christian tradition.

You can't make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

"Would you agree that if it is your belief that people with different political / religious beliefs should be persecuted, then you do not believe in religious freedom?"

Homosexuality and transgenderism is a religion?

We have freedom of religion granted to us in our 1st amendment. The promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism among our youth violates both the Torah
and our Freedom of Religion rights to establish justice policies in a free Republic of the electorate.

I believe in the separation of church and state. Which means that our founders did not want another state Church of England situation occurring in government. And when the state legislates sinful morality or leaves injustice undone for our posterity, then the state is violating the separation of Church and State agreement.


Sharia law is actually a religion. But that's another topic and vacuum that the left is leaving for Muslims to suck up if Christians don't get a hold of the Puritan hope once again.

---

Sharia law, much like chai tea, naan bread, and other redundant double-words, is not a religion. Aqidah and maddhab are two entirely different things in Islam.

---

Sharia is in Quran.

---

If it was that clear cut there wouldn't be six schools of jurisprudence then.

The Qur'an as the source of shari'a is fairly limited. Outside of hudud (which isn't a feature in the majority of legal systems across the Muslim world, outside of Saudia/Iran) the majority of actual legal proscriptions in the Qur'an are related to inheritance and marriage law.

Almost everything else (property, finance, tax, criminal, civil, tort, etc.) comes from extra-Qur'anic sources.

Shari'a does not particularly govern religious thought and it absolutely has no bearing on theological principles, either. That is the realm of aqidah and tariqah, and is more closely associated with the word "religion" than shari'a.

Thank you for the research and lesson. Lesson learned.

Edit: thank you for the correction. I was really worried about that.

And there would be nothing unconstitutional about a state legislature amending the Apostles' Creed to state constitution.

Several states have had statements of Faith in them.

This is from Holy Trinity vs. The United States of 1892.
It's a Supreme Court case that declared that the United States is a religious people. It has never been overturned and still stands as the law of the land.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/


Page 143 U. S. 468

support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the Constitution of Illinois, 1870:

"We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations,"
etc.

It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, "so help me God." It may be in clauses like that of the Constitution of Indiana, 1816, Art. XI, section 4: "The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God." Or in provisions such as are found in Articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of rights of the Constitution of Maryland, 1867:

"That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty, wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief, provided he

Page 143 U. S. 469
believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution."

Or like that in Articles 2 and 3 of part 1st of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780:
"It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. . . . As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality, therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of Article 7 of the Constitution of Mississippi, 1832:

"No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. . . . Religion morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state."

Or by Article 22 of the Constitution of Delaware, (1776), which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration:
"I, A. B., do profess
Page 143 U. S. 470

faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore, and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., and also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill
.
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/

So let's add the Apostles' Creed to our state constitution.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

So let's add the Apostles' Creed to our state constitution.

---

Jews, Muslims, atheists need not apply to a government office in Texas?

---

Oops. Fixed.

But yeah…you could just make a statement that we believe in God and the afterlife for the general public.

Quote:

---

"Would you agree that if it is your belief that people with different political / religious beliefs should be persecuted, then you do not believe in religious freedom?"

Homosexuality and transgenderism is a religion?

---

No, but the belief that homosexuality or transgenderism is moral is a moral belief. And, as I'm constantly instructed on this board by Christians, ANY belief is indistinguishable from "religious belief".

Similarly, sobriety is not a religion. But, it can be a part of a set of personal beliefs. And if you think that makes it a "religious" belief, then call it what you will.

Quote:

---

We have freedom of religion granted to us in our 1st amendment. The promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism among our youth violates both the Torah
and our Freedom of Religion rights to establish justice policies in a free Republic of the electorate.

---

There is a difference between promotion of something and the lack of active discrimination against that thing. Despite what I am often accused of believing here, I do not advocate for a government that promotes specifically LGBTQ values. I do advocate for a government that does not actively discriminate against people who hold LGBTQ values. Same goes for Christianity - government should neither promote Christianity nor should it discriminate against its adherents.

Quote:

---

I believe in the separation of church and state. Which means that our founders did not want another state Church of England situation occurring in government. And when the state legislates sinful morality or leaves injustice undone for our posterity, then the state is violating the separation of Church and State agreement.

---

Russia's courts ruled that LGBTQ activists are to be treated as extremists. They don't treat Hindus as extremists. Or Buddhists. Or lazy people. Or drunks. Or divorcees. Or adulterers. This is a sin that they've singled out for discrimination. Surely this doesn't pass the separation of church and state test, does it?

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

So let's add the Apostles' Creed to our state constitution.

---

Jews, Muslims, atheists need not apply to a government office in Texas?

---

And that would be completely constitutional.

But yeah…you could just make a statement that you believe in God and the afterlife.

---

What would be Constitutional? Prohibiting positions and public office to anyone unwilling to proclaim a belief in God and the afterlife?

Kurt,

Thank you for sharing.

I will try to respond later or maybe tomorrow morning.
I'm at work.

Kurt, I'm on break for a minute, but I do intend to respond to your full diatribe.
And btw, I am deeply concerned about all sin. If you look at my posting history, then you would find that out.

But anyway, I may be able to respond a little.

Why not just put hardcore porn after the 6 'o'clock news?

Who says it is wrong? By what standard?

If common consensus goes that route, then why discriminate against porn after 6pm news?

Sexuality should be accepted among our youth, some say.
Why would we discriminate against their religious efforts?