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).

Had the lawmakers not given into the temptation of power and greed, many bad decisions would have been averted.

Instead, the mentality of raising taxes to give jobs to unions that elect certain politicians is never wrong, because "everyone does it -- why should I be left off the gravy train?"

Maybe a little more religion and a little less rationalizing in the realm of "gray area" isn't a bad thing.

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

You are correct but the:
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

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?

Difference is some people desire the best and emotionless robotic laws are the most fair.   Emotions tend to ruin everything and are NOT logical (in the scientific way). 
We can make a law against murder simply because it causes a major negative effect on our nation and its people.  It does not need a magic man in the sky to say its morally wrong.
You can make a law for everything or at least a guideline taught in school and in the home.  Religion does not have to be the basis its why atheists and agnostics can exist.

I agree with your golden rule and add that I think humans should leave the world a better place than when they came.

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

 

You have said you are a christian before, or believed in god.

Had the lawmakers not given into the temptation of power and greed, many bad decisions would have been averted.

Instead, the mentality of raising taxes to give jobs to unions that elect certain politicians is never wrong, because "everyone does it -- why should I be left off the gravy train?"

Maybe a little more religion and a little less rationalizing in the realm of "gray area" isn't a bad thing.

Its why we need computer programs to make some laws and enforce some rulings.  Or at minimum a mixture.  Machines don't get swayed by money, they don't get confused by emotions, they would look at the facts and make laws and rulings.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Pure logical bliss.  But until that technology exists we need to stop making politics lucrative. 

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 mean like Reverend Jeremiah Wright over Barrack Hussein Obama teaching him about the bad whiteys and Jews?

The Judeo-Christian Values of America

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html

"Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America.  The combination of keeping Judeo-Christian religious morality in the state, as opposed to the church it's self; and, additionally, setting up our laws based on reason and common sense has contributed to the American Character, and to what is known as "American Exceptionalism."

You mean like Reverend Jeremiah Wright over Barrack Hussein Obama teaching him about the bad whiteys and Jews?

Well, if you look at certain general similarities, it might be "fair" to consider marxism/socialism/progressivism as "religions", in which case the Obama "religious" mentors are Frank Marshall and Saul Alinsky.   

Well, if you look at certain general similarities, it might be "fair" to consider marxism/socialism/progressivism as "religions", in which case the Obama "religious" mentors are Frank Marshall and Saul Alinsky.   

With a little Whitey and Jew hatred thrown in by Wright. 

You have said you are a christian before, or believed in god.

I never did.  You can't keep your lies straight, Troll Boy!

Its why we need computer programs to make some laws and enforce some rulings.  Or at minimum a mixture.  Machines don't get swayed by money, they don't get confused by emotions, they would look at the facts and make laws and rulings.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Pure logical bliss.  But until that technology exists we need to stop making politics lucrative.

I saw that on Star Trek.  They called the machine "Landru".  It didn't work out very well for the people until Kirk and Spock took Landru offline.

You're hopeless.

With a little Whitey and Jew hatred thrown in by Wright. 

You're like a kid with a stick poking a Opossum to see if it will jump up. SAD!

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Well, if you look at certain general similarities, it might be "fair" to consider marxism/socialism/progressivism as "religions", in which case the Obama "religious" mentors are Frank Marshall and Saul Alinsky.   

Don't leave out the religion of Climate Change.  They adopted the Muslim tenant of "If you don't believe, you will be punished" by shaming, shunning and calling them "deniers."  Same as "heresy" laws.

You're like a kid with a stick poking a Opossum to see if it will jump up. SAD!

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

He might be provoking, but he's also fundamentally accurate. 

No person can sit in a church for that many years and not believe the things being preached.  If he was not a believer, he would have found another church a long time ago.

Religion has no place in law and Rights in America.
IMO.

The Truths and Rights are self-evident.

For the most part, Religion is not even being discussed in this thread.
Hence the accurate title of the thread which got diluted along the way.

The Right to Keep and Bear arms.
No need to be religious in any Religion to understand that right.
Certainly no need to be Christian.

Christian calling to violate the law.
Bomb abortion clinics and attack Gays and Gay marriage comes to mind.

I haven't read much of it, but my limited understanding is that the Good Book also says you can wreak havoc, deprive others of their basic rights, heck you can be downright deprave, and still be "saved". Forgiven if you repent and accept .......

I don't know enough about it.

Religion has no place in law and Rights in America.
IMO.

The Truths and Rights are self-evident.

For the most part, Religion is not even being discussed in this thread.
Hence the accurate title of the thread which got diluted along the way.

The Right to Keep and Bear arms.
No need to be religious in any Religion to understand that right.
Certainly no need to be Christian.

Christian calling to violate the law.
Bomb abortion clinics and attack Gays and Gay marriage comes to mind.

I haven't read much of it, but my limited understanding is that the Good Book also says you can wreak havoc, deprive others of their basic rights, heck you can be downright deprave, and still be "saved". Forgiven if you repent and accept .......

I don't know enough about it.

Would the position stated by the "christian" have set better with you if he'd not quoted Bible verses and teachings, but instead quoted a civil rights legend?  Does the source of the truth matter as much as the truthfulness of the message?

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The first amendment was set in place to ensure that people have the freedom to worship God, free from interference by the government... No kings or monarchs telling people that they have to be Catholic or Protestant, unlike in Europe. The pilgrims faced religious prosecution in Europe by their government and wanted a new country free from the state make an official state religion.

The first amendment includes the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion.

"Freedom of religion or freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or belief."

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion

He might be provoking, but he's also fundamentally accurate. 

No person can sit in a church for that many years and not believe the things being preached.  If he was not a believer, he would have found another church a long time ago.

Here is an observstion. I notice there is a lot of action here during the day. In school, old or reading/replying on company time? What does this have anything to do with these posts or the 2A situation in Hawaii? Absolutely nothing!

I notice you refer to this person as a "TROLL". I agree! Beyond that I prefer to say inconsequential. People with sticks don't want a conversation imo just an argument.

By the way who doesn't know Obama IS a racist and hell bent on destroying America. Who do you think helped putting him in office? Answer: the same party that rules this state and others tht elected a relative unknown.

Now if I have religious questions I will ask and  discuss in person with those knowledgeable and trained in the religion I have questions about.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

The first amendment was set in place so that people have the freedom to worship God.   

The first amendment includes the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion.

The first amendment also prevents the state from establishing an official religion, thereby making all religions protected - not just the one people in government agree with. 

That's the separation part -- government can't require a religious affiliation to be elected or appointed to office, breaking with the way England did things.  It has nothing to do with eliminating all references to religion from government.

In God We Trust

Would the position stated by the "christian" have set better with you if he'd not quoted Bible verses and teachings, but instead quoted a civil rights legend?  Does the source of the truth matter as much as the truthfulness of the message?

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Wanna start a list of the unjust laws you're gonna recommend we start breaking ?

It's gonna be a long one.

Even the venerable Dr. King pick and chose.
Did that make him immoral?
A hypocrit ?

Stands to reason.

The first amendment was set in place so that people have the freedom to worship God.   

The first amendment includes the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion.

Negative. It includes both as it includes the practice of no religion. they are intertwined inseparably.

In God We Trust

Everyone else, Cash.
(funny. That's written ON cash.)

Negative. It includes both as it includes the practice of no religion. they are intertwined inseparably.

I think you are overthinking it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

See that part "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

I agree there may come a time where the citizenry may need to set the law aside to fight for justice and against tyranny.

But it cannot be generalized.

When will the time be?
What will be the evil that requires setting aside the law to fight against it ?
Hopefully it will be self-evident.
(Doubtful but hopeful)
And it hopefully won't be based in Christianity or any other one particular religion.
Although it is also highly probable numerous religions will try to claim to be the root of the self-evident need for righteousness.

In the meantime, we do need to protect our right to do so when the time arises. (2A, assembly, speech and all the other good stuff)