Religion and Ethics

[Carl in Michigan]

Yet you faux 'intellectuals' have yet to post anything remotely critical of bizarre nonsense like Hindusm or Buddhism, the latter the ultimate pursuit of mindless narcissism, you just make lots of noise over over old school Hebrewism and Christianity

That's why I call atheists "God haters." That behavior tells you God is not with thse pagan religions of Satan. Atheists have a special hatred of the One True God.

 

[DudleySmith]

Yet you faux 'intellectuals' have yet to post anything remotely critical of bizarre nonsense like Hindusm or Buddhism, the latter the ultimate pursuit of mindless narcissism, you just make lots of noise over over old school Hebrewism and Christianity

That's why I call atheists "God haters." That behavior tells you God is not with thse pagan religions of Satan. Atheists have a special hatred of the One True God.

They certainly hate Judaism and Christianity, for some reason, but we know the main reasons for that.

 

[schmidlap]

So much that passes as religious debate comes down to atheists - folks who deny the existence of all the gods - vs monotheists - folks who deny the existence of all the gods, with a single exception.

The two sides largely concur concerning the gods.

 

[emilynghiem]

I prefer real ones, since I don't have any personal snivels that require whining and crying over what is in the original and legitimate ones.

Asked and answered then. You see some as "real" and "original." I see others as likely far more current, helpful, and useful to people with real problems. But the old ones remain propped up by the established order to retain their dominion. So we get stuck teaching, promoting, and celebrating long outdated silliness and never adapt to our inevitable growth and change, calling for novel approaches.

So God has told you to write some new books, because he just happens to agree with you on everything? lol okay.

Dear DudleySmith
The Natural laws on Democratic Principles of Self Governance were given to us later, post Bible, through the Constitution especially the Bill of Rights. Then the Fourteenth Amendment extended these equal protections of individual rights to State Government jurisdictions. And the Civil Rights Act expanded these further to public institutions. I would also add the
Code of Ethics for Govt Service as a way for citizens to check against political abuses by conflicting interests and beliefs www.ethics-commission.net

These are the Natural Laws of the secular Gentiles who seek to establish Equal Justice Under Law through Civil and Constitutional laws to ensure Equal Protections, Representation and Due Process for Liberty, Justice and Peace for All.

Do you agree the laws of the Gentiles are not literally in the Bible, but only summarized in the principle of the Golden Rule of treating people equally?

How are Gentiles supposed to manage Govt policy and resolve conflicts if we don't spell out agreed rules for the State and public to follow?

God gave laws for the church to live by, enforce and rebuke by for teaching, corrections, empowerment and development spiritually.

And also created natural laws and gave these in writing to teach, develop and reform systems of govt and representation to manage our physical resources and communities to be self sustaining economies for SOCIAL development in the PHYSICAL world.

What is wrong with having both?

Can't both sets of laws be taught to help both individuals in personal relationships as well as collective institutions, communities and nations with effective healthy commerce and partnerships?

The main difference I find DudleySmith
is secular Nontheists don't call this coming from God or faith in Jesus.

Instead of religious symbolic terms for God Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the liberal Christians and Universalists like me who prefer Natural Laws to communicate might call this Universal Truth, Justice and Peace.

We can speak and prefer different languages for the laws we follow. But the key to success in effective relations and collaborating on sustainable solutions is agreeing on the meaning and basic principles we value equally.

The laws, whether religious or political, serve no purpose if they don't resolve problems or promote common solutions by agreeing on best practices to follow.

These written laws are tools for teaching, correcting and implementing or enforcing COMMON agreed policies, reforms and programs to serve society.

More Conservatives believe in social outreach through church groups, while Liberals want this centralized through Govt.

We can all follow the policies we believe in by practicing what we preach.


So the church and state laws help us organize resources by groups and regions, so everyone can work within the system they relate to and contribute that way.

This isn't to force one system on another.

The point of learning the laws is to organize by common principles, so we stop impositions and competing over conflicts, resolve and agree which groups or leaders focus on what roles, and maximize the best use of our resources, leaders and relationships to manage both spiritually and socially for both individual interests and greater good for the public interest without conflict between the two levels.

 

[Sunsettommy]

How come this thread isn't closed,?

Is there a possibility of moving Religious and Ethics to Zone one?

I'm tired of chasing down trolls that only want to bash religion.

Post one no longer discussed.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yet you faux 'intellectuals' have yet to post anything remotely critical of bizarre nonsense like Hindusm or Buddhism, the latter the ultimate pursuit of mindless narcissism, you just make lots of noise over over old school Hebrewism and Christianity

That's why I call atheists "God haters." That behavior tells you God is not with thse pagan religions of Satan. Atheists have a special hatred of the One True God.

Dear Death Angel and DudleySmith
I find it more accurate to distinguish between
* nontheists who prefer secular terms and reject religious conditions that restrict ability to communicate and relate more generally
* atheists who truly believe there is no God vs agnostics who don't believe or don't thinj this can be proven
* anti-theists who are against the religious proselytizing, monopoly and hypocrisy of Theists particularly Christians who tend to be more publicly dominant

The same way I would distinguish
* Muslims who obey Civil laws and Govt authority the same as Christians who believe in Civil Obedience taught in the Bible which Muslims follow as part of God's laws given by Prophets
* Islamists who mix religion with govt to bypass due process and separation of powers which invites abuse oppression and corruption
* Jihadists and Wahabists who believe in acting as Judge Jury and Executioner by divine authority and wreak Jihad or Spiritual Battles using physical violence and militant force

Not all atheists or nontheists are anti-theists.

Not all Muslims or Islamists are Jihadists or terrorists.

The benefit of agreeing on Christ authority as Restorative Justice is correcting abuses and resolving conflicts by partnering on common solutions. We cannot communicate to work out solutions if we are too busy blaming and fighting over what we mean by the terms we use.

If we want to pinpoint which abuses or problems we want to address, stop and correct, we first need to agree on terms and what we mean by them.

So back to the OP, to stop the derailing and trolling on threads, wouldn't it help to pinpoint what the offenses are causing this rejection, and actually fixing the root cause of these disruptions and attacks?

 

[emilynghiem]

How come this thread isn't closed,?

Is there a possibility of moving Religious and Ethics to Zone one?

I'm tired of chasing down trolls that only want to bash religion.

Post one no longer discussed.

Attempts at pinpointing and addressing the problems are still going on. That may indirectly count as related to the OP and why the trolling happens.

These exchanges will either show good or bad examples of how to derail a thread or how to get back on track, or resolve side issues in the process even if off topic.

That still has value, so maybe it will pass as part of addressing how to respond under R&E to keep things within reason.

 

[Sunsettommy]

How come this thread isn't closed,?

Is there a possibility of moving Religious and Ethics to Zone one?

I'm tired of chasing down trolls that only want to bash religion.

Post one no longer discussed.

Attempts at pinpointing and addressing the problems are still going on. That may indirectly count as related to the OP and why the trolling happens.

These exchanges will either show good or bad examples of how to derail a thread or how to get back on track, or resolve side issues in the process even if off topic.

That still has value, so maybe it will pass as part of addressing how to respond under R&E to keep things within reason.

I think the Moderators already know what to do, two of them indicated a course of action in the thread that could be done, as I endorsed it too in a post.

 

[DudleySmith]

I prefer real ones, since I don't have any personal snivels that require whining and crying over what is in the original and legitimate ones.

Asked and answered then. You see some as "real" and "original." I see others as likely far more current, helpful, and useful to people with real problems. But the old ones remain propped up by the established order to retain their dominion. So we get stuck teaching, promoting, and celebrating long outdated silliness and never adapt to our inevitable growth and change, calling for novel approaches.

So God has told you to write some new books, because he just happens to agree with you on everything? lol okay.

Dear DudleySmith
The Natural laws on Democratic Principles of Self Governance were given to us later, post Bible, through the Constitution especially the Bill of Rights. Then the Fourteenth Amendment extended these equal protections of individual rights to State Government jurisdictions. And the Civil Rights Act expanded these further to public institutions. I would also add the
Code of Ethics for Govt Service as a way for citizens to check against political abuses by conflicting interests and beliefs www.ethics-commission.net

These are the Natural Laws of the secular Gentiles who seek to establish Equal Justice Under Law through Civil and Constitutional laws to ensure Equal Protections, Representation and Due Process for Liberty, Justice and Peace for All.

Do you agree the laws of the Gentiles are not literally in the Bible, but only summarized in the principle of the Golden Rule of treating people equally?

How are Gentiles supposed to manage Govt policy and resolve conflicts if we don't spell out agreed rules for the State and public to follow?

God gave laws for the church to live by, enforce and rebuke by for teaching, corrections, empowerment and development spiritually.

And also created natural laws and gave these in writing to teach, develop and reform systems of govt and representation to manage our physical resources and communities to be self sustaining economies for SOCIAL development in the PHYSICAL world.

What is wrong with having both?

Can't both sets of laws be taught to help both individuals in personal relationships as well as collective institutions, communities and nations with effective healthy commerce and partnerships?

The main difference I find DudleySmith
is secular Nontheists don't call this coming from God or faith in Jesus.

Instead of religious symbolic terms for God Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the liberal Christians and Universalists like me who prefer Natural Laws to communicate might call this Universal Truth, Justice and Peace.

We can speak and prefer different languages for the laws we follow. But the key to success in effective relations and collaborating on sustainable solutions is agreeing on the meaning and basic principles we value equally.

The laws, whether religious or political, serve no purpose if they don't resolve problems or promote common solutions by agreeing on best practices to follow.

These written laws are tools for teaching, correcting and implementing or enforcing COMMON agreed policies, reforms and programs to serve society.

More Conservatives believe in social outreach through church groups, while Liberals want this centralized through Govt.

We can all follow the policies we believe in by practicing what we preach.


So the church and state laws help us organize resources by groups and regions, so everyone can work within the system they relate to and contribute that way.

This isn't to force one system on another.

The point of learning the laws is to organize by common principles, so we stop impositions and competing over conflicts, resolve and agree which groups or leaders focus on what roles, and maximize the best use of our resources, leaders and relationships to manage both spiritually and socially for both individual interests and greater good for the public interest without conflict between the two levels.

A lot of stuff, meaning not much and tries to avoid the obvious. For one, it was the Baptists who invented 'seperation of church and state', and the clause is in our Constitution, and in no way implies we're an atheist or even a secular country; several states, including two of our most liberal states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, kept their established religions long after the Constitution was ratified, and the clause doesn't mean sniveling sociopaths are entitled to have the country free of Christian influences at all levels of government, and no citing something Jefferson said once doesn't change that; Jefferson wasn't even at the Convention, and is only one opinion among thousands that mattered as much as his did at the time.

For two, when issues like abortion come along, or any other issue they choose to weigh in on, Christians are as free as any other citizen, and that includes pastors and ministers, to speak put and oppose issues to their lil hearts' content, and from any podium they choose to oppose it from. There is no 'freedom from religion', no matter how many neurotic sexual fetishists snivel about that, or how many pagan dope heads try and claim otherwise. There are no 'conflicts' here, just ideologues babbling silly 'logic' and using circular reasoning to censor and minimize the fact that the Christian religion still has rights and influence, and the outliers are just another group of commies and deviants tying to off them because they stand in the way of all sorts of neurotic sicko crap and mass murders, like the fact that despite nearly everyone is educated as to 'where babies come from', and multiple methods of avoiding pregnancy, and we all know one method that is 100% effective at avoiding unwanted pregnancies, a lot of amoral losers still think it's okay to murder babies by the 100's of thousands every year for the horrible crime, in the eyes of Burb Brats, of mere inconvenience. People who can't exercise self-restraint should be spayed, not pandered to.

 

[emilynghiem]

I prefer real ones, since I don't have any personal snivels that require whining and crying over what is in the original and legitimate ones.

Asked and answered then. You see some as "real" and "original." I see others as likely far more current, helpful, and useful to people with real problems. But the old ones remain propped up by the established order to retain their dominion. So we get stuck teaching, promoting, and celebrating long outdated silliness and never adapt to our inevitable growth and change, calling for novel approaches.

So God has told you to write some new books, because he just happens to agree with you on everything? lol okay.

Dear DudleySmith
The Natural laws on Democratic Principles of Self Governance were given to us later, post Bible, through the Constitution especially the Bill of Rights. Then the Fourteenth Amendment extended these equal protections of individual rights to State Government jurisdictions. And the Civil Rights Act expanded these further to public institutions. I would also add the
Code of Ethics for Govt Service as a way for citizens to check against political abuses by conflicting interests and beliefs www.ethics-commission.net

These are the Natural Laws of the secular Gentiles who seek to establish Equal Justice Under Law through Civil and Constitutional laws to ensure Equal Protections, Representation and Due Process for Liberty, Justice and Peace for All.

Do you agree the laws of the Gentiles are not literally in the Bible, but only summarized in the principle of the Golden Rule of treating people equally?

How are Gentiles supposed to manage Govt policy and resolve conflicts if we don't spell out agreed rules for the State and public to follow?

God gave laws for the church to live by, enforce and rebuke by for teaching, corrections, empowerment and development spiritually.

And also created natural laws and gave these in writing to teach, develop and reform systems of govt and representation to manage our physical resources and communities to be self sustaining economies for SOCIAL development in the PHYSICAL world.

What is wrong with having both?

Can't both sets of laws be taught to help both individuals in personal relationships as well as collective institutions, communities and nations with effective healthy commerce and partnerships?

The main difference I find DudleySmith
is secular Nontheists don't call this coming from God or faith in Jesus.

Instead of religious symbolic terms for God Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the liberal Christians and Universalists like me who prefer Natural Laws to communicate might call this Universal Truth, Justice and Peace.

We can speak and prefer different languages for the laws we follow. But the key to success in effective relations and collaborating on sustainable solutions is agreeing on the meaning and basic principles we value equally.

The laws, whether religious or political, serve no purpose if they don't resolve problems or promote common solutions by agreeing on best practices to follow.

These written laws are tools for teaching, correcting and implementing or enforcing COMMON agreed policies, reforms and programs to serve society.

More Conservatives believe in social outreach through church groups, while Liberals want this centralized through Govt.

We can all follow the policies we believe in by practicing what we preach.


So the church and state laws help us organize resources by groups and regions, so everyone can work within the system they relate to and contribute that way.

This isn't to force one system on another.

The point of learning the laws is to organize by common principles, so we stop impositions and competing over conflicts, resolve and agree which groups or leaders focus on what roles, and maximize the best use of our resources, leaders and relationships to manage both spiritually and socially for both individual interests and greater good for the public interest without conflict between the two levels.

A lot of stuff, meaning not much and tries to avoid the obvious. For one, it was the Baptists who invented 'seperation of church and state', and the clause is in our Constitution, and in no way implies we're an atheist or even a secular country; several states, including two of our most liberal states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, kept their established religions long after the Constitution was ratified, and the clause doesn't mean sniveling sociopaths are entitled to have the country free of Christian influences at all levels of government, and no citing something Jefferson said once doesn't change that; Jefferson wasn't even at the Convention, and is only one opinion among thousands that mattered as much as his did at the time.

For two, when issues like abortion come along, or any other issue they choose to weigh in on, Christians are as free as any other citizen, and that includes pastors and ministers, to speak put and oppose issues to their lil hearts' content, and from any podium they choose to oppose it from. There is no 'freedom from religion', no matter how many neurotic sexual fetishists snivel about that, or how many pagan dope heads try and claim otherwise. There are no 'conflicts' here, just ideologues babbling silly 'logic' and using circular reasoning to censor and minimize the fact that the Christian religion still has rights and influence, and the outliers are just another group of commies and deviants tying to off them because they stand in the way of all sorts of neurotic sicko crap and mass murders, like the fact that despite nearly everyone is educated as to 'where babies come from', and multiple methods of avoiding pregnancy, and we all know one method that is 100% effective at avoiding unwanted pregnancies, a lot of amoral losers still think it's okay to murder babies by the 100's of thousands every year for the horrible crime, in the eyes of Burb Brats, of mere inconvenience. People who can't exercise self-restraint should be spayed, not pandered to.

Yes, DudleySmith
What I posted is about confirming Constitutional laws that we are supposed to use to keep Govt on track and not abused.

The so called "separation of church and state" basically means people want the right to CONSENT to beliefs and not be forced by Govt to comply with any beliefs established by Govt mandates, ie, neither "established nor prohibited by Govt." The Liberals use a different term for "religious freedom" and also substitute "prochoice" for "individual civil liberty and due process"; and then proceed to abuse these as well to enforce their beliefs while denying the same to others.

Unfortunately, as you point out and I agree, the Liberals (including Christians on the left) are biased in wanting Govt to enforce and mandate THEIR beliefs (such as right to health care and voting rights as unregulated) while calling out against the beliefs of others on the right, when it comes to right to life and beliefs in gun rights as unregulated.

Regardless if the Left calls this "separation of church and state", the Right calls it rights reserved to people and states that federal govt can neither "establish nor prohibit", or the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, or Christian Anarchists call for "consent of the governed" -- the problem is people are abusing Party, Media and Govt to impose "Discrimination by Creed."

Basically colluding by party to bully, harass and abuse Govt to establish ONE political belief that violates the beliefs of others.

I agree the Leftwing lobby contradicts itself calling this "separation of church and state" when they both (1) punish the free exercise of religion of both Constitutionalists and Christians, discriminate by creed by excluding and penalizing (from health care insurance mandates to forcing LGBT beliefs that are faith based), and demonize people and groups for their beliefs (banning the choice of reparative therapy, punishing wealth as a class with taxation without consent, and attacking beliefs in Constitutional limits on federal govt as "greed and wanting to take away people's health care and punish poor people" etc) while (2) establishing their own political beliefs, based on "Statist" dependence on federal govt as their central authority to mandate for the collective will of the people, which they bias toward LGBT beliefs "as a class" while penalizing and excluding Christian and Constitutionalist beliefs, punishing "wealthy as a class" by tax penalties based on their beliefs in redistribution of wealth for social justice, and mandating health care, education and other social services through federal govt by their beliefs this guarantees equal protection of the laws, public security, and govt duty to promote general welfare -- even though this violates Constitutional beliefs in due process before depriving individual liberties, rights of people and states to manage these democratically by local representation, and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed and class.

The main difference I see between the way you express arguments, and how I argue the same things you are saying:
(A)
I am pointing out that Constitutionalism can be used to enforce itself by rebuke, similar to using Christian laws to rebuke fellow church members, where fellow believers like you and me can cite it to go appeal to Democrats in office to address and correct these biases and abuses that violate Constitutional principles, process and beliefs.
and
(B)
Instead of Statists prohibiting Constitutional and Libertarian beliefs, while Constitutionalists attack Liberal and Statist beliefs,
I am asking that we apply Constitutional laws against "establishing or prohibiting" religious beliefs to these different Political Beliefs to separate them from each other. And only use Govt where we agree on beliefs.
This would limit Govt to just the necessary policies and duties that are undisputed.
Everything else we disagree on due to differences in religious and/or political beliefs we can relegate to states or to parties to manage democratically.

The benefit of managing controversial issues such as health care, including either prochoice and prolife beliefs, and school policy including either pro Christian or pro LGBT beliefs, by Party is taxpayers can fund their own policies based on their terms and beliefs without imposing, conflicting or interfering with people of other parties and beliefs.

Liberals will call this separation of church and state, but it will apply equally to their political beliefs.

Libertarians and Anarchists will call it consent of the governed.

Constitutionalists will call it free exercise of religion and rights reserved to people and states.

Greens will call it decentralizing govt and allowing consensus based decisions without coercion by respecting representation by party.

DudleySmith
I believe in the same Christian, Constitutionalist and Conservative arguments and beliefs on the Right as you state. Those are my same grievances against the leftist abuse of both Democratic Party, Liberal bias in media, and Statist abuse of Govt.

But we cannot correct and stop these abuses by excluding Liberals and Democrats and their beliefs.
Instead I am urging that we unite in rebuking the individual wrongdoers by citing either Christian or Constitutional laws where we agree, and this means holding people to their own principles.

This works when we address each other as equally enforcing common principles.

Instead of attacking and rejecting the Christian Left and Constitutional Left, I am asking that we align where we agree, such as wanting cost effective health care and not wasting taxes on corporate or criminal abuses, and then address and correct the problems of waste and abuse by uniting not dividing.

The left is a mess, I agree this division and demonization of the Christian and Constitutional beliefs on the right for politics has enabled and empowered worse abuse and destruction.

We can fix the problems better and faster by uniting Christians on left and right, in order to work out Constitutional corrections and solutions we can agree on, by separating points of conflicting beliefs by party, organizing tax breaks and resources to fund health care and schools by voluntary participation and free choice to invest or donate, and reserving state or federal govt where we agree on public policy.

We may have to separate two administrations of govt to handle internal and external (since Liberal Christians and Conservative believe in Govt duty of general welfare first, while Conservatives believe in Govt duty of national military security while social programs are voluntary through church or nonprofits). And could set up proportional representation by party through electoral college districts, party precincts or city district councils.

What I agree most with you is to stop the politicized bashing and exclusion of either Christian or Constitutional beliefs on the Right.

This also means stopping the bashing and exclusion of beliefs on the Left. Those Statists, Leftists, Liberals, Socialists and other groups have equal rights to exercise and express their beliefs as you and I do.

But we cannot abuse Govt to establish these or force others to fund our beliefs without their consent. The Golden Rule applies to all of us and our beliefs.

I argue we can separate funding by party to allow free exercise of all beliefs, and keep these out of govt except where we agree on policy.

Thanks DudleySmith
I agree with you on 98-99% and just ask
that we use inclusion and alignment, instead of exclusion and rejection, to correct problems and resolve conflicts with the Left in ways that unite us on agreed reforms. That 2% area where we disagree is on how to include the Left in fixing problems so we can address the other 98% without disrupting the process.

It is BECAUSE left and right disagree on the role and limits of govt that there are two schools of political beliefs, which cannot be imposed on each other. Similar to separating Catholic central authority from independent Baptist or Protestant churches and ministries, the left that believes in central Statist authority and the right that believes in rights reserved to people and states may need to elect, fund and follow their own political religions.

We would have to agree on tax laws to support this separation of funding.

Like agreeing to a civil divorce, and having separate households and budgets. Setting that up separately first, so everyone can get what they want through their own party that believes in the same policies to fund and follow. And agreeing to use common govt and public policy for the areas all people, parties and states consent to as representing and protecting everyone equally.

 

[surada]

Yet you faux 'intellectuals' have yet to post anything remotely critical of bizarre nonsense like Hindusm or Buddhism, the latter the ultimate pursuit of mindless narcissism, you just make lots of noise over over old school Hebrewism and Christianity

That's why I call atheists "God haters." That behavior tells you God is not with thse pagan religions of Satan. Atheists have a special hatred of the One True God.

They certainly hate Judaism and Christianity, for some reason, but we know the main reasons for that.

Religious people and Atheists have ethics...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Constitutional Myth #4: The Constitution Doesn't Separate Church and State

America's Founding Fathers may not have included the phrase, but the history is clear—they never wanted a Christian nation

www.theatlantic.com

Celebrate Our Godless Constitution - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Click to enlarge Join FFRFFree Information Make a Donation Sources, with scans of some of the originals Thomas Paine “Whenever we read the...

ffrf.org

 

[DudleySmith]

I prefer real ones, since I don't have any personal snivels that require whining and crying over what is in the original and legitimate ones.

Asked and answered then. You see some as "real" and "original." I see others as likely far more current, helpful, and useful to people with real problems. But the old ones remain propped up by the established order to retain their dominion. So we get stuck teaching, promoting, and celebrating long outdated silliness and never adapt to our inevitable growth and change, calling for novel approaches.

So God has told you to write some new books, because he just happens to agree with you on everything? lol okay.

Dear DudleySmith
The Natural laws on Democratic Principles of Self Governance were given to us later, post Bible, through the Constitution especially the Bill of Rights. Then the Fourteenth Amendment extended these equal protections of individual rights to State Government jurisdictions. And the Civil Rights Act expanded these further to public institutions. I would also add the
Code of Ethics for Govt Service as a way for citizens to check against political abuses by conflicting interests and beliefs www.ethics-commission.net

These are the Natural Laws of the secular Gentiles who seek to establish Equal Justice Under Law through Civil and Constitutional laws to ensure Equal Protections, Representation and Due Process for Liberty, Justice and Peace for All.

Do you agree the laws of the Gentiles are not literally in the Bible, but only summarized in the principle of the Golden Rule of treating people equally?

How are Gentiles supposed to manage Govt policy and resolve conflicts if we don't spell out agreed rules for the State and public to follow?

God gave laws for the church to live by, enforce and rebuke by for teaching, corrections, empowerment and development spiritually.

And also created natural laws and gave these in writing to teach, develop and reform systems of govt and representation to manage our physical resources and communities to be self sustaining economies for SOCIAL development in the PHYSICAL world.

What is wrong with having both?

Can't both sets of laws be taught to help both individuals in personal relationships as well as collective institutions, communities and nations with effective healthy commerce and partnerships?

The main difference I find DudleySmith
is secular Nontheists don't call this coming from God or faith in Jesus.

Instead of religious symbolic terms for God Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the liberal Christians and Universalists like me who prefer Natural Laws to communicate might call this Universal Truth, Justice and Peace.

We can speak and prefer different languages for the laws we follow. But the key to success in effective relations and collaborating on sustainable solutions is agreeing on the meaning and basic principles we value equally.

The laws, whether religious or political, serve no purpose if they don't resolve problems or promote common solutions by agreeing on best practices to follow.

These written laws are tools for teaching, correcting and implementing or enforcing COMMON agreed policies, reforms and programs to serve society.

More Conservatives believe in social outreach through church groups, while Liberals want this centralized through Govt.

We can all follow the policies we believe in by practicing what we preach.


So the church and state laws help us organize resources by groups and regions, so everyone can work within the system they relate to and contribute that way.

This isn't to force one system on another.

The point of learning the laws is to organize by common principles, so we stop impositions and competing over conflicts, resolve and agree which groups or leaders focus on what roles, and maximize the best use of our resources, leaders and relationships to manage both spiritually and socially for both individual interests and greater good for the public interest without conflict between the two levels.

A lot of stuff, meaning not much and tries to avoid the obvious. For one, it was the Baptists who invented 'seperation of church and state', and the clause is in our Constitution, and in no way implies we're an atheist or even a secular country; several states, including two of our most liberal states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, kept their established religions long after the Constitution was ratified, and the clause doesn't mean sniveling sociopaths are entitled to have the country free of Christian influences at all levels of government, and no citing something Jefferson said once doesn't change that; Jefferson wasn't even at the Convention, and is only one opinion among thousands that mattered as much as his did at the time.

For two, when issues like abortion come along, or any other issue they choose to weigh in on, Christians are as free as any other citizen, and that includes pastors and ministers, to speak put and oppose issues to their lil hearts' content, and from any podium they choose to oppose it from. There is no 'freedom from religion', no matter how many neurotic sexual fetishists snivel about that, or how many pagan dope heads try and claim otherwise. There are no 'conflicts' here, just ideologues babbling silly 'logic' and using circular reasoning to censor and minimize the fact that the Christian religion still has rights and influence, and the outliers are just another group of commies and deviants tying to off them because they stand in the way of all sorts of neurotic sicko crap and mass murders, like the fact that despite nearly everyone is educated as to 'where babies come from', and multiple methods of avoiding pregnancy, and we all know one method that is 100% effective at avoiding unwanted pregnancies, a lot of amoral losers still think it's okay to murder babies by the 100's of thousands every year for the horrible crime, in the eyes of Burb Brats, of mere inconvenience. People who can't exercise self-restraint should be spayed, not pandered to.

Yes, DudleySmith
What I posted is about confirming Constitutional laws that we are supposed to use to keep Govt on track and not abused.

The so called "separation of church and state" basically means people want the right to CONSENT to beliefs and not be forced by Govt to comply with any beliefs established by Govt mandates, ie, neither "established nor prohibited by Govt." The Liberals use a different term for "religious freedom" and also substitute "prochoice" for "individual civil liberty and due process"; and then proceed to abuse these as well to enforce their beliefs while denying the same to others.

Unfortunately, as you point out and I agree, the Liberals (including Christians on the left) are biased in wanting Govt to enforce and mandate THEIR beliefs (such as right to health care and voting rights as unregulated) while calling out against the beliefs of others on the right, when it comes to right to life and beliefs in gun rights as unregulated.

Regardless if the Left calls this "separation of church and state", the Right calls it rights reserved to people and states that federal govt can neither "establish nor prohibit", or the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, or Christian Anarchists call for "consent of the governed" -- the problem is people are abusing Party, Media and Govt to impose "Discrimination by Creed."

Basically colluding by party to bully, harass and abuse Govt to establish ONE political belief that violates the beliefs of others.

I agree the Leftwing lobby contradicts itself calling this "separation of church and state" when they both (1) punish the free exercise of religion of both Constitutionalists and Christians, discriminate by creed by excluding and penalizing (from health care insurance mandates to forcing LGBT beliefs that are faith based), and demonize people and groups for their beliefs (banning the choice of reparative therapy, punishing wealth as a class with taxation without consent, and attacking beliefs in Constitutional limits on federal govt as "greed and wanting to take away people's health care and punish poor people" etc) while (2) establishing their own political beliefs, based on "Statist" dependence on federal govt as their central authority to mandate for the collective will of the people, which they bias toward LGBT beliefs "as a class" while penalizing and excluding Christian and Constitutionalist beliefs, punishing "wealthy as a class" by tax penalties based on their beliefs in redistribution of wealth for social justice, and mandating health care, education and other social services through federal govt by their beliefs this guarantees equal protection of the laws, public security, and govt duty to promote general welfare -- even though this violates Constitutional beliefs in due process before depriving individual liberties, rights of people and states to manage these democratically by local representation, and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed and class.

The main difference I see between the way you express arguments, and how I argue the same things you are saying:
(A)
I am pointing out that Constitutionalism can be used to enforce itself by rebuke, similar to using Christian laws to rebuke fellow church members, where fellow believers like you and me can cite it to go appeal to Democrats in office to address and correct these biases and abuses that violate Constitutional principles, process and beliefs.
and
(B)
Instead of Statists prohibiting Constitutional and Libertarian beliefs, while Constitutionalists attack Liberal and Statist beliefs,
I am asking that we apply Constitutional laws against "establishing or prohibiting" religious beliefs to these different Political Beliefs to separate them from each other. And only use Govt where we agree on beliefs.
This would limit Govt to just the necessary policies and duties that are undisputed.
Everything else we disagree on due to differences in religious and/or political beliefs we can relegate to states or to parties to manage democratically.

The benefit of managing controversial issues such as health care, including either prochoice and prolife beliefs, and school policy including either pro Christian or pro LGBT beliefs, by Party is taxpayers can fund their own policies based on their terms and beliefs without imposing, conflicting or interfering with people of other parties and beliefs.

Liberals will call this separation of church and state, but it will apply equally to their political beliefs.

Libertarians and Anarchists will call it consent of the governed.

Constitutionalists will call it free exercise of religion and rights reserved to people and states.

Greens will call it decentralizing govt and allowing consensus based decisions without coercion by respecting representation by party.

DudleySmith
I believe in the same Christian, Constitutionalist and Conservative arguments and beliefs on the Right as you state. Those are my same grievances against the leftist abuse of both Democratic Party, Liberal bias in media, and Statist abuse of Govt.

But we cannot correct and stop these abuses by excluding Liberals and Democrats and their beliefs.
Instead I am urging that we unite in rebuking the individual wrongdoers by citing either Christian or Constitutional laws where we agree, and this means holding people to their own principles.

This works when we address each other as equally enforcing common principles.

Instead of attacking and rejecting the Christian Left and Constitutional Left, I am asking that we align where we agree, such as wanting cost effective health care and not wasting taxes on corporate or criminal abuses, and then address and correct the problems of waste and abuse by uniting not dividing.

The left is a mess, I agree this division and demonization of the Christian and Constitutional beliefs on the right for politics has enabled and empowered worse abuse and destruction.

We can fix the problems better and faster by uniting Christians on left and right, in order to work out Constitutional corrections and solutions we can agree on, by separating points of conflicting beliefs by party, organizing tax breaks and resources to fund health care and schools by voluntary participation and free choice to invest or donate, and reserving state or federal govt where we agree on public policy.

We may have to separate two administrations of govt to handle internal and external (since Liberal Christians and Conservative believe in Govt duty of general welfare first, while Conservatives believe in Govt duty of national military security while social programs are voluntary through church or nonprofits). And could set up proportional representation by party through electoral college districts, party precincts or city district councils.

What I agree most with you is to stop the politicized bashing and exclusion of either Christian or Constitutional beliefs on the Right.

This also means stopping the bashing and exclusion of beliefs on the Left. Those Statists, Leftists, Liberals, Socialists and other groups have equal rights to exercise and express their beliefs as you and I do.

But we cannot abuse Govt to establish these or force others to fund our beliefs without their consent. The Golden Rule applies to all of us and our beliefs.

I argue we can separate funding by party to allow free exercise of all beliefs, and keep these out of govt except where we agree on policy.

Thanks DudleySmith
I agree with you on 98-99% and just ask
that we use inclusion and alignment, instead of exclusion and rejection, to correct problems and resolve conflicts with the Left in ways that unite us on agreed reforms. That 2% area where we disagree is on how to include the Left in fixing problems so we can address the other 98% without disrupting the process.

More rubbish. The establishment clause protects Christianity from the Federal government, not the other way around. And yes, we can indeed use laws to 'oppress' people; we don't have 'tolerate' people who get off on rapes, torture, or murders, or screwing kiddies, like the homosexual rights movement advocated, for instance. The 'left' has never been about 'fixing problems', they've always been about tearing systems and traditions down and placing totalitarian powers in their own hands. Just because there are a lot of dumbass right wingers and amoral sociopaths among the elites doesn't somehow make leftist rubbish valid. As we see quite clearly these days, they're just a front for criminal syndicates and violent racists, making heroes out of scum like Floyd and the rest of their street vermin.

 

[DudleySmith]

Constitutional Myth #4: The Constitution Doesn't Separate Church and State

America's Founding Fathers may not have included the phrase, but the history is clear—they never wanted a Christian nation

www.theatlantic.com

Celebrate Our Godless Constitution - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Click to enlarge Join FFRFFree Information Make a Donation Sources, with scans of some of the originals Thomas Paine “Whenever we read the...

ffrf.org

Ah yes, yet another pile of pseudo-intellectual rubbish, selectively quoting three or four people out of some 5,000 others in order to fabricate some non-existent 'consensus' to make modern halfwits feel good about being deviants and narcissist sociopaths.

 

[emilynghiem]

I prefer real ones, since I don't have any personal snivels that require whining and crying over what is in the original and legitimate ones.

Asked and answered then. You see some as "real" and "original." I see others as likely far more current, helpful, and useful to people with real problems. But the old ones remain propped up by the established order to retain their dominion. So we get stuck teaching, promoting, and celebrating long outdated silliness and never adapt to our inevitable growth and change, calling for novel approaches.

So God has told you to write some new books, because he just happens to agree with you on everything? lol okay.

Dear DudleySmith
The Natural laws on Democratic Principles of Self Governance were given to us later, post Bible, through the Constitution especially the Bill of Rights. Then the Fourteenth Amendment extended these equal protections of individual rights to State Government jurisdictions. And the Civil Rights Act expanded these further to public institutions. I would also add the
Code of Ethics for Govt Service as a way for citizens to check against political abuses by conflicting interests and beliefs www.ethics-commission.net

These are the Natural Laws of the secular Gentiles who seek to establish Equal Justice Under Law through Civil and Constitutional laws to ensure Equal Protections, Representation and Due Process for Liberty, Justice and Peace for All.

Do you agree the laws of the Gentiles are not literally in the Bible, but only summarized in the principle of the Golden Rule of treating people equally?

How are Gentiles supposed to manage Govt policy and resolve conflicts if we don't spell out agreed rules for the State and public to follow?

God gave laws for the church to live by, enforce and rebuke by for teaching, corrections, empowerment and development spiritually.

And also created natural laws and gave these in writing to teach, develop and reform systems of govt and representation to manage our physical resources and communities to be self sustaining economies for SOCIAL development in the PHYSICAL world.

What is wrong with having both?

Can't both sets of laws be taught to help both individuals in personal relationships as well as collective institutions, communities and nations with effective healthy commerce and partnerships?

The main difference I find DudleySmith
is secular Nontheists don't call this coming from God or faith in Jesus.

Instead of religious symbolic terms for God Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the liberal Christians and Universalists like me who prefer Natural Laws to communicate might call this Universal Truth, Justice and Peace.

We can speak and prefer different languages for the laws we follow. But the key to success in effective relations and collaborating on sustainable solutions is agreeing on the meaning and basic principles we value equally.

The laws, whether religious or political, serve no purpose if they don't resolve problems or promote common solutions by agreeing on best practices to follow.

These written laws are tools for teaching, correcting and implementing or enforcing COMMON agreed policies, reforms and programs to serve society.

More Conservatives believe in social outreach through church groups, while Liberals want this centralized through Govt.

We can all follow the policies we believe in by practicing what we preach.


So the church and state laws help us organize resources by groups and regions, so everyone can work within the system they relate to and contribute that way.

This isn't to force one system on another.

The point of learning the laws is to organize by common principles, so we stop impositions and competing over conflicts, resolve and agree which groups or leaders focus on what roles, and maximize the best use of our resources, leaders and relationships to manage both spiritually and socially for both individual interests and greater good for the public interest without conflict between the two levels.

A lot of stuff, meaning not much and tries to avoid the obvious. For one, it was the Baptists who invented 'seperation of church and state', and the clause is in our Constitution, and in no way implies we're an atheist or even a secular country; several states, including two of our most liberal states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, kept their established religions long after the Constitution was ratified, and the clause doesn't mean sniveling sociopaths are entitled to have the country free of Christian influences at all levels of government, and no citing something Jefferson said once doesn't change that; Jefferson wasn't even at the Convention, and is only one opinion among thousands that mattered as much as his did at the time.

For two, when issues like abortion come along, or any other issue they choose to weigh in on, Christians are as free as any other citizen, and that includes pastors and ministers, to speak put and oppose issues to their lil hearts' content, and from any podium they choose to oppose it from. There is no 'freedom from religion', no matter how many neurotic sexual fetishists snivel about that, or how many pagan dope heads try and claim otherwise. There are no 'conflicts' here, just ideologues babbling silly 'logic' and using circular reasoning to censor and minimize the fact that the Christian religion still has rights and influence, and the outliers are just another group of commies and deviants tying to off them because they stand in the way of all sorts of neurotic sicko crap and mass murders, like the fact that despite nearly everyone is educated as to 'where babies come from', and multiple methods of avoiding pregnancy, and we all know one method that is 100% effective at avoiding unwanted pregnancies, a lot of amoral losers still think it's okay to murder babies by the 100's of thousands every year for the horrible crime, in the eyes of Burb Brats, of mere inconvenience. People who can't exercise self-restraint should be spayed, not pandered to.

Yes, DudleySmith
What I posted is about confirming Constitutional laws that we are supposed to use to keep Govt on track and not abused.

The so called "separation of church and state" basically means people want the right to CONSENT to beliefs and not be forced by Govt to comply with any beliefs established by Govt mandates, ie, neither "established nor prohibited by Govt." The Liberals use a different term for "religious freedom" and also substitute "prochoice" for "individual civil liberty and due process"; and then proceed to abuse these as well to enforce their beliefs while denying the same to others.

Unfortunately, as you point out and I agree, the Liberals (including Christians on the left) are biased in wanting Govt to enforce and mandate THEIR beliefs (such as right to health care and voting rights as unregulated) while calling out against the beliefs of others on the right, when it comes to right to life and beliefs in gun rights as unregulated.

Regardless if the Left calls this "separation of church and state", the Right calls it rights reserved to people and states that federal govt can neither "establish nor prohibit", or the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, or Christian Anarchists call for "consent of the governed" -- the problem is people are abusing Party, Media and Govt to impose "Discrimination by Creed."

Basically colluding by party to bully, harass and abuse Govt to establish ONE political belief that violates the beliefs of others.

I agree the Leftwing lobby contradicts itself calling this "separation of church and state" when they both (1) punish the free exercise of religion of both Constitutionalists and Christians, discriminate by creed by excluding and penalizing (from health care insurance mandates to forcing LGBT beliefs that are faith based), and demonize people and groups for their beliefs (banning the choice of reparative therapy, punishing wealth as a class with taxation without consent, and attacking beliefs in Constitutional limits on federal govt as "greed and wanting to take away people's health care and punish poor people" etc) while (2) establishing their own political beliefs, based on "Statist" dependence on federal govt as their central authority to mandate for the collective will of the people, which they bias toward LGBT beliefs "as a class" while penalizing and excluding Christian and Constitutionalist beliefs, punishing "wealthy as a class" by tax penalties based on their beliefs in redistribution of wealth for social justice, and mandating health care, education and other social services through federal govt by their beliefs this guarantees equal protection of the laws, public security, and govt duty to promote general welfare -- even though this violates Constitutional beliefs in due process before depriving individual liberties, rights of people and states to manage these democratically by local representation, and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed and class.

The main difference I see between the way you express arguments, and how I argue the same things you are saying:
(A)
I am pointing out that Constitutionalism can be used to enforce itself by rebuke, similar to using Christian laws to rebuke fellow church members, where fellow believers like you and me can cite it to go appeal to Democrats in office to address and correct these biases and abuses that violate Constitutional principles, process and beliefs.
and
(B)
Instead of Statists prohibiting Constitutional and Libertarian beliefs, while Constitutionalists attack Liberal and Statist beliefs,
I am asking that we apply Constitutional laws against "establishing or prohibiting" religious beliefs to these different Political Beliefs to separate them from each other. And only use Govt where we agree on beliefs.
This would limit Govt to just the necessary policies and duties that are undisputed.
Everything else we disagree on due to differences in religious and/or political beliefs we can relegate to states or to parties to manage democratically.

The benefit of managing controversial issues such as health care, including either prochoice and prolife beliefs, and school policy including either pro Christian or pro LGBT beliefs, by Party is taxpayers can fund their own policies based on their terms and beliefs without imposing, conflicting or interfering with people of other parties and beliefs.

Liberals will call this separation of church and state, but it will apply equally to their political beliefs.

Libertarians and Anarchists will call it consent of the governed.

Constitutionalists will call it free exercise of religion and rights reserved to people and states.

Greens will call it decentralizing govt and allowing consensus based decisions without coercion by respecting representation by party.

DudleySmith
I believe in the same Christian, Constitutionalist and Conservative arguments and beliefs on the Right as you state. Those are my same grievances against the leftist abuse of both Democratic Party, Liberal bias in media, and Statist abuse of Govt.

But we cannot correct and stop these abuses by excluding Liberals and Democrats and their beliefs.
Instead I am urging that we unite in rebuking the individual wrongdoers by citing either Christian or Constitutional laws where we agree, and this means holding people to their own principles.

This works when we address each other as equally enforcing common principles.

Instead of attacking and rejecting the Christian Left and Constitutional Left, I am asking that we align where we agree, such as wanting cost effective health care and not wasting taxes on corporate or criminal abuses, and then address and correct the problems of waste and abuse by uniting not dividing.

The left is a mess, I agree this division and demonization of the Christian and Constitutional beliefs on the right for politics has enabled and empowered worse abuse and destruction.

We can fix the problems better and faster by uniting Christians on left and right, in order to work out Constitutional corrections and solutions we can agree on, by separating points of conflicting beliefs by party, organizing tax breaks and resources to fund health care and schools by voluntary participation and free choice to invest or donate, and reserving state or federal govt where we agree on public policy.

We may have to separate two administrations of govt to handle internal and external (since Liberal Christians and Conservative believe in Govt duty of general welfare first, while Conservatives believe in Govt duty of national military security while social programs are voluntary through church or nonprofits). And could set up proportional representation by party through electoral college districts, party precincts or city district councils.

What I agree most with you is to stop the politicized bashing and exclusion of either Christian or Constitutional beliefs on the Right.

This also means stopping the bashing and exclusion of beliefs on the Left. Those Statists, Leftists, Liberals, Socialists and other groups have equal rights to exercise and express their beliefs as you and I do.

But we cannot abuse Govt to establish these or force others to fund our beliefs without their consent. The Golden Rule applies to all of us and our beliefs.

I argue we can separate funding by party to allow free exercise of all beliefs, and keep these out of govt except where we agree on policy.

Thanks DudleySmith
I agree with you on 98-99% and just ask
that we use inclusion and alignment, instead of exclusion and rejection, to correct problems and resolve conflicts with the Left in ways that unite us on agreed reforms. That 2% area where we disagree is on how to include the Left in fixing problems so we can address the other 98% without disrupting the process.

More rubbish. The establishment clause protects Christianity from the Federal government, not the other way around. And yes, we can indeed use laws to 'oppress' people; we don't have 'tolerate' people who get off on rapes, torture, or murders, or screwing kiddies, like the homosexual rights movement advocated, for instance. The 'left' has never been about 'fixing problems', they've always been about tearing systems and traditions down and placing totalitarian powers in their own hands. Just because there are a lot of dumbass right wingers and amoral sociopaths among the elites doesn't somehow make leftist rubbish valid. As we see quite clearly these days, they're just a front for criminal syndicates and violent racists, making heroes out of scum like Floyd and the rest of their street vermin.

Both DudleySmith
First Amendment guarantees Govt neither ESTABLISHES nor PROHIBITS beliefs ie but by CONSENT of the people.

If we CONSENT to have prayer in the schools, or let Crosses be displayed on public property, no problem.

But if people do not consent, we need separation of funding and jurisdiction.

That is Natural Law DudleySmith

Nobody can be forced to endorse, comply with or change beliefs without their free will.

Not even God can make you change unless you consent. Human nature.

And if Govt gets abused to establish beliefs against the will of the people, you end up with protests or taking up arms, lawsuits or other rebuttal, rebuke or reform by petitioning to redress grievances.

That is natural reaction to defend one's freedom and liberty from being oppressed politically.

That is the nature of conscience God gave us to learn and make decisions by reason and free will. That is why God in His wisdom gave us democratic laws of governance and due process to defend individual freedom from collective abuse of govt that tends toward collective imposition.

There is NO PROBLEM with defending and protecting Christianity. But it still means practicing it by free choice, not by regulating or forcing it by Govt.

Ironically, I am used to arguing this with progressives on the left, who want to mandate their beliefs that Christianity means tithing to Govt to take care of the poor, sick and needy.

I say the same thing to them that I'm saying to you: Constitutional religious freedom protects our right to exercise and fund what we believe. But that's not the same as abusing Govt "to establish, impose or mandate" those beliefs for everyone as public policy.

DudleySmith
A key example of faith based principles we do allow Govt to establish because we all agree and nobody contest this:
The concept of Justice, of Equal Justice Under Law is inherently faith based. Nobody I know has seen this ideal. We believe it as the standard and judge by it and ask and demand it. But it is based on faith that it exists, and we call it by different names.

Liberals call it Social Justice and demand Peace and Justice.

Conservatives call it Equal Justice by Rule of Law, and Christians believe in Jesus as Authority of Justice and Peace as the Holy Spirit.

Justice is "faith based" but we AGREE to administer this through Govt.

So DudleySmith
What is missing is CONSENT.
If we AGREE on faith based beliefs, we don't contest or reject them from being endorsed through Govt based on arguing it violates the establishment clause.

If we AGREE on terms of marriage, social security or health care, then we don't argue against Govt regulating those. But where we DISAGREE on beliefs, then we reject contrary policies based on religious freedom or discrimination by creed defenses.

Govt can neither mandate Christianity any more than LGBT beliefs, neither Statism nor Libertarianism. People must remain free to choose to fund or follow their beliefs, for the system to work equally for everyone.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yet you faux 'intellectuals' have yet to post anything remotely critical of bizarre nonsense like Hindusm or Buddhism, the latter the ultimate pursuit of mindless narcissism, you just make lots of noise over over old school Hebrewism and Christianity

That's why I call atheists "God haters." That behavior tells you God is not with thse pagan religions of Satan. Atheists have a special hatred of the One True God.

They certainly hate Judaism and Christianity, for some reason, but we know the main reasons for that.

Religious people and Atheists have ethics...

Dear surada
Everyone has their own built in system of motivations, morals and ethics.
The key is to speak the same language to communicate on the same page with each other.

And to tie the proposed change, reform or correction, or solution to interests or beliefs that person already wants, badly enough to justify the amount of effort required.

In scriptwriting, this is called determining the FEARS or WANTS of a person to define their character. What are the driving morals of what they want or believe SHOULD be done because of greater good or benefits, versus what violates ethical principles of what CANNOT or should not be done because it causes harm.

Both religions teach do's and don'ts, and political beliefs dictate what Govt should do or not do.

Regardless of language, or what people's beliefs, biases or preferences are, the point of different systems is we can use these to communicate and reach agreement on policies. (Even Grumblenuts
and DudleySmith
don't agree on the Constitution being inspired by God and Natural Laws as the Source, or if this is secular and godless) But we can still use the process to work through areas where each person AGREES or DISAGREES, and shape public policy by consensus.

surada
One area I am most curious about, when you say both Religious and Atheist people have ethics, I find the factor of forgiveness correlates with ability to communicate and resolve conflicts between people regardless of faith or political affiliation.
Is forgiveness purely a moral issue?
If it benefits people in facilitating healing of injury or injustice, restoring healthy minds bodies and relationships, and expediting solutions to problems otherwise obstructed by division over conflicts.

Or could unforgiveness become an ethical issue because it divides people by warring groups, refusing to correct and collaborate on solving problems, by causing them to compete to exclude or override each other, thus violating "equal protection of laws" by "discrimination by creed."

If we could prove medically or mathematically that:
* forgiveness correlates with inclusive ability to solve problems and restore relations by agreeing on solutions (and with higher rates of successful recovery and healing of either physical, mental or social ills)
* unforgiveness correlates with failure to reconcile and include equal representation of opposing groups (and higher rates of failure in healing, recovery and rehabilitation)

Could science and faith agree?
Could we use both to reach agreement on church and state policies by proving the process of restorative justice (instead of merely preaching it using religious symbolism).

 

[Carl in Michigan]

For one, it was the Baptists who invented 'seperation of church and state', and the clause is in our Constitution

No it isnt.

 

[DudleySmith]

For one, it was the Baptists who invented 'seperation of church and state', and the clause is in our Constitution

No it isnt.

Yes, the establishment clause is very much in our constitution. It's hard to miss.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

For one, it was the Baptists who invented 'seperation of church and state', and the clause is in our Constitution

No it isnt.

Yes, the establishment clause is very much in our constitution. It's hard to miss.

Then you dont understand it.

The term separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution.

The soul purpose of the Constitution is to define the LIMITS OF GOVERNMENT. Nothing more.

 

[Justin Richardson]

What is Zone 1? The Red Light District?