The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

:The SCOTUS ruling was a big big deal among Christians and that's what I have in mind. It is really irrelevant what the source of the law is, however, when the upshot is that Christian businesses are not allowed to refuse a service that their religious conscience objects to. It's nitpicky to try to pin down the exact source when the only point is that whatever the source Christians are no longer free to object t5o gay marriage. Stop twisting the point. What is forced is the legalization of gay marriage so that refusing to accept gay marriage as valid by denying service to a gay wedding is subject to legal punishment. Conservative Biblical Christians are required by God's word to reject the idea of gay marriage. That isn't going to change. There's nothing to get "straight," the source of the tyranny against Christians is irrelevant, the effect is the same in any case. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So the Puritans did not practice a Bible based denomination? Your argument does not hold water. Beyond that, your argument is utterly inconsistent with the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Folks who called themselves believers in the Bible have persecuted folks and justified their persecution on the Bible just as you have done here. Your statement is meaning-free.

I think Washington is too. Too bad, that was a BIG mistake. In his case it was to protect Christianity from the kinds of deterioration that led to abuse of power in Europe. His aim was to keep Christianity pure from worldly influences. Madison was one of the true Christians of the era.But there was a strong opinion among many Christian leaders that the Constitution was a betrayal of the Christian nature of the nation, both in its vastly Christian population and the governing documents of the individual colonies, and efforts were made to incorporate a statement of basic Christian principles into the Constitution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I note that you don't answer the question and that your answer tends only to reinforce the point that neither the First Amendment nor the Constitution in general (including, at least, the Bill of Rights) intended to give Christianity a special place.

It's something that's inferred from court decisions and putting Bibles in the schools and prayer in the government, as well as prayer in the schools that somehow miraculously endured without any First Amendment-based gripes until Madalyn Murray came along almost two hundred years later,You are right of course that if you want to enforce your pagan worldview, you can get away with it now despite all that history that should tell you what America was really about.

As you know court decisions can be wrong, and for a long time State Governments were NOT bound by the First Amendment.And of course with the bias in favour of Christianity it is not surprising that unconstitutional practices were able to thrive.However this assertion of yours is false:

quote:

---

You are right of course that if you want to enforce your pagan worldview, you can get away with it now despite all that history that should tell you what America was really about.

---

As you admitted in your previous post the Constitution was NOT intended to be a Christian document. And that is quite at odds with your idea of "what America was really about".

On the contrary, the First Amendment was aimed primarily AT Christians - to prevent one Christian sect from persecuting another. There were few non-Christian religions around at the time (and I have my doubts that the Founding Fathers were much concerned about protecting them).

quote:

---

There were few non-Christian religions around at the time (and I have my doubts that the Founding Fathers were much concerned about protecting them).

---

As I have pointed out earlier this is not really true: Thomas Jefferson on the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom

That's up to you, but it does not force you to do anything. It's a government ruling about what the government is and is not allowed to prohibit or limit.It turns out that freedom wins, the government doesn't get to institute a marital contract and exclude certain couples from it. It has to be open to all, or none. Hey, you were the one that was making the big stink out the source, take it up with you. They are allowed to not provide that service, but they cannot provide it selectively. That's business, I'm afraid. Play by the rules or don't play. Then stop making arguments along the following lines:

quote:

---

The Left/SCOTUS treats the public school system as the equivalent of Congress .... a law that prohibits Christians from acting on our beliefs, that came from SCOTUS, as usual usurping the role of Congress, .... if we can illegally prohibit it by SCOTUS pretending to be Congress

---

Because I will point out that you have the facts wrong each time. If it doesn't matter, don't bring it up! Yet you are. You do it all the time. You are totally free to do this. You aren't allowed to operate a business that discriminates against gays though. This is not totalitarian, it's ensuring 'freedom and justice for all'. My point is that refusing service for a gay wedding is nothing to do with legalizing gay marriage. It was unlawful to refuse service in Oregon even as it was not legally possible for gays to get married! That's not twisting the point, that was my point. You've confused the legalizisation of marriage with the prohibition of discrimination. They are different things. And you remain free to do so. Totalitarian it is not.If some Conservative Biblical Christians think that little girls should be forced to use the little boys room and that this is by God's word - would you regard this is as totalitarian? For someone who has not dropped this subject, you are being very coy about this. Well clearly there is something to get straight. One, you shouldn't make arguments about the source of the tyranny if it is irrelvent. Two, the source of the tyranny is not the legalization of same-sex marraige.The prohibition of discrimination in public accommodation is not tyrannical. The insistence that little girls use the little boy's room to pee is far more tyrannical that saying 'you can't get the benefits of business while discriminating against certain people as this is detrimental to society'.

You do realize that Catholics complained about schools using the Protestant KJV in 1890. I think Mormons were complaining around then too. My understanding is that the Catholic school system was a reaction to the Protestant controlled schools forcing Protestant practices on Catholic kids.Engel v Vitale was a Jew complaining about his son forced into Christian prayer before Murray's case. That case stopped the NY State sanctioned prayer.I don't understand why so many Christians are trying to force the schools and other public institutions to do their job in raising Christian children. Do you really want someone not of your choosing to pick the prayers and readings? What happens when a Hindu or Muslim teacher or principal takes over?

The kids would finally learn that their belief system was just another creation of human beings and not anything special. It would be wonderful.Edited by jar, : fix attribution

You've attributed a quotation to me that isn't mine.

If they've had good Bible-believing parents and good pastors and teachers at church they would already know that the man-made religions are Hinduism and Islam, as the Bible makes quite clear. The Bible introduces the one true God and by following human history since Creation shows that Satan is the author of all the other religions, over which demons have installed themselves as gods. Hinduism has hundreds of demon gods, Islam was invented by a single man which already makes it bogus. The Bible was written by many men and it reports on many occasions multitudes of witnesses to miraculous events as well as mundane human events that show the authenticity of the Biblical God and the Biblical account of history.But I do agree with whoever it was who suggested that Christians shouldn't even go to public schools because they have become the tools of unbelievers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again Faith, while it is true that all religions, including Christianity are man made and the Bible provides ample evidence that that is true, there is certainly nothing in the Bible that suggests it actually follows human history since creation. In fact the Bible itself includes two mutually exclusive and contradictory creation myths that include two entire different god characters. Actually in many if not most Christian schools that are run by recognized chapters of Club Christian they would have learned that the Bible itself is another human creation filled with factual errors, contradictions and folktales as well as writings that show the beliefs of a peoples in a given era and society.

The Bible claims to be "God-breathed," its writers inspired by the Holy Ghost. Many of them open their writing with "The Word of the Lord came to me..." In other words there are many many passages in the Bible itself where God's authorship is claimed. Apart from authorship, the many miracles witnessed by multitudes give evidence that it is about the one true God. Demons can do petty little magic tricks; they can't do anything like the grand-scale miracles reported in the Bible. That's just your silly misreading. I don't know how many confused people agree with you [I'd guess zero myself] but the vast majority know it's all one creation story. There are certainly plenty of bad Christian schools that deny the inspired inerrancy of the scripture, so Christians try to avoid those as well as the public schools. Christians I know personally make sure to send their children to genuine Bible-believing schools instead. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.