None at the current time.You are now using your Christian faith to inform legal decisions. What right do you have to stop someone from sticking pins in dolls?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
None at the current time.You are now using your Christian faith to inform legal decisions. What right do you have to stop someone from sticking pins in dolls?
None at the current time.
The US Supreme Court curtailed the liberties of the Temple of Aphrodite in Ca. years ago. Were those actions just?
I've never heard of this and am interested in learning about this incident. Would you mind elaborating or linking me to information about this topic? I googled it to no avail.
For example, I could practice Voodo in my house, but If I was to start killing off animals and people to do my rites, that makes it illegal activity.
I did not hinkThat is called an assertion, not an argument. Anyway, I am not a theonomist.
Here in the USA, its our Constitution that determines what is considered to be legal/illegal, not the Bible, as much as we would want the scriptures to be.That contradicts your post here. Who determines what is illegal? I say that Satanists in Oklahoma City should have their liberties curtailed. The US Supreme Court curtailed the liberties of the Temple of Aphrodite in Ca. years ago. Were those actions just?
In any case, what constitutes illegal and legal changes, so we need something besides that.
Depends on if we are a republic, a Democracy, or what, as the Lord does allow for sinners to have whatever wrong theology they have, as long as it does not involve breaking the law. For example, I could practice Voodo in my house, but If I was to start killing off animals and people to do my rites, that makes it illegal activity.
God allows for [pluralistic civil government] until the Second Advent of Jesus Christ.
Here in the USA, its our Constitution that determines what is considered to be legal/illegal, not the Bible, as much as we would want the scriptures to be
I did not hink
Here in the USA, its our Constitution that determines what is considered to be legal/illegal, not the Bible, as much as we would want the scriptures to be.
All the Constitution says is that Congress cannot establish a federal church (it allowed for the already existing state churches). So there isn't anything in the Constitution about allowing Lavey's disciples to worship freely.
I used to get Anton and Vincent Price mixed up....hahahahahaha....
There is no mandate from the scriptures to have any nation set up under directly the Laws of God, as Israel was under the old Covenant between them and God.What? The Lord is only bothered when we break a country's laws?
If a religion involves deliberate jaywalking, is that more hateful to God than a religion that denies the Trinity?
It falls under the area of a citizen of this land being freely allowed to attend and perform their religious activities, or prefer to not have any at all.All the Constitution says is that Congress cannot establish a federal church (it allowed for the already existing state churches). So there isn't anything in the Constitution about allowing Lavey's disciples to worship freely.
This republic was based on a scripture viewpoint regarding its moral basis, and standards for laws, but was a Republic being set up, not a Theonomy. The ways of God was used indirectly in our formation, but we were not set up to be as Israel was under the old Economy.So, the Scriptures are acceptable at home, with family, and at church. But they have no place in government? Interesting view, if I'm understanding you correctly.
God tells us in Romans what the function of the State, national Government is, but he did not command all nations to be directly under His law.Prove it.
All the Constitution says is that Congress cannot establish a federal church (it allowed for the already existing state churches). So there isn't anything in the Constitution about allowing Lavey's disciples to worship freely.
I'm wondering whether this precludes any role whatsoever for the state in preventing the propagation of heresy and blasphemy
There is no mandate from the scriptures to have any nation set up under directly the Laws of God, as Israel was under the old Covenant between them and God.
This republic was based on a scripture viewpoint regarding its moral basis, and standards for laws, but was a Republic being set up, not a Theonomy. The ways of God was used indirectly in our formation, but we were not set up to be as Israel was under the old Economy.
God tells us in Romans what the function of the State, national Government is, but he did not command all nations to be directly under His law.
Actually, the constitution says this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It falls under the area of a citizen of this land being freely allowed to attend and perform their religious activities, or prefer to not have any at all.
Right, and since many of the states who ratified that clause already had existing state churches, it is obvious that it didn't mean that.
I was responding more to your assertion that there is nothing in the constitution that protects Lavey’s right to worship freely. This clause most certainly does protect the right of people to worship freely and has repeatedly been interpreted as such. Of course the issue is, just what constitutes a religion, and how far does this right extend. Obviously human sacrifice would not be protected.
Correct. Today those who believe in blood and sex magick do have the same rights (if not more) than me or you. It's one of the reasons I no longer bother with "strict constructionist" views of the constitution. The constitution protects our rights only to the extent that Leftist judges will allow it.
I am curious as to what you believe was originally intended by this clause if it was not intended to protect religious liberty? Have you ever read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association? http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/jefferson-to-danbury.pdf
I am curious as to what you believe was originally intended by this clause if it was not intended to protect religious liberty? Have you ever read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association? http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/jefferson-to-danbury.pdf
Jefferson's letter at the time had zero legal authority. The 13 states were 13 republics within one larger Republic.
The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the federal govt. Therefore, the prohibitions were then aimed at the Federal govt, not the state govt.
Of course, none of that is true today. The Constitution is now a joke and only used when it can marginalize conservatives.
It's times like this that I wish I could hit the Like button over and over again. In the words of American Fundamentalism, Preach it, brother!I am late to this parade, so apologies if someone has already raised this point but where, in scripture, has God [you]forbidden[/you] the state from upholding the first table of his law? Since all men everywhere are bound to obey both tables of the law, then what reason have we to believe that the civil magistrate is forbidden from upholding the first and third commandment by punishing notorious heretics?
Under the United States Constitution, this question is hypothetical. Until such a time as the prohibition on the federal government establishing true religion is replaced with a Christian amendment, then the American civil government cannot prosecute heresy.
That is why I dissent from the US Constitution and would not vote in American elections, despite the fact that I largely align with the Trumplican Republicans on other issues.