States petition for secession

quote:

---

No stonings. Stupid of you to perpetuate that idiotic misunderstanding of Protestant faith.

---

So the Protestant idea of Biblical law doesn't include the punishments mandated by the Bible?

The Bible prescribes stoning - specifically - for some offences. Instead of insulting me, perhaps you can explain how you can be following Biblical law without doing what it says.

Obviously you mean that custom overrules the Bible.

Your only reason for not stoning is that it isn't customary. You haven't even attempted to explain the spirit of the passages in question. For instance isn't community involvement an mportant part of choosing stoning as a method of execution?

quote:

---

No, it's the spirit of the thing that matters not how it is done, which could be done many ways according to various cultures without in any way "trumping" the Bible which is universal so that such customs are utterly irrelevant to its spirit, and the spirit is the main thing, and if community involvement is the point that can be adapted to and I could NOT care less about any of this.

---

If you really cared about the spirit of the text then you would not answer in this way. If the Bible prescribes a particular means of execution for some offence, then you should not assume that there is no reason for that prescription and that any means would do. Following the spirit of the text would require you to understand the reasons for that prescription and find an alternate means of execution that also satisfies them. But obviously, in your own words, you don't care about that.So really you just want a far-right tyranny that will persecute everyone you hate. The Bible us just window dressing.

quote:

---

This is one major reason I want out from under this government. The first amendment was intended to PROTECT a Christian's right to teach our children our Christian principles but it's been perverted into the exact opposite meaning.

---

That's completely false. The First Amendment doesn't prevent parents from raising children in their religion. All it does is stop the government favouring one religion, for instance, by teaching it in public schools. Which WAS the intent.

quote:

---

Now we've got exactly what it meant to prohibit, CONGRESS making laws against religious practice and expression, while the right that is not to be infringed is totally infringed. Not even Congress really, the Supreme Court usurping the place of Congress, making laws and calling it interpreting the Constitution. The Government anyway, encroaching on the very freedoms the amendment told it to keep its dirty paws off. Yeah, I really really want out from under this nightmare government.

---

This is all bullshit. The Supreme Court has responsibility for interpreting the Constitution, and that is what it does. And there's no problem of laws violating YOUR religious freedom. (But then I doubt that you even understand what the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment even means)

quote:

---

Right, that's the excuse for eliminating Christianity altogether from the schools, which I along with many others consider a violation of the original intent of the amendment, an interpretation which would have come as a complete shock to the original Christians of the nation who stupidly believed it promoted Christianity in the schools and certainly protected their children from alien views.

---

So, even you know that what you said wasn't true. And what you are describing essentially sets Christianity up as the official religion of the USA which is EXACTLY the sort of thing that Madison and Jefferson DIDN'T want.

quote:

---

Now we have a sort of secularist religion being taught to our children which undermines Christianity but it's not called a religion so that's OK according to the secularist mindset. I really don't care how you rationalize all this, I don't think it reflects the intent of the amendment, I hate it and want out from under it.

---

In other words the schools are following the intent of the first Amendment. Religion is left as a private matter instead of being a government matter as you want.

quote:

---

Yes and no. I don't know about Madison but Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin and even Paine during the period of the Revolutionary War, all very strongly espoused the maintenance of Christian morality in the country. At first it didn't seem like there should be a problem with eliminating state churches, but the idea among Christians seemed to be mostly that it was to prevent the suppression of other Protestant denominations, not give completely other religions equal status.

---

It seems that Jefferson intended to include Hinduism and Islam.

quote:

---

Christians have been told for decades now that the country WAS originally inspired to be Christian and it is possible to point to many who said something along those lines over the years, although there is also the point of view you espouse.

---

It's quote clear that at least some of the Founders wanted a secular state, and the evidence suggests that they largely won. The Treaty of Tripoli is pretty clear, for, instance. If they had intended to give Protestant Christianity a special place, why is there no evidence of it in the actual Constitution ?

quote:

---

I definitely do NOT believe there was ever ANY idea that religion was to be just a "private matter," not in the amendment or even in the minds of the FOunders. No, I do not. The amendment prohibits the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion and that certainly does not imply keeping it to oneself.

---

Free exercise of religion does NOT require official government support for your religion (and only your religion), no matter how often people like you try to pretend otherwise. So of course it can be a private matter in that sense. Why should it not ?

Ok, you've dropped your claims that the Constitution is being misinterpreted or misapplied. You haven't pointed to any real impositions on your religious freedom.All we're left with is your objections to other people having religious freedom.

quote:

---

A fair assessment of the beliefs of the majority of the time would have required that it definitely endorse what you call "my" religion, and the sad thing is that it SEEMED to do so to most Christians of that day and since then.

---

You may think that a tyranny of the majority is "fair" but enough of the Founding Fathers disagreed, that the Constitution was crafted to avoid such an outcome. I doubt that you'd agree with your own position if you felt that your people were a minority.

quote:

---

Why should it have been the official religion of the land? Because the prosperity and success of the nation depend on it. As long as the majority and general culture nevertheless remained Protestant the nation was blessed, but since it's been so vilified and marginalilzed in recent years, virtually eliminated, we're coming under God's judgment, possibly a really terrible judgment very soon.

---

Your superstitious fears hardly represent a good reason to destroy freedom in the U.S.A.

I can't imagine Conservative Catholics or Mormons being welcome in Faith's "Red State". And it doesn't seem as if Faith would be happy with a "Red State" that placed Catholicism or the LDS on an equal basis with her Protestantism. Or in other words, the evidence of this thread supports your view.

quote:

---

Where have I said one thing that suggests I want to "destroy freedom in the USA?"

---

You've said that you want to get rid of most of the Constitution, that you don't want a democracy or a republic, that you object to religious freedom, and you've identified a tyranny of the majority as "fair".And that's in this thread.

quote:

---

My basic idea about how the first amendment has been misapplied is in the idea that schools, among other institutions, must avoid all expressions of religion by teachers or students, according to the interpretation that this would be an endorsement of religion by the government. I understand that this is often misunderstood as law when it isn't really law but many people treat it as if it is law.

---

Then it's neither a law passed by Congress, nor a Supreme Court interpretation, is it ? That can't be what you had in mind when you made those claims.

quote:

---

The removal of the Ten Commandments from public or government property is another such crazy interpretation of supposed government endorsement of religion.

---

Seems pretty sensible to me. What's the First Commandment ? (That's a rhetorical question). Although I should point out that displays on public land are legal, provided they are not government sponsored. But apparently government sponsorship is what many "Christians" want.

quote:

---

The idea of "hate speech" is another infringement on religious freedom, which as a law would prohibit Christians from preaching that homosexual acts are sin for instance. That is a definite encroachment on Christian freedom.

---

And I'll point out that the notion of hate speech does not necessarily include measured Christian statements to the effect that homosexuality is considered sinful. And the First Amendment gives you considerable protection there.Really, not much support for you there.

quote:

---

But I'm not talking about changing anything "IN THE USA!" I'm talking about how I'd like to see a Christian state set up completely separate from the USA and governed by Christian principles. This thread is about SECESSION, remember?

---

I think it's pretty clear that you would like those changes in the whole nation if that were an option. Besides, the seceded states would be formed from people and territory that are currently part of the U.S.A.

quote:

---

I also didn't say anything about "MOST" of the Constitution. I think probably MOST of it is quite viable as written for the purposes of the state I have in mind. I think the first amendment would have to be strengthened to reflect what I think it should originally have guaranteed, but certainly not eliminated.

---

You've made your opposition to the religious freedom in the First Amendment pretty clear. In that respect you wish to destroy it, not strengthen it.

quote:

---

I don't want a democracy obviously because all ideologies cannot have equal power, and it was somebody else who TOLD me that what I want is not a republic either so I simply accepted that. I don't care what you call it I'm simply trying to get defined what I think would work, and the basic idea is still the Pilgrim and Puritan colonies.

---

Which pretty much supports my point.

quote:

---

What are you trying to do? Convince me that Christian freedoms are NOT being infringed in this country?

---

I'm taking a balanced view of your claims. There are some genuine infringements in your first example, but they are clearly not what you originally had in mind and the courts will deal with the real infringements.The second is an obvious example of Christians demanding government support for their religion.And by my understanding the current hate speech laws in the U.S. don't give rise to the problems you refer to either. So at best you're speculating.

Obviously you have no idea what it is to be marginalised.Although I note that freedom of speech is another freedom you wish to destroy.