The First Amendment. ONLY for religious free speech?

[AlAyeti]

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

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.

///

Nowhere do any of these words pertain to anything other than religion, and the rights of religious people to assemble, present their religious views and if not allowed to, to bring a lawsuit to the government.

And freedom to speak doesn't seem to denote any limitations as to when and where or how.

Why are others allowed to apply free speech to anything else?

It seems clearly written.

[micatala]

In fact the concept of seperation of church ans state is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

I believe it is correct that the phrase 'separation of church and state' is not in the constitution.

However, the First AMendment does prohibit the establishment of religion, at least by Congress.

Now, I know some argue that this means individual states CAN establish a religion, and my understanding is that a few states did have established religions at the time of the constitution.

If one is a strict constuctionist and believes we should default to what the constitution meant at the time it was written, one could say there is no separation of church and state.

However, from the earliest days of the Republic and before, there was much concern about the issue of the relationship between church and state.

I wanted to show that the first freedom offered to American citizens was to religious Americans.

I agree, except that I wouldn't say the freedom was offered only to 'religious Americans', but rather is a religious freedom granted to all Americans. As Al has noted, the original English settlers of the New World were often very concerned with religious freedom based on their experience of 'state religion' in England.

Over 200 years, most Americans have come to expect 'seperation of church and state' (the phrase was coined by Jefferson, I believe), and the legal system and legal precedence reflects this view. In my view, separation of church and state is grounded in a reasonable interpretation of the 1st and 14th amendments.

As liberal funded legislation is closing the noose around Christianty, I just thought that you braod minded freethinkers may want to help Christians some day.

Well, I don't agree with the premise here that liberal legislation (or the 'separation of church and state') is a noose around the neck of Christianity, and whether I am a broad-minded freethinker I will leave for others to decide, but I am certainly a proponent of Christianity and a believer in religious freedom. As Al has noted, the freedom of assembly should apply to churches as much as any other group or gathering. We have this freedom and I don't see any evidence that it is in any imminent danger.

[McCulloch]

The bobbleheadism I mention is far to[too] prevelant[prevalent] in the homogenized liberal-pregressive[progressive]-secular-freethinker-atheist crowd.
Goose steppers all the way.

And to emphasize the point let's not use the standard grammar and spelling inflicted by those goose-stepping educators.

[AlAyeti]

McC,

You have no idea how satisfied I am in your stance that words and grammar should rule the bottom line of what is right and what is wrong.

This from a powerful leftist "Christian" organization:We all labor together in our places of employment. We all worship together in our churches (except in those churches where unrepentant sinners have been banished from the congregation).

I substituted "unrepentant sinners" for the ubiquitously labeled unapologetic sinners. Those "victims of bigotry and hate" misrepresented as the downtrodden and outcast. And the demand that all and anyone has to be included in every church.

It seems by legislative action.

This from the Christian Alliance For Progress. The Movement to Reclaim Christianity and Transform American Politics. Their self-titled agenda.

Seems Liberals have no problem with church and state as long as they have the only voice in the states.

My position is that a social and civil conflict is coming (again) and indeed I will rely on open-minded people like you to help in the reading of words in proper context and meaning.

You focusing me, to proper use of syntax and indeed accuracy in language is a welcomed point of view.





[/i]

[McCulloch]

This from a powerful leftist "Christian" organization:

If you mean the Christian Alliance for Progress, yes it certainly looks dangerous to me. They will undermine the very freedoms you hold dear!

How We Seek to Follow the Jesus of the Gospels - Seven Values We Share:

• Compassion and Care for "The Least of These"
  We follow Jesus' call to compassion and his command to "love your neighbor as you love yourself."
• Responsibility and Obligation
  We heed the call to take up our cross - to transform our lives, but also to do more: to move beyond the "personal" and to take responsibility in our communities and country.
• Justice for All
  We stand against powerful systems of human injustice in our world as Jesus stood against them in his.
• Equality and Inclusiveness
  Like Jesus did among women, tax collectors, Samaritans and others, we reject hurtful exclusionary distinctions between "us" and "them."
• Faithful Stewardship
  We follow Jesus' call for responsible stewardship - caring protection for the environment and sharing of our worldly treasure.
• Right Use of Power We turn away from fear; we use the power of God that flows through us to protect the innocent and build justice in the world, not to coerce others to our will or force others to accept our vision.
• Spiritual Foundation
  We turn to God as our spiritual foundation.

Looking at their value statement, I certainly get a feeling that they do not represent the values of your brand of Christianity.

[AlAyeti]

Where is the preaching of repentance? You know, the Christian "brand?"

No repenting no follower. Even you should be able to glean the supreme importance of that issue from the Gospels. You are the one that wants to use words and grammar accurately.

I'm on your side.

I started another thread about the heretical nature of the Alliance. It's in the Christianity thread.

[micatala]

Seems Liberals have no problem with church and state as long as they have the only voice in the states.

If you have any evidence that Liberals have promoted laws or policies that ban religious practice or free speech on the part of U.S. citizens, please present.

If you have any evidence that Liberals are seeking to establish their own state religion, please present.

This organization seems to simply be presenting religious and political views as an independent organization, as is their right to do. No one is preventing conservative organizations like Focus on the Family, or the 700 club, or the Eagle Forum or whatever from presenting their views.

It seems to me the implication you make is false, and it is certainly unsubstantiated.

As for spelling, I think we have enough to discuss without getting into grammar trivialities, and I say this as one who embarassed himself by correcting someone's (was it you M? ) spelling and then providing an incorrect correction to his error.

[AlAyeti]

Micatala,

This group has my approval as an American to say anything they want to. They are openly declaring their political intentions.

As a Christian, and as a Christian that wants to "protect" other Christians, I see this group as liars and deceivers.

Loving someone in the Christian sense is to bring them to repentance, not accept them for what they are. No where is that in the Gospels. In fact it is oppositional to the Gospel and indeed is evil bottom line.

I'm going to do my best to be a little nicer in my rebuttals, as long as others are nice too, but opposing this group is the right thing to do.

Obviously you and others that know my positions well, know my feelings about homosexuals. They are perfectly intolerant.

This is very disconcerting the way that they put this:

Gay and lesbian people and heterosexual people are all children of God. We all labor together in our places of employment. We all worship together in our churches (except in those churches where gays and lesbians have been banished from the congregation). On April 15, we are all taxpayers. As God's children and as American citizens, gays and lesbians deserve legal protection from bigotry and discrimination.

And:

Discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders - especially legally sanctioned discrimination - violates the Gospel-based values of justice and equality for all people. We support equality under the law for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.

The bold is an assertion of action against Bible-believing Christian Churches.

Also it is a gross lie.

Christians in the beginning of the Church referred to it and themselves as the Ecclesia. The Called Out Ones. But, if there is no different in the congregation than the worldly people, than how is that Church filled with followers of Christ, that has called them "out."

No one is banished from a Christian Church unless they are unrepentant.

A Church that allows people to be members that are wilfully sinning, are not going to repent and have no remorse are not following Biblical guidelines. A person cannot find forgiveness once or seventy times seven times, unless they admit they need to ask for forgiveness. Homosexuality has eliminated this most important Christian aspect by claiming a congenital condition for their sin nature. They deny they are sinning because made them the way they are. The Bible does not agree with this perspective.

This Alliance group, made up of the typical band of leftists, are claiming that Churches that follow the Bible are breaking the law.

I'm hoping that at least I will have made such an impression on the people I have debated with, that this will be obvious when they start attacking good and decent Christian Churches.

This is not far fetched nor is it paranoia. It is the history of Christianity.

I'm hoping that America will not further the evil of its practices, by ending the legality of the Ecclesia.

For indeed the Lord will protect the Called Out Ones.

It interests me that the homosexual culture and community has coopted the Rainbow the promise of God, and the very word that defines the condition most healthy for being a Christian.

I'll post some of this in the thread devoted to this topic.

I'm just hoping the First Amendment won't be perverted as well.

[juliod]

Homosexuality has eliminated this most important Christian aspect by claiming a congenital condition for their sin nature. They deny they are sinning because made them the way they are. The Bible does not agree with this perspective.

Really? Humans aren't born into sin? That's a novel interpretation.

Homosexuals sin, sure. But so does everyone else, right? And all sine is equally offensive to Jesus, isn't it.

Do you wear clothing made of mixed fibers? I bet you do. Sinner! And since you are unrepentant about it, I expect that you will cease attending church.

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

I repent.

I'll start looking for mall stores that adhere to Biblical principals. let me ask, do think I'll have an easy search?

I tolerate my clothing, I do not accept them as Biblically supported.

I tolerate homosexuals until they want to say that what they do is not repugnant and sinful, and want to lead anyone in anything in the church. I do not even want to know what anyone does sexually. I've looked around at church members many times. Met a lot of them and know a lot of them. Not once is their sexuality promoted or advertised.

I have the freedom of speech to challenge anything on a religious level and nothing in the constitution can stop that.

Unless laws are passed designating my opinion as hate speech.

Sound familiar?

[juliod]

I'll start looking for mall stores that adhere to Biblical principals. let me ask, do think I'll have an easy search?

Of course! What a silly question. I wear only 100% cotton, and I''m not even a religious maniac.

And the orthodox Jewish community is very strict about clothing rules. I bet you don't keep kosher, either. My what a hypocrit you appear to be.

I tolerate homosexuals until they want to say that what they do is not repugnant and sinful, and want to lead anyone in anything in the church.

So what you really object to is the openess of some homosexuals?

Let me ask, are you jealous of what you percieve as a freedom enjoyed by "out" homosexuals? Is there something you think they can do but you can't because of your religious indocrination? Have you ever read Fred Wanted to Ski?

DanZ