Where's the "Religious Discussion" Thread? Okay, so I'll have to post in "Political", and this is rather "political" anyway. Even though I'm as far from Herschel Smith as can be when it comes to believing in religion, I'm right there with him in his conclusion on this one.

By What Right Do We Bear Arms? In The End, Every Knee Shall Bow And Every Tongue Confess That Jesus Is Lord

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2017/05/14/by-what-right-do-we-bear-arms-in-the-end-every-knee-shall-bow-and-every-tongue-confess-that-jesus-is-lord/

Excerpt:

Even if my rights aren’t observed by society, they still exist.

To be sure, there are wicked rulers and judges, and all gun control is wickedness conducted by men bent upon evil.  Resisting them is not only acceptable, but expected and even commanded.  I’ve even demonstrated that when Jesus commanded his disciples to sell their robe and buy a sword, he was quite literally commanding them to arm themselves in violation of the law.  He was commanding them to become law breakers in order to effect self defense.  That’s how seriously God takes this issue. [My emphasis.]

Religion has no place in law.

Religion has no place in law.

How would you know? 

Are you a theologian at heart, too?

How would you know? 

Are you a theologian at heart, too?

No our constitution says so.  We are a secular state.  If we abandon that what stops the Muslims saying sharia law has to be followed?

No our constitution says so.  We are a secular state.  If we abandon that what stops the Muslims saying sharia law has to be followed?

Show me the passage of some document that uses the word "secular".

Show me the passage of some document that uses the word "secular".

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- Jerfferson

Yes cause people need to have the exact words to describe something meaning doesn't carry.  Sorry forgot to think about your intellectual level.

sec·u·lar
ˈsekyələr/Submit
adjective
1.denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

Religion has no place in law.

Did you read the article by Smith? Or any of the links to his other articles about rights and/or their relationship to christian values/beliefs?

He isn't arguing that religion should be incorporated into government (though I suspect he does favor that). He is arguing that rights (such as self-defense) pre-exist governments, and governments have no legal authority to criminalize the exercise of those rights, therefore we have (in his case, a "religious") duty to disobey those laws.

Did you read the article by Smith? Or any of the links to his other articles about rights and/or their relationship to christian values/beliefs?

He isn't arguing that religion should be incorporated into government (though I suspect he does favor that). He is arguing that rights (such as self-defense) pre-exist governments, and governments have no legal authority to criminalize the exercise of those rights, therefore we have (in his case, a "religious") duty to disobey those laws.

It was incredibly biased.  And ridiculous.

"A man-made document can never … never … establish rights. "
- yes, yes it can....

"our rights come from God Himself, the Almighty king of heaven and earth, the maker of the universe, the one who determines what He will do with the clay vessels he creates, the only potentate and sovereign."
-what if you believe in a god that says you have no rights to self defense or guns?  No one can prove which god exists.

"Even if my rights aren’t observed by society, they still exist. "
-So if Muslims believe in the right to stone people they still exist?   Come on there is a reason why government and religion are separate...

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- Jerfferson

Yes cause people need to have the exact words to describe something meaning doesn't carry.  Sorry forgot to think about your intellectual level.

sec·u·lar
ˈsekyələr/Submit
adjective
1.denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

If you want to compare intellectual levels, you're going to lose BIG time!

You always argue in one dimension, as if that one viewpoint covers all questions.  That's a simplistic and erroneous position.

People exist in various environments:  individual, immediate family, extended family, and community/society.  Community is defined as citizenship.  Religion is PROTECTED under the Constitution.  The government is not allowed to pick a favorite religion to support.  HOWEVER, that's not the same as excluding all religion from government. 

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."  Sounds like someone went to Church and carried over some of what they learned to the Constitution.

You can prevent organized religions (churches) from exerting power in politics, but you can not, and should not, try to exclude the teachings of religion in general.  Saying the teachings of religion don't matter in the law is ridiculous on its face.


We've already tried to explain morality and the difference between right and wrong to you to no avail.  If you intend to drag us into the same "religion is bad" arguments you already failed to prove, then I'll leave it to someone else to try and talk some sense into  your thick skull.

I'm done with you.  Pig singing lessons are over.

If you want to compare intellectual levels, you're going to lose BIG time!

You always argue in one dimension, as if that one viewpoint covers all questions.  That's a simplistic and erroneous position.

People exist in various environments:  individual, immediate family, extended family, and community/society.  Community is defined as citizenship.  Religion is PROTECTED under the Constitution.  The government is not allowed to pick a favorite religion to support.  HOWEVER, that's not the same as excluding all religion from government. 

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."  Sounds like someone went to Church and carried over some of what they learned to the Constitution.

You can prevent organized religions (churches) from exerting power in politics, but you can not, and should not, try to exclude the teachings of religion in general.  Saying the teachings of religion don't matter in the law is ridiculous on its face.


We've already tried to explain morality and the difference between right and wrong to you to no avail.  If you intend to drag us into the same "religion is bad" arguments you already failed to prove, then I'll leave it to someone else to try and talk some sense into  your thick skull.

I'm done with you.  Pig singing lessons are over.

Just cause there is evidence of religion making its way into the government doesn't mean its right... Do I have to explain that to you?  You can interpenetrate "that they are endowed by their Creator"  to be anything.  An atheist can believe their creator is their mother and father.  Or single celled organisms.  I'n a perfect world with a perfect government there would be true separation of state and church but we are only "human"  and because of that emotions get factored in. What I advocate is to strive for perfection not to settle for what we got.  Regardless of environment we are citizens of the united state of america, small communities have no right to fully govern themselves. If they did a cult or all the Muslims or another religion could gather together and form a "community" with its own citizenship inside america with its own laws....Most of you opinions are clouded by the fact you are religious.  Everything is tainted with your non objective thought.  I am guilty of this on the other spectrum but in this argument I have the right mindset. 

Just cause there is evidence of religion making its way into the government doesn't mean its right... Do I have to explain that to you?  You can interpenetrate "that they are endowed by their Creator"  to be anything.  An atheist can believe their creator is their mother and father.  Or single celled organisms.  I'n a perfect world with a perfect government there would be true separation of state and church but we are only "human"  and because of that emotions get factored in. What I advocate is to strive for perfection not to settle for what we got.  Regardless of environment we are citizens of the united state of america, small communities have no right to fully govern themselves. If they did a cult or all the Muslims or another religion could gather together and form a "community" with its own citizenship inside america with its own laws....Most of you opinions are clouded by the fact you are religious.  Everything is tainted with your non objective thought.  I am guilty of this on the other spectrum but in this argument I have the right mindset.

Who said I'm religious?  That's ONE MORE FALSE ASSUMPTION to add to your ever-growing list!

 

No our constitution says so.  We are a secular state.  If we abandon that what stops the Muslims saying sharia law has to be followed?

The constitution does not say that.

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, he mentioned he separation of church and state.

https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about someone of a specific religion attempts to manipulate the law or lawmakers to reflect his religions doctrines?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

What about someone of a specific religion attempts to manipulate the law or lawmakers to reflect his religions doctrines.

That's why we don't let one person make the laws.

That's why we don't let one person make the laws.

I actually was inferring that someone with a specific religious belief and power over lawmakers. I realize that theoretically no one person has that power. HOWEVER do you really think it doesn't happen?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

What about someone of a specific religion attempts to manipulate the law or lawmakers to reflect his religions doctrines?

Everyone who attempts to influence legislation does so on the basis of the values they hold (exception of course for professional lobbyists who do it for money, which is their value). Those values may be based upon religion or some non-religious philosophy or other system of thought and/or belief. The point is not to prohibit people from having and expressing their values, and their asking government laws to embody or reflect those values, but to prevent the government from embodying those values directly per se, at the expense of people who do not share that value (religious or otherwise), and as a consequence would have their rights infringed.

In this case, the object is to protect the "natural" (non-religious) or "god given" (religious) rights, which include self-defense (as when someone would try to harm someone else, including on the basis of their religious values). If religious "believers" want to throw gays off buildings or hang people of certain races or ethnicities from trees because they claim that is their "right" as religious believers, then our only hope is that the gays and other people are adequately armed in order to exercise their pre-existing right to self-defense against those who would obviously be attempting to rob them of their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".

The question is not about the source of the values but 1. whether or not government adopts any of them as "official policy" and 2. whether any of those adopted policies (religious or otherwise) infringe the rights of citizens.

Is there any argument that the de facto "no issue" policy of Hawaii for bearing arms outside the home is NOT an infringement of the right of self-defense?

I actually was inferring that someone with a specific religious belief and power over lawmakers. I realize that theoretically no one person has that power. HOWEVER do you really think it doesn't happen?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

You can't draw a line between the teachings of religion and the beliefs lawmakers hold.  We are a collection of everything we have learned.

There are some trolls here that want to paint people as robots, able to be programmed to only think in logical terms and create laws that have some numerically optimal outcome.  That's naive at best, dishonest at worst.

If I believe "Murder is against God's law," does than mean we can't make murder illegal by statute?  If we make murder illegal, we are agreeing with the religious teaching.  Why are we so sensitized to reject religion, when it appears lack of religious morals is doing much more harm to society than a "secular" approach to controlling society.

You can't make a law for everything.  People need a foundation built on the knowledge of what's right and wrong.  All these "gray area" thinkers blur those lines, making it impossible for anyone to judge for themselves if something is wrong.  No one can learn and understand the existing laws and ordinances at the city, county, state and federal level.  That's why they say most people have broken at least three laws before they ever get to their jobs in the morning.

The golden rule is a good guideline:  treat others the way you'd want them to treat you.  That doesn't go into this or that situation.  It's a guideline that makes life in society better than living for oneself.  Why is that a bad thing to try and "influence" lawmakers to keep in mind?

I actually was inferring that someone with a specific religious belief and power over lawmakers. I realize that theoretically no one person has that power. HOWEVER do you really think it doesn't happen?

I think you have to worry less about some religious person influencing the lawmakers than the religious lawmakers themselves. I'd name a few, but... 

They can be/are one in the same. Perhaps ones religious beliefs as the head of a city council, county mayor or govenor coincide with the ruling parties secular objectives. Between the two there isn't much of a chance for a fair and objective review of issues/bills, etc.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

They can be/are one in the same. Perhaps ones religious beliefs as the head of a city council, county mayor or govenor coincide with the ruling parties secular objectives. Between the two there isn't much of a chance for a fair and objective review of issues/bills, etc.

The thing is, for a LOT of legislation (e.g. "rail", no-carry "public safety", etc.), both religious and "secular" ideology take a distant back seat to plain stupidity (though I suspect there is "evil" intent in all firearms related issues, and financial "benefit" in the other).