Well, separation of church and state was nice while it lasted

[Questerr]

Has been so in the past, yes, but not all Christians, no.

It's not a matter of sin for some of us, it's a matter of life.

Unless that life is born, then Christians don’t care if they die and will fight against laws that help people.

 

[Visbek]

The separation of Church and State is not the separation of God and State, no matter how atheist want that to be so.

It doesn't mean that, for example, a legislator can be guided by religious beliefs.

However, it does mean that a judge has to enforce the law, not his own religious morals.

AND, freedom of religion is not freedom FROM religion.

Uhhh... Yes, it is. The state cannot impose a religion on the populace.

Religion does not mean CHURCH and it never did....

Yes, it did. The goal was to ensure that the state cannot impose a religion, including participation in a church, on citizens.

Because some Justice cited his belief in God in a legal ruling is not a Church, he is free to bring his religion with him wherever he goes if that is the bases of his morality so be it.

No. He isn't.

He is required by his oath to put the law of the land above his personal religious beliefs. He cannot arbitrarily decide that it is illegal to operate a store on Sunday, because his religion observes the sabbath on Sundays, if no such law exists.

The people of Alabama can seek to overturn this ruling as it only effect the laws of the state of Alabama, but you and I both know that isn't likely to happen.

Really? We've seen conservative state after conservative state vote for pro-choice referendums. Be careful what you ask for.

 

[Questerr]

Has been so in the past, yes, but not all Christians, no.

It's not a matter of sin for some of us, it's a matter of life.

Blasphemy is a sin in Christianity. So clearly, Christians should support laws against it, yes?

Or does the Constitution trump God?

 

[SuperDS77]

So Christians support making everything they see as a sin illegal, yes?

No. This is a lie perpetrated by anti-Christian leftists.

 

[Questerr]

No. This is a lie perpetrated by anti-Christian leftists.

The poster I was replying to was just saying that Christian works require supporting laws banning things Christians oppose.

 

[SuperDS77]

The poster I was replying to was just saying that Christian works require supporting laws banning things Christians oppose.

OK, but that most definitely does NOT include EVERYTHING that is considered "sin".

Morality comes from somewhere. Many laws supported by secularists come from their worldview influenced by one thing or another. Perhaps just random evolution of thought.

 

[Lursa]

Nobody said you had to be a Christian, but you can not stop us from voting for laws and politicians who can select judges based on our faith, now can you?

Yes I know...and thus you try to force God's Will on people...against the Const and His Will.

God gave us all free will and it's a huge sin to usurp His Authority and try to use man's law to impose His Will on us when He specifically said not to.

We are supposed to share His Word...not usurp His Authority.

And yes, I'm a practicing Christian. Grew up in a protestant church with Sunday School teacher parents.

 

[nvflash]

Unless that life is born, then Christians don’t care if they die and will fight against laws that help people.

Don't put your words into my faith.

We do not believe in charity through government, no. Because that is a matter for Church, not State. You are forcing us to give offering at the Church of your God( Government ) in the name of "helping" people.

I see a lot of killing people going on, I see a lot of feeding people going on, but I don't see a lot of helping people going on.

How many people needed foodstamps when the program was created?

How many people rely on it now?

Is feeding people helping them, or is teaching them to feed themselves helping them?

Lots of "helping" babies pay for their abortions tho.

 

[Lursa]

Has been so in the past, yes, but not all Christians, no.

It's not a matter of sin for some of us, it's a matter of life.

Which of your Christian beliefs are you denied practicing? You. As an individual Christian?

 

[vanceen]

Blasphemy is a sin in Christianity. So clearly, Christians should support laws against it, yes?

Or does the Constitution trump God?

Not to be impolite, but that is a very simple minded argument.

Any Christian who reasons that anything sinful should be against the law is using the same simple minded argument. But very few do.

 

[Lursa]

I see two aspects to this.

First, there is the decision itself. It is entirely possible to arrive at the conclusion that embryos are human life

This is a fact, it's basic biology, it's an individual human life, Homo sapiens, from fertilization/implantation. Science is objective, recognizes no rights or value for any species.

and worthy of protection without reference to any religious ideas at all, let alone any specifically Christian ideas. I have known committed atheists who were strongly anti-abortion. There is no scripture or Christian doctrine that explicitly and specifically speaks to the value of life before birth.

Correct, all subjective value judgements by man.

Second, there is the wording that the judge used. As a Christian supporter of the First Amendment, I think the reasoning and citations used by the judge were completely inappropriate. They put him squarely in the position of establishment of a favored religion. This ruling will not stand appeal.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

America is facing a threat of biblical proportion: The rise of Christian nationalism

Christian nationalism is thriving in the Trump era.

thehill.com

A gigantic pile of horse-dung.

The ALSC ruling has to do with the long-standing AL law that allows parents of a deceased child to receive punitive damages for their child’s wrongful death, in- or extra-uterine.
This ruling applied the law to frozen embryos because the law does not make an exception for unborn children located outside the uterus – that is, it applies to all born and unborn children regardless of their location.
For the purposes of this law, the frozen embryo has the same legal protection as an in-uterine child or an extra-uterine child.

Has nothing to do with abortion, has nothing to to with Christianity, does not relate to or apply to Alabama's abortion laws and does not relate to Roe v Wade or Dobbs.

 

[Lursa]

OK, but that most definitely does NOT include EVERYTHING that is considered "sin".

Morality comes from somewhere. Many laws supported by secularists come from their worldview influenced by one thing or another. Perhaps just random evolution of thought.

Communities all over the world find many "morals" in common and a common thread in their development was the effects the actions had on the overall health and cohesiveness of the society. For example, cheating on a spouse is usually frowned on...it destabilizes a family unit, causes strife, may father children with no obligation to care for them, etc.

 

[nvflash]

Blasphemy is a sin in Christianity. So clearly, Christians should support laws against it, yes?

Or does the Constitution trump God?

See you conflate your beliefs of my religion upon "Christians".

Just like everyone else, it's very hard to get two Christians to agree on anything.

We pick and chose what speaks to us, that's how you read the Bible. If the word moves you to act, you move, if it doesn't you come back and try to understand it later.

If god wants to punish blasphemy he can, my falling to act won't kill any babies.

 

[Lursa]

Their right to life was forfeit for their actions.

What action did the baby commit in the womb to forfeit it's right to life?

What action did the woman commit to forfeit her life or health or potential future? 9 months of pregnancy can require sacrifices that change the entire course of a woman's life...or even end it.

Those are all the same things that apply to the unborn...why is it more entitled to those things than the woman? She did nothing wrong.

 

[Questerr]

OK, but that most definitely does NOT include EVERYTHING that is considered "sin".

Morality comes from somewhere. Many laws supported by secularists come from their worldview influenced by one thing or another. Perhaps just random evolution of thought.

And secularists don’t have to appeal to mythology for why laws should exist.

 

[Questerr]

Don't put your words into my faith.

We do not believe in charity through government, no. Because that is a matter for Church, not State. You are forcing us to give offering at the Church of your God( Government ) in the name of "helping" people.

I see a lot of killing people going on, I see a lot of feeding people going on, but I don't see a lot of helping people going on.

How many people needed foodstamps when the program was created?

How many people rely on it now?

Is feeding people helping them, or is teaching them to feed themselves helping them?

Lots of "helping" babies pay for their abortions tho.

And when churches fail to help people, sucks to be them?

 

[Questerr]

Not to be impolite, but that is a very simple minded argument.

Any Christian who reasons that anything sinful should be against the law is using the same simple minded argument. But very few do.

Simple arguments are often the best.

 

[Questerr]

See you conflate your beliefs of my religion upon "Christians".

Just like everyone else, it's very hard to get two Christians to agree on anything.

We pick and chose what speaks to us, that's how you read the Bible. If the word moves you to act, you move, if it doesn't you come back and try to understand it later.

If god wants to punish blasphemy he can, my falling to act won't kill any babies.

So Christians don’t have to pass laws that ban things they don’t like as part of their “works”? The Constitution can trump God?

 

[vanceen]

Simple arguments are often the best.

There's a difference between simple and simple minded.

The reasoning "Christians oppose sin, so they want to make everything sinful illegal" is adding two plus two and getting five.

 

[Lursa]

No, show me where he cited a specific passage from the New Testament?

That doesnt refute what I wrote...please dont answer with another question.

 

[SuperDS77]

And secularists don’t have to appeal to mythology for why laws should exist.

Tell us, to what or whom do the secularists make their appeal as to why laws should exist?

 

[Plasmaball]

The separation of Church and State is not the separation of God and State, no matter how atheist want that to be so.

AND, freedom of religion is not freedom FROM religion.

Yes it is. Keep your religion in your pants as I say.
It goes both ways. You can't create laws based off religion. Our laws are not made from religion but you have the right to practice your religion freely.
Thats how it works. Thats how its always worked. If you want a fundy government go to the middle east.

Religion does not mean CHURCH and it never did, it did not mean CHURCH when Jefferson coined the term Separation of Church and State, that actually appears nowhere in the US Constitution.

Case law

I believe in the Separation of Church and State as most Americans do, not the separation of religion and State. No Church can gain any advantage over any other, or "should" be able to under our Constitution, but we both know that has happed plenty in our past, just ask a mormon.

Because some Justice cited his belief in God in a legal ruling is not a Church, he is free to bring his religion with him wherever he goes if that is the bases of his morality so be it. The people of Alabama can seek to overturn this ruling as it only effect the laws of the state of Alabama, but you and I both know that isn't likely to happen.

Well no. You can have a religious belief that may flow with a law but the law can't be based from religion. It must be secular.

Someone with standing could appeal this to the Federal court system as a violation of the US Constitution and see where that gets them, I'd be interested to find out.

 

[Lursa]

Tell us, to what or whom do the secularists make their appeal as to why laws should exist?

The greater good, improve societal cohesiveness and success, strengthening of bonds to stand together to repel or overcome threats, enhance health, safety, access to resources, punish/remove those that do harm to individuals/society, things like that.

 

[nvflash]

So Christians don’t have to pass laws that ban things they don’t like as part of their “works”? The Constitution can trump God?

See you seem to think Christians can agree, very often not, most often not. The only thing we can agree on is Jesus lived and went to the cross for our sins.

Everything else is open to interpretation and will be until the second coming or our own judgment day, because we will be able to ask our God what we got wrong and beg his forgiveness.

We make lots of mistakes, we sin all the time, large and small. Those of us moved to protect human life do so, when and how we feel moved to do it, those that don't, don't.

Some Christians would be the doctor smacking the baby over the head with a club, but most would not risk it.

Proclaiming being a Christian isn't a get out of hell free card, but some believe it is.

They'll know when we know, judgementday.

Until then, I do what moves me, and if other Christians fell moved to do as I do we may get some laws passed and some people elected, or judges appointed. It won't really change anything, mothers who want to will still kill their babies, just maybe a few less of them.

The world will still have to face the terrible day of the Lord, after that all wrongs will be put right. Nothing we do will change that, and on that day our God will judge all according to deed relative to circumstance.

Mother's sins won't be on me, and mine not on them.