emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions. So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion. Your definition is NT law. I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery. Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine). Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian. You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible. There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and (translations) a) kissed; b) chastely kissed on the cheek; c) shook hands. Some translations recognize several same sex relationships. Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie. Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century. That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.
B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.
so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.
C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.
Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.
They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.
And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.
I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.
B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage
C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!
Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing
If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."
Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.
Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.
Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.
You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.
Dear Sneekin
1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?
In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?
In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.
You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.
These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.
2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.
Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?
We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.
Dear Sneekin
1. If you only follow OT law that allows for slavery
and don't follow anything else, then how are you going to claim
religious freedom under the Constitution that isn't in the OT?
Clearly you are invoking other laws OUTSIDE if you are defending your own religion
by the Constitution.
2. by natural laws, whatever religion you are using,
I use that to rebuke you by.
3. and for Christians using different laws or interpretations,
again, for each person I use THEIR system THEY use.
so for each person on earth, and in history, each may have
their OWN principles or standards they answer to.
The atheist answers to their own standards of proof or logic
which may differ from other atheists or secular humanists with
as many variations as there are people who are each unique.
By natural laws, if you are consistent using your own system
then there is no conflict.
I find it is only when we cannot forgive and correct our own
conflicts then we project them on each other and say the problem is the other person.
It is usually a case of removing splinters and beams from our own
eyes at the same time we help a neighbor do the same.
The biases are usually mutual, and I find it take equal give and take
between both people to resolve any conflict they find between them.
People are generally equal. With strengths and weaknesses in different
areas that check and balance each other, where we help each other out.