What part of Christianity isn't compatible with the US Constitution...

Jack said:
Each of the 3 cases you site are 'Zoning' issues. Too many cars, too many people, in an area*zoned 'Residential'.
Commercial areas have different zoning characteristics, like adequate space for Parking.
It's NOT about 'Religion', 'Politics', or 'Bingo', it's about 'Residential Zoning'.
Click to expand...

If you had bothered to read the cases with an intelligent mind, you would have seen they were using zoning codes to prevent one from holding a prayer meeting. There was nothing in the ordinances to prevent one from using their private residence as they were being used. There was nothing "commercial" about the activities. It was all about religion.

For instance, the Fromm case used an ordinance that banned religious meetings. The Denver case said "The Denver zoning administration stepped in and issued an order stating that the Reiters were violating a city ordinance that prohibited more than one "prayer meeting" at a private residence per month. The couple was told that if they allowed their friends to visit their home more than once each month for the purposes of prayer and fellowship, they could face criminal sanctions. ".

Is that not about religion?
 
Last edited:
Old Trapper said:
If you had bothered to read the cases with an intelligent mind, you would have seen they were using zoning codes to prevent one from holding a prayer meeting. There was nothing in the ordinances to prevent one from using their private residence as they were being used. There was nothing "commercial" about the activities. It was all about religion.

For instance, the Fromm case used an ordinance that banned religious meetings. The Denver case said "The Denver zoning administration stepped in and issued an order stating that the Reiters were violating a city ordinance that prohibited more than one "prayer meeting" at a private residence per month. The couple was told that if they allowed their friends to visit their home more than once each month for the purposes of prayer and fellowship, they could face criminal sanctions. ".

Is that not about religion?
Click to expand...

The neighbors complained. The people were using their Homes as some kind of Public Meeting Place. The Parking and the Crowd interfered with residential zoning.
You can try and make it about 'religion' if you like.
 
leaningright said:
Oh, I was taught that it takes more than just believing to keep one out of Hell. You have to obey and live faithfully. That involves much more than simple belief.

And parents (dads in particular) who fail to teach their kids the truth are failing...themselves and their children. Eph. 6:4

A different set of consequences? Physical health and hygiene and/or spiritual health and life. Many of us deem the latter to be much more important. I’ll teach my kid both though, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Religion is for the parents to teach, but if children stray in later years, it's best to give them plenty of line to do so. Otherwise you may hinder what you accomplished so far. Religion entering politics is a whole different ballgame. It would ruin the faith, and go against Gods will. I was always taught God wants you to want to follow him, through your own free will. The real feelings, and emotions of any relationship are skewed, when it's forced. I see pushing faith too much, not much different then arranged marriages, and such.
 
Last edited:
leaningright said:
Absolutely!



Baloney. The founders, with few exceptions like Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen, were believers of scripture at the least, some of them very religious at the most. They wanted freedom to worship as they saw fit. What a warped sense of history and the founding of our nation some folks have.
Click to expand...

That's why they wanted separation. They don't want any religion taking center stage, and wished for the religious freedom to be equal to all. When you hang nonsecular law over secular, you tend to start down the path of indoctrination. One day Christianity may be the minority religion, and people will wish they would have kept that even field of play for religions. Just think how you react to Sharia Law.
 
The founders were trying to build a more perfect union. They knew that religion was divisive, so they dealt it out. They did not want a battle about which religion would be inside, and which completely outside. Christianity is no different than other religion. It seeks power and money. It is harmful to building unity. Ergo, separation of church and state.
 
Jack said:
The neighbors complained. The people were using their Homes as some kind of Public Meeting Place. The Parking and the Crowd interfered with residential zoning.
You can try and make it about 'religion' if you like.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but as I said you needed to read the articles, and the codes referred to. ALL had to deal with using a private residence for religious intent. You can ignore it all you want, would be nothing new.
 
Nordberg said:
The founders were trying to build a more perfect union. They knew that religion was divisive, so they dealt it out. They did not want a battle about which religion would be inside, and which completely outside. Christianity is no different than other religion. It seeks power and money. It is harmful to building unity. Ergo, separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

lol dude.....the founders protected religions from government, not the other way around......
 
Nordberg said:
Dude read post 161. That is a founder explaining why religion was kept out. Try and understand, separation of church and state. Think about it.
Click to expand...

don't be ridiculous......so one founder didn't understand what the fuck was going on......don't be stupid enough to believe it........

read it.....the error is yours not his........he speaks of the need to keep them separate for the good of society......but it is not the religion which is being kept out of government........it is the government being kept out of religion........YOU were the one who concluded it was for the benefit of the government instead of the benefit of religion......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
don't be ridiculous......so one founder didn't understand what the fuck was going on......don't be stupid enough to believe it........

read it.....the error is yours not his........he speaks of the need to keep them separate for the good of society......but it is not the religion which is being kept out of government........it is the government being kept out of religion........YOU were the one who concluded it was for the benefit of the government instead of the benefit of religion......
Click to expand...

That is why the founders as a GROUP went for separation of church and state. You are familiar with that concept, aren't you? I did not conclude it. I read what he said. As usual, you are obdurate and protective of your training. Religion is divisive, just as you prove every time you post. Here is Madison. https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/pdf_documents/what-god-has-put-asunder.pdf You really have not reserched the subject, have you?
 
Last edited:
Old Trapper said:
Sorry, but as I said you needed to read the articles, and the codes referred to. ALL had to deal with using a private residence for religious intent. You can ignore it all you want, would be nothing new.
Click to expand...

I read all three links. It was about Zoning. As a Jesus Freak, you can spin around and holler all you want.
I have an idea for you. Go get a stick and beat yourself with it. Do it for Jesus.
 
Nordberg said:
That is why the founders as a GROUP went for separation of church and state. You are familiar with that concept, aren't you? I did not conclude it. I read what he said. As usual, you are obdurate and protective of your training. Religion is divisive, just as you prove every time you post. Here is Madison. https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/pdf_documents/what-god-has-put-asunder.pdf You really have not reserched the subject, have you?
Click to expand...

nobody can research your fantasies.......I stick with what really happened.......
from the above......
"We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."
Click to expand...

note he is not saying that government flourishes in greater purity without the aid of religion......
 
Nordberg said:
And what did Jefferson say? https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/pdf_documents/with-sovereign-reverence.pdf
Click to expand...

he says....
“I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others…. We ought with one heart and one hand to hew down the daring and dangerous efforts of those who would seduce the public opinion to substitute itself into that tyranny over religious faith which the laws have so justly abdicated.”
Click to expand...

he rejects your tyranny over religious beliefs........he and I think much alike.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top