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.

---

No, it wouldn't.

Sapper Redux said:

---

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?

---

But yeah…we could just make a statement that we the people of the state of Texas believe in God and the afterlife.

---

No, it wouldn't.

---

Not to hold public office. But we the people could make this basic statement in an amendment to the state constitution via our representatives.

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

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.


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

---

It meant that religious organizations were not to inform the state and visa versa. The only mentions of religion in the Constitution are to restrict the ability of the government to harm or disempower those of differing faiths (or no faith at all). The framers on the whole were not fans of institutional religion and the Enlightenment reaction against the wars of religion in the 17th century were forefront in their minds. The tradition of Puritans as bigoted, humorless, sexless scolds began in the late 18th century.

---

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Let's look at the historical context of the first part of the establishment clause.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It simply means that Congress can't establish a denomination or Christian tradition as the state church. The founders didn't want another state Church of England to arise.

And you're correct about one thing. Because of the separation of Church and state, it keeps out the new Church of England that may arise. That way the state can't tell the church what doctrine to preach, etc.
And the state can't tell the church what to do or limit its influence in political morality.

And that's found in the next part of the clause.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Notice the Constitution wisely doesn't make the qualifications that you have added in order to try and jump in a car that you don't own and run it off a cliff out of its historical context.

You've added a bunch of stuff that is ahistorical.
You don't interpret the Bible that way out of its historical context.
You don't interpret 16th Century French literature that way.

You don't interpret law that way without jurisprudence and and legal precedence out of its historical context. All of which the Judeo-Christian has on our side to advance and not allow immorality to have free reign, especially on the state level and our tenth amendment.

Good night.

Sapper Redux said:

---

A common antifederalist refrain against the Constitution was that it was a "godless" document because its only mention of religion was to restrict its presence or use in the federal government. Your faith is absolutely not allowed to infringe on the rights of other Americans. That the majority of Americans across time have been Christians does not make our governing document a Christian document nor does it make our government or nation Christian.

---

Yeah. The Antifederalists said it was godless, but they got their first ten amendments added. And we just went over the first amendment granting religious freedom in politics and life in general.

The tenth amendment grants us even more liberty on the state level.

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

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.

---

No, it wouldn't.

---

Yes. Yes it absolutely is constitutional. And we have
Holy Trinity vs. The United States…as a bonus.

---

No, it's not. The Bill of Rights is incorporated to the states. A state absolutely cannot prevent an atheist or a Buddhist or a Jew from running for office and serving. The author of the majority opinion in Holy Trinity even said as much, "Nor is [the United States] Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions." But that's just me being polite. The tangents and arguments in a Supreme Court decision are not law. They explain why a specific interpretation was used to reach a decision. That decision does not suddenly make the United States a "Christian nation."

---

No. But it does establish us as a religious country.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

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?

---

Response to Kurt:

{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.}



Okay. There is nothing in historic Christianity against drinking. But we do have public intoxication and dui laws.
Public promotion of homosexuality should be illegal. We can debate and hash that out. We are not wanting it on our television screen rated as G or PG or family tv or whatever the label is. And we also don't want the promotion in our public schools. Public schools belong to the public and we are a religious country and can be a Christian state if we want to be because we have the liberty to be so (I.e. the first and tenth amendments and Holy Trinity vs. USA).



{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.}



A government that allows immorality is enforcing immorality in the public square. Public does not mean secular.
Public comes from the Latin word publicus which means populous or people. We are a religious people.


And government, especially on the state level, can promote is free to promote Christianity. You are dead wrong, sir.
And there is nothing wrong with Presidents and Congressional Representatives pronouncing their faith in the risen Lord. You can't check your faith or worldview at the door of public office. Freedom of Speech applies to them as well. After all, we are a religious people.


{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?}



Good for them not to treat Buddhist, Hindus, drunks, and divorcees as extremists. But I am very much opposed to adultery and no-fault divorce.

If you read Romans 1, the Apostle Paul points out that the certain sin of homosexuality is a sign of a culture being entrapped in the culture of death and depravity. St. Paul mentions the rejection and refusal of mankind to worship God and the sin of homosexuality being a sign of cultural depravity.
St. Paul makes no other mention of specific sins there.

All sin is equal. But not all sin has the same consequences in the life to come. Not all sin has the same consequences for life and culture while here on earth.

This is why we have murder 1, murder 2, and manslaughter.

Moreover, politics are politics. We generally can only accomplish one thing at a time. Russia has the same problem. Some private abortion clinics have shut down recently. But abortion is still legal there.

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

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.

---

No, it wouldn't.

---

Yes. Yes it absolutely is constitutional. And we have
Holy Trinity vs. The United States…as a bonus.

---

No, it's not. The Bill of Rights is incorporated to the states. A state absolutely cannot prevent an atheist or a Buddhist or a Jew from running for office and serving. The author of the majority opinion in Holy Trinity even said as much, "Nor is [the United States] Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions." But that's just me being polite. The tangents and arguments in a Supreme Court decision are not law. They explain why a specific interpretation was used to reach a decision. That decision does not suddenly make the United States a "Christian nation."

---

No. But it does establish us as a religious country.

Holy Trinity vs. United States (I just love that name) tells the United States (I.e. the federal government) that it cannot discriminate against the holding of office of differing religious beliefs. No where in the decision does it imply that the states cannot under the tenth amendment. In fact, it established that the states could discriminate qualifications for holding office because we are a religious people.

---

States cannot discriminate against individuals. The rights of individuals under the Constitution are also protected at the state level. You can thank the 14th amendment for that. And one part of the reasoning (not even the legal finding) behind one opinion of group of justices from a SCOTUS well over a century ago does not legally define our nation as Christian.

---

Holy Trinity verses the United States was in 1892. That was well after the 14th Amendment. I'm sure SCOTUS was aware of the Constitution that they were and are in charge of interpreting.

They have tried to overturn state abortion laws from banning abortion using the 14th amendment. How did that work out?

Plus, we have Holy Trinity legal precedence just in case the 14th amendment violates 1st amendment and 10th amendment rights.

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

A common antifederalist refrain against the Constitution was that it was a "godless" document because its only mention of religion was to restrict its presence or use in the federal government. Your faith is absolutely not allowed to infringe on the rights of other Americans. That the majority of Americans across time have been Christians does not make our governing document a Christian document nor does it make our government or nation Christian.

---

Yeah. The Antifederalists said it was godless, but they got their first ten amendments added. And we just went over the first amendment granting religious freedom in politics and life in general.

The tenth amendment grants us even more liberty on the state level.

---

Religious freedom in politics? The amendment literally states that Congress shall not establish a religion. The main text of the Constitution forbids religious tests for holding office. And the tenth amendment is not all encompassing. It is restricted by the 9th and 14th amendments regarding the rights and privileges of individuals.

---

Article 6

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Ideally, I wish we could amend Article 6. But…but

But that doesn't place limitations on having the Apostles' Creed or a statement that we the people of this state believe in the Divine and an afterlife now does it?

Completely Constitutional…
That's what people like me are advocating.

This is the United STATES, not the United State.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

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.

---

No, it wouldn't.

---

Yes. Yes it absolutely is constitutional. And we have
Holy Trinity vs. The United States…as a bonus.

---

No, it's not. The Bill of Rights is incorporated to the states. A state absolutely cannot prevent an atheist or a Buddhist or a Jew from running for office and serving. The author of the majority opinion in Holy Trinity even said as much, "Nor is [the United States] Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions." But that's just me being polite. The tangents and arguments in a Supreme Court decision are not law. They explain why a specific interpretation was used to reach a decision. That decision does not suddenly make the United States a "Christian nation."

---

No. But it does establish us as a religious country.

Holy Trinity vs. United States (I just love that name) tells the United States (I.e. the federal government) that it cannot discriminate against the holding of office of differing religious beliefs. No where in the decision does it imply that the states cannot under the tenth amendment. In fact, it established that the states could discriminate qualifications for holding office because we are a religious people.

---

States cannot discriminate against individuals. The rights of individuals under the Constitution are also protected at the state level. You can thank the 14th amendment for that. And one part of the reasoning (not even the legal finding) behind one opinion of group of justices from a SCOTUS well over a century ago does not legally define our nation as Christian.

---

Holy Trinity verses the United States was in 1892. That was well after the 14th Amendment. I'm sure SCOTUS was aware of the Constitution that they were and are in charge of interpreting.

They have tried to overturn state abortion laws banning abortion using the 14th amendment. How did that work out?

Plus, we have Holy Trinity legal precedence just in case the 14th amendment violates 1st amendment and 10th amendment rights.

---

The SCOTUS of the late 19th century has been repeatedly overturned over the decades. This is like saying Plessy v. Ferguson was correctly decided since they knew the 14th amendment existed. Given that Holy Trinity was specifically about (and legally binding only in the case of) hiring practices around immigration law, trying to build your theocracy around it isn't going to go very far.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The first amendment alone enshrines more natural rights from (the Christian) God than any other piece of legislation in the world over.

---

Where is freedom of speech, the press, or religion in the Christian Bible?

---

I would expect nothing less than a gotcha. Oh those old ancient presses. You got me. And if it wasn't Christian why isn't there a proliferation of the first amendment all over the world. I got you.

Gotchas aside. These freedoms are natural extensions of God's character and the free will he bestows upon us. We can see evidence for them by what the norms for man should be. Freedom of speech is the natural extension of truth, and it is the antithesis of a ruler being able to silence men (and be extension truth) by force. When there was only the garden, you think Adam or God enforced some form of censorship? No of course not. They were in perfect communion and were able to speak freely and truthfully. There is nothing about how God interacted with man in the garden, nor set up Israelites to be the priestly nation, or Christ establishing himself as the Messiah that allows for Christians to exert power over one another to warp or hinder truth. So being able to speak freely is a natural state of man.

Freedom of the press is also an extension of truth and free will superceding force. It also worked a bit differently pre-gutenberg press. You didn't have daily gazettes, each people group kept some form of documentation (mostly scrolls). The scrolls were either purposefully destroyed or seized based upon raids based upon the views of the raiders.

Freedom of religion goes back to the long history of persecution and also back to the garden. Kings fought hard against Christianity, through force. And those actions were clearly wrong. Freedom of religion is also an extension of free will that goes back to the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden. You can choose to walk with God, or choose to reject him. Man doesn't get to make that decision on behalf of another man. (I see the gears turning and keyboard clicking - Israel was a priestly nation set aside to present God to the nations. It was a theocracy. God gave His theocracy the right (and order) to go remove demonic powers from God's nation. Christianity does not have such authority, Christians are not supposed to institute theocracies-the priest class is to never directly rule, only shepherd the citizens.).

As a sidenote, American framers are also deeply engrained with specifically western european protestant thought that teeters on early secularism. There is no acceptance of a worldly hierarchy, divine ruler, and united church. The deeply catholic or orthodox wouldn't have created an american framework, but you wouldn't be able to convince those groups that things like the first amendment aren't good.

Free Speech was invented by Christians.

Its foundation began when one scholar would travel to a different jurisdiction and get thrown into jail for disturbing the peace and order at the university level.

Scholars then were given liberty to debate and lecture on their beliefs traveling from one jurisdiction to another.

Also, Christians basically invented universities from the monastic life and seminary training of priests.

And before you state Morocco. I have an answer for that awful medieval heresy and twisted invention from ancient Christianity.

And now the left interrupts symposiums, lectures, and formal debates.

Who is for free speech? Who is the guardian of free speech? Christians are.

Who invented the United States of America? The Judeo-Christian worldview did.

Who invented Freedom of Religion? Christianity did and is the only worldview and belief system that allows for it and guarantees it.

Now as far as limits on Free Speech…

As you professor probably pointed out, you can't scream "I'm going to hijack a plane today," at an airport.

You can't threaten the live of the President of the z United States.

So we make laws that keep a healthy society.

Secular invention? I provided you with the grounds in which Free Speech developed.

We also invented "Just War theory" in the 4th Century by St. Augustine. We would have never had the Genevan Convention without it.

Can you provide your secular argument for us to consider concerning Free Speech?

And here is more evidence of the development of Free Speech in history when the Puritans took over in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688-1689.


"The document, which initially came to be known as the English Bill of Rights of 1689, contains many rights that were later included in the First Amendment, such as the right to petition and freedom of speech and debate (specifically targeted, like the speech and debate clause in the U.S. Constitution."

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

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?

---

I have no doubt that you have condemned all manner of sins at some point in your history. I'm sure not going to dig through your posts and tally up which sins you talk about the most. I am making a broader point, not one specific to you. The entirety of the history of this board for the many years I've been on it is an indisputable testament to the radically inflated nature of Christian focus on sexual sins.

I have no more advocated porn after the 6 o clock news than you have advocated for murdering all gays.

What standard? Consensus. And consensus among liberals and conservatives is to have some limitations on certain types of protected expression. The reason we don't have porn after the news is the same reason why we don't show the movie SAW right after the news.

If consensus goes the way of saying we should deregulate and allow porn after the news, then I would disagree. But, if our laws are not to be designed to serve the will of the people, who should they serve?

---

But you dodged my main question.

If common consensus changed and porn or SAW is allowed after the news at 6pm, then by what standard are you going to make such a stand against such filth?

To what authority will you appeal to in that situation?


Secondly, I have never advocated killing homosexuals. We have this concept that Christians have advanced called the general equity of the law of Moses.

And the basis for our legal system was created from English Common law, which has scripture after scripture establishing law.

Christianity is your daddy.

And here is an example of general equity of the Law of God in our legal system.

Deuteronomy 22:8 as an example. It reads, "When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it."

General equity would require a rail around your second story deck.

This principle is applied to many different situations where liability is established in the court room. The fines and consequences are adjustable. But the general equity of God's holy law stand forever.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

What world are you living in? The United States has never been more LGBTQ friendly than it is now and they're pushing harder than ever. Child oriented drag shows, government funded sex reassignment surgery in Medicare/the military, the Republican controlled Congress enshrining the right to gay marriage as law, multiple gender choices on every survey yet the full court press continues. They're acting out because they're free to act out, because they have institutional coverage from every facet of society.

Why aren't there drag shows or parades or the like running wild in Riyadh or Muscat? Because they don't tolerate them. The reason we have them is because of our overwhelming tolerance which has reached its limit. By your understanding, Riyadh and Muscat should have huge pro-gay protests because of how they ban them from representation and exclude them from public life.

Again, if you're telling me that we need to stamp down hard on the adulterers, fornicators, pornographers and satanists, I'm right there with you; but every time I mention it I'm a "fascist" and "need to move to Saudi Arabia"

---

I live in a world where a large number of Christians think that permitting LGBTQ persons dignity is an existential crisis. There is plenty of nuance to LGBTQ issues where we might agree with you - ie I don't support trans women competing in women's sports. This thread isn't about those nuances, its about wholesale condemnation of peoples.

Would you rather live in Riyadh or Muscat? Saudi Arabia also doesn't allow for the open practice of Christianity and many Christians are treated poorly. A consequence of freedom of religion is that some people will be permitted to believe differently than you want them to believe. Either you think thats a good thing or a bad thing.

A difference between us and SA or Oman is that we do permit a growing level of freedom and free speech and freedom of religion. We are at a point in our history where LGBTQ persons can be outspoken in a way that they have never been permitted to before. This is a change from most of recorded history and Christian history where homosexuality was punished or the cause of being rejected by society. And this change comes with opposition from those who wish to return to a culture where LGBTQ persons are looked down upon, forced to hide themselves. And the harder you advocate from them to be second hand citizens, they harder they will push back. Because, yes, now they can. And by the way, the absolutely SHOULD be allowed to.

---

Again, by what standard will you appeal to that trans can't compete in women's sports?

I'm still waiting for these answers. So I can respond.

Then you discuss Islam's lack of Freedom of Religion, which we agree. They'll have to borrow from the Christian worldview like when you state anything that is morally correct and verified by a universal standard, which has stood the test of time.

Then you discuss how homosexuals had to go into hiding and their lifestyles weren't accepted by the masses.

I don't accept their lifestyle as holistic and virtuous to the natural order. I don't accept child porn watchers or porn at all. I don't accept child molesters.

We don't accept the lifestyles of heroine and meth addicts. It's a similar illness in culture that homosexuals have. I think of it in that way.

Now some of those we both likely agree with.

But what if common consensus changes in another 50 or 100 years? Then your children will most likely go with it as you've done with gay is ok.

You so far have failed to present to board a universal standard, obligatory for all men to follow, that has stood the test of time.

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

A common antifederalist refrain against the Constitution was that it was a "godless" document because its only mention of religion was to restrict its presence or use in the federal government. Your faith is absolutely not allowed to infringe on the rights of other Americans. That the majority of Americans across time have been Christians does not make our governing document a Christian document nor does it make our government or nation Christian.

---

Yeah. The Antifederalists said it was godless, but they got their first ten amendments added. And we just went over the first amendment granting religious freedom in politics and life in general.

The tenth amendment grants us even more liberty on the state level.

---

Religious freedom in politics? The amendment literally states that Congress shall not establish a religion. The main text of the Constitution forbids religious tests for holding office. And the tenth amendment is not all encompassing. It is restricted by the 9th and 14th amendments regarding the rights and privileges of individuals.

---

Article 6

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Ideally, I wish we could amend Article 6. But…but

But that doesn't place limitations on having the Apostles' Creed or a statement that we the people of this state believe in the Divine and an afterlife now does it?

Completely Constitutional…
That's what people like me are advocating.

This is the United STATES, not the United State.

---

The 14th amendment absolutely prevents you from doing that.

---

14th Amendment

Section 1

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So how does this prevent making an amendment to our state constitution that we the people believe in the Divine and in the afterlife?

If the people vote our representatives into office with this memorandum. The people's vote rules. That's the principle of popular sovereignty.

This future amendment to our state constitution would not deprive anyone of life, liberty, property, or the privileges nor the immunities of its citizens.

"Although the Court in the Slaughter-House Cases expressed a reluctance to enumerate those privileges and immunities of United States citizens that are protected against state encroachment, it nevertheless felt obliged to suggest some. Among those that it identified were the right of access to the seat of government and to the seaports, subtreasuries, land officers, and courts of justice in the several states, the right to demand protection of the Federal Government on the high seas or abroad, the right of assembly, the privilege of habeas corpus, the right to use the navigable waters of the United States, and rights secured by treaty.1 In Twining v. New Jersey,2 the Court recognized among the rights and privileges of national citizenship the right to pass freely from state to state,3 the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances,4 the right to vote for national officers,5 the right to enter public lands,6 the right to be protected against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States marshal,7 and the right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its laws.8 Earlier, in a decision not mentioned in Twining, the Court had also acknowledged that the carrying on of interstate commerce is a right which every citizen of the United States is entitled to exercise.9

In modern times, the Court has continued the minor role accorded to the Clause, only occasionally manifesting a disposition to enlarge the restraint that it imposes upon state action.10 In Hague v. CIO,11 two and perhaps three justices thought that the freedom to use municipal streets and parks for the dissemination of information concerning provisions of a federal statute and to assemble peacefully therein for discussion of the advantages and opportunities offered by such act was a privilege and immunity of a United States citizen, and, in Edwards v. California,12 four Justices were prepared to rely on the Clause.13 In many other respects, however, claims based on this Clause have been rejected.14

In Oyama v. California,15 the Court, in a single sentence, agreed with the contention of a native-born youth that a state Alien Land Law that resulted in the forfeiture of property purchased in his name with funds advanced by his parent, a Japanese alien ineligible for citizenship and precluded from owning land, deprived him of his privileges as an American citizen. The right to acquire and retain property had previously not been set forth in any of the enumerations as one of the privileges protected against state abridgment, although a federal statute enacted prior to the proposal and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment did confer on all citizens the same rights to purchase and hold real property as White citizens enjoyed.16

In a doctrinal shift of uncertain significance, the Court will apparently evaluate challenges to durational residency requirements, previously considered as violations of the right to travel derived from the Equal Protection Clause,17 as a potential violation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Thus, where a California law restricted the level of welfare benefits available to Californians who have been residents for less than a year to the level of benefits available in the state of their prior residence, the Court found a violation of the right of newly arrived citizens to be treated the same as other state citizens.18 Despite suggestions that this opinion will open the door to guaranteed equal access to all public benefits,19 it seems more likely that the Court is protecting the privilege of being treated immediately as a full citizen of the state one chooses for permanent residence.20"

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-2-2/ALDE_00000815/

Yep. I see nothing from the SCOTUS court to suggest that we would be violating the immunity or privileges of our citizens by amending our constitution to add that we the people of the State of Texas believe in the Divine and the afterlife to come.

Why couldn't a heroine dealer or possessor try to use your same argument because incriminating him would likely deprive him of his property.

And this statement proposal in our State Constitution would NEVER be doing that.

Nice try though. And if you godless sent it to court, then we would have plenty of leverage with Holy Trinity vs. The United States.

We tried secularism since the 50's and stupid doesn't work.

Dear Kurt,


Slavery?

See William Wilberforce and John Newton.

We were the first religion or culture to end slavery that existed since the fall of mankind.

Sexism?

The first witnesses of the resurrection in the Bible were women. In Rome, women were not allowed to be witnesses in trials. Christianity definitely mentions other women of God in the New Testament and uplifted women into their proper role.

Bigotry?

You accuse us of being sinful like the rest of mankind?
No way. At least we have a worldview with a final justice for these things. This too shall be made right.
How many did godless Hitler, Stalin, and Mao kill just last century. Please. Bigoted…

Burning of heretics?

Yeah. Many, many Protestants were put to death. But we believe in forgiveness because we have been forgiven.

Witches?

Salem was an isolated community and what happened there was condemned by every clergyman in the American colonies. But the rest of the story is not what you learn about in government schools.

And you would be both you and your descendants would be more free and healthy under Christian rule.

Being a devout Christian may not be for you, at least for the time being. But it is for the masses. Even the few deists that we had as founders proclaimed that our Republic only works with religion, which was Christianity. Have you ever heard of the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church? It's synonymous in historic Christianity as saying Christian.

Also, even the few who were deists have great quotes on Christianity being important for our Republic to stand.

Please read them here. They specifically use the word Christian often.

https://www.learnreligions.com/christian-quotes-of-the-founding-fathers-700789


"I can support your freedom simply on the basis that I don't wish to be a self-righteous ******* who thinks they get to tell others how to live."

Well, the church is the only hypocrite recovery program ever to be known in the whole world. The only righteousness a believer has is in the righteousness of Christ.

The fact of the matter is the secularists are self-righteous hypocrites telling us how to live on this very thread.

{How much sinful pride would one have to have to think this? Perhaps I view this type of self righteousness and pride as an illness.}


Yet another reason why I am reformed. All men are inflamed with pride. The only cure for it is boldness in the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord who defeated sins dominion. And if our boldness comes across as arrogance or self-righteous, then please know that the only authority we have is derived from God's holy word. We now our knee to it when we speak on such issues.

This isn't to say that Christians don't sin. It's to say that we should obey the Gospel out of gratitude for what Christ has done. It's not because we were wiser than our fellow man that we came to know God. It was by sheer grace that we became born again. We didn't birth our Father.

The other thing is the church is also made up of unbelievers. The wheat grow with the weeds as Jesus taught in his parable.

{ I reject that an objective standard exists or that one ccould even be understood without contamination of subjective}

Please go on and elaborate…

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Free Speech was invented by Christians.

---

I stopped reading here. . . . .

Versions of free speech predate Christianity. And even Christian notions of free speech do not extend equally to all members of a society.

It is not clear to me that you are even advocating for free speech in this thread. I get the impression that you support free speech as long as that free speech is used to say things you agree with. And someone else advocating for a different thing should be treated differently. This isn't free speech. . .

---

Okay? In pre-Christian Rome when the Romans killed and imprisoned Christians for declaring that Christ is King?

Or before that in Greece if you spoke against the gods? See how they killed Plato.

What example from a secular or non-Christian culture are you going to use in order to support your claim?

Common consensus, which changes over time and contradicts itself, is what has limited Christians from posting online, has made Christians lose their jobs, secularists have hired other lesser candidates because of a Christian's convictions, and have made a parade of immorality in the public square. This is violating free speech in the public square.

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

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.

---

No, it wouldn't.

---

Yes. Yes it absolutely is constitutional. And we have
Holy Trinity vs. The United States…as a bonus.

---

No, it's not. The Bill of Rights is incorporated to the states. A state absolutely cannot prevent an atheist or a Buddhist or a Jew from running for office and serving. The author of the majority opinion in Holy Trinity even said as much, "Nor is [the United States] Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions." But that's just me being polite. The tangents and arguments in a Supreme Court decision are not law. They explain why a specific interpretation was used to reach a decision. That decision does not suddenly make the United States a "Christian nation."

---

No. But it does establish us as a religious country.

Holy Trinity vs. United States (I just love that name) tells the United States (I.e. the federal government) that it cannot discriminate against the holding of office of differing religious beliefs. No where in the decision does it imply that the states cannot under the tenth amendment. In fact, it established that the states could discriminate qualifications for holding office because we are a religious people.

---

States cannot discriminate against individuals. The rights of individuals under the Constitution are also protected at the state level. You can thank the 14th amendment for that. And one part of the reasoning (not even the legal finding) behind one opinion of group of justices from a SCOTUS well over a century ago does not legally define our nation as Christian.

---

Holy Trinity verses the United States was in 1892. That was well after the 14th Amendment. I'm sure SCOTUS was aware of the Constitution that they were and are in charge of interpreting.

They have tried to overturn state abortion laws banning abortion using the 14th amendment. How did that work out?

Plus, we have Holy Trinity legal precedence just in case the 14th amendment violates 1st amendment and 10th amendment rights.

---

The SCOTUS of the late 19th century has been repeatedly overturned over the decades. This is like saying Plessy v. Ferguson was correctly decided since they knew the 14th amendment existed. Given that Holy Trinity was specifically about (and legally binding only in the case of) hiring practices around immigration law, trying to build your theocracy around it isn't going to go very far.

---

Hold on…yeah….i googled it and i have not found any evidence that Holy Trinity was overturned.

Can you please provide a link?