Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.

so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!

In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
2. love of neighbor as ourselves
3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)

I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
that all other laws are based on
1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.

All other laws come from these basic natural laws
that are inherent in human nature as combining
* Mind
* Body
* Spirit

where laws or contracts/agreements connect
* INDIVIDUAL to
* COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
* RELATIONSHIP between the two.

both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.

So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament. No Christianity for me. If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.

The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.

What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.

B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.

so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.

C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.

Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.

They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.

And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. And as i told you, no slavery violates my rights. My religion allows slavery to this day. You VIOLATE MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. You are prohibiting me from the full performance of my religion.

B. 1) Spiritual healing is religious. I don't care if it's equal choice, it violates the 1st amendment if it receives government funding
B 2) There is no such thing as gay marriage. The Civil Marriage law was not opened up and added NOTHING as a CHOICE. The law imposes NOTHING on ANYONE. The Government isn't endorsing Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage. It allows couples to get marriage, if THEY CHOOSE. No endorsement at all, never has been.
C) A religion can reject gay marriage (religious marriage). It can refuse to officiate a civil marriage between same sex partners. You, as a US citizen cannot choose to agree or reject MARRIAGE except as an opinion. No one is forced to change any beliefs. You must comprehend that MARRIAGE is a RIGHT.. Can you explain to me how CIVIL MARRIAGE forces anyone to do anything? You keep combining religious matrimony with civil marriage. Quite a difference.

Sneekin

A. And I would tell you that you have the right to exercise slavery VOLUNTARILY
with those who AGREE to it as you do. If you agree to be enslaved, such as for charity,
and providing free health care at no cost to others, you are free to do so.
but by the same Bible you claim endorses slavery,
* it says to love one another as equal neighbors.
* it says to obey human institutions and civil authority,
so if laws say no involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime prescribed by law
then you as a believer would accept this rebuke and correction.

B. as for spiritual healing
I am asking for the same thing that applies for marriage

if people choose to endorse it or engage in it,
it is by free choice and not imposed.

so how can this be done for spiritual healing
as it is for marriage?

 

[emilynghiem]

[QU
I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..

There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
There are just American rights.

Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?

Really? You can't tell the difference between rights and opinions?

Why do you consider it as only "opinion"? It's "opinion" only from your point of view. Why don't you consider a Christian point of view, as well, as yours or gay's? Does the Christian have rights to consider this situation from THEIR point of view?

Marriage is a right in the United States- that is a well established legal fact.

Those rights are not always immediately recognized- hence court cases that said that voters couldn't deny marriage to mixed race couples, or gay couples, or men who owed child support, or prisoners in jail.

No one is going to force any Christian to marry anyone he or she doesn't want to marry.

Okay Syriusly

Now I'm asking Sneekin how do we apply this same structure
allowing marriage (including gays getting marriage) to be licensed by govt,
to Spiritual Healing and let that be an equal choice through govt?

How can we do the same where it is a secular choice as 'any other type
of mental health or medical treatment therapy or option'
and offer it as a free CHOICE ie NOT IMPOSED OR FORCED on anyone who doesn't consent,
where it is like the free choice to use marriage for gay couples for those who believe in that?

 

[Syriusly]

[
But I have serious doubts, living in homosexual families is really good for children. Much statistics, I've seen, usually said:
1. Homosexualist are in risk group of venereal diseases, including aids. Most of this diseases are dangerous for children.
2. Children in homosexual families are at high risk of sexual abuse and sexual violence.
3. What about psychology and gender orientation of growing children?

So, is it nesessary to open legal way to increase of unhappy children, to legalize SSM?

Let me address your post in two parts
1) Most of what you posted is just absolute bullshit.
2) None of that has anything to do with marriage.

Think this through. Nothing prevents any person in the United States from choosing to have a child.

A woman who wants to get pregnant and can convince a man to donate sperm to her can get pregnant- likewise a man who can find a woman to act as his surrogate can get a woman pregnant.

Millions of gay couples have children together.
Preventing them from marrying does not stop them from having their children- it doesn't mean that the state will rip those children away from the 'ebil gheys'- it only means that those children will not have legally married parents.

As Justice Kennedy observed in the Prop 8 case

“There is an immediate legal injury and that’s the voice of these children,” he said. “There’s some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”

 

[Syriusly]

There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
There are just American rights.

Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?

Really? You can't tell the difference between rights and opinions?

Why do you consider it as only "opinion"? It's "opinion" only from your point of view. Why don't you consider a Christian point of view, as well, as yours or gay's? Does the Christian have rights to consider this situation from THEIR point of view?

Marriage is a right in the United States- that is a well established legal fact.

Those rights are not always immediately recognized- hence court cases that said that voters couldn't deny marriage to mixed race couples, or gay couples, or men who owed child support, or prisoners in jail.

No one is going to force any Christian to marry anyone he or she doesn't want to marry.

Okay Syriusly

Now I'm asking Sneekin how do we apply this same structure
allowing marriage (including gays getting marriage) to be licensed by govt,
to Spiritual Healing and let that be an equal choice through govt?

How can we do the same where it is a secular choice as 'any other type
of mental health or medical treatment therapy or option'
and offer it as a free CHOICE ie NOT IMPOSED OR FORCED on anyone who doesn't consent,
where it is like the free choice to use marriage for gay couples for those who believe in that?

I have no idea why you are bringing 'spiritual healing' into this discussion and have no interest in pursuing it.

 

[Sneekin]

So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament. No Christianity for me. If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.

The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.

What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.

B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.

so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.

C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.

Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.

They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.

And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions. So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion. Your definition is NT law. I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery. Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine). Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian. You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible. There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and (translations) a) kissed; b) chastely kissed on the cheek; c) shook hands. Some translations recognize several same sex relationships. Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie. Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century. That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.

 

[emilynghiem]

What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.

B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.

so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.

C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.

Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.

They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.

And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions. So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion. Your definition is NT law. I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery. Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine). Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian. You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible. There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and (translations) a) kissed; b) chastely kissed on the cheek; c) shook hands. Some translations recognize several same sex relationships. Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie. Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century. That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.

Not at all Sneekin

by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
see Matthew 18:15-20

I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!

to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.

If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
I am called to leave you alone.

But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
either agreement or neutral stalemate.

It is a mutual process of exchange,
not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.

 

[Sneekin]

So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament. No Christianity for me. If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.

The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.

What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.

B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.

so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.

C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.

Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.

They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.

And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. And as i told you, no slavery violates my rights. My religion allows slavery to this day. You VIOLATE MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. You are prohibiting me from the full performance of my religion.

B. 1) Spiritual healing is religious. I don't care if it's equal choice, it violates the 1st amendment if it receives government funding
B 2) There is no such thing as gay marriage. The Civil Marriage law was not opened up and added NOTHING as a CHOICE. The law imposes NOTHING on ANYONE. The Government isn't endorsing Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage. It allows couples to get marriage, if THEY CHOOSE. No endorsement at all, never has been.
C) A religion can reject gay marriage (religious marriage). It can refuse to officiate a civil marriage between same sex partners. You, as a US citizen cannot choose to agree or reject MARRIAGE except as an opinion. No one is forced to change any beliefs. You must comprehend that MARRIAGE is a RIGHT.. Can you explain to me how CIVIL MARRIAGE forces anyone to do anything? You keep combining religious matrimony with civil marriage. Quite a difference.

Sneekin

A. And I would tell you that you have the right to exercise slavery VOLUNTARILY
with those who AGREE to it as you do. If you agree to be enslaved, such as for charity,
and providing free health care at no cost to others, you are free to do so.
but by the same Bible you claim endorses slavery,
* it says to love one another as equal neighbors.
* it says to obey human institutions and civil authority,
so if laws say no involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime prescribed by law
then you as a believer would accept this rebuke and correction.

B. as for spiritual healing
I am asking for the same thing that applies for marriage

if people choose to endorse it or engage in it,
it is by free choice and not imposed.

so how can this be done for spiritual healing
as it is for marriage?

A) Voluntary slavery is contradictory - and where did I say I used YOUR bible? My bible says none of what you put down.
B) Spiritual healing, for the 10th time, violates the first amendment. Marriage is a contract. Spiritual healing can be just about any religious thing, such as snake handling, beatings (beat the demon), beads, rattles, feathers, prayers, speaking in tongues, prayer chains, etc. Since it directly violates the US Constitution by receipt of federal funding.

The same thing that applies for marriage? The difference is Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT and you want to impose YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS into MY HEALTHCARE. Marriage is upheld by the 14th, faith healing VIOLATES the first.

 

[emilynghiem]

What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.

B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.

so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.

C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.

Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.

They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.

And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. And as i told you, no slavery violates my rights. My religion allows slavery to this day. You VIOLATE MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. You are prohibiting me from the full performance of my religion.

B. 1) Spiritual healing is religious. I don't care if it's equal choice, it violates the 1st amendment if it receives government funding
B 2) There is no such thing as gay marriage. The Civil Marriage law was not opened up and added NOTHING as a CHOICE. The law imposes NOTHING on ANYONE. The Government isn't endorsing Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage. It allows couples to get marriage, if THEY CHOOSE. No endorsement at all, never has been.
C) A religion can reject gay marriage (religious marriage). It can refuse to officiate a civil marriage between same sex partners. You, as a US citizen cannot choose to agree or reject MARRIAGE except as an opinion. No one is forced to change any beliefs. You must comprehend that MARRIAGE is a RIGHT.. Can you explain to me how CIVIL MARRIAGE forces anyone to do anything? You keep combining religious matrimony with civil marriage. Quite a difference.

Sneekin

A. And I would tell you that you have the right to exercise slavery VOLUNTARILY
with those who AGREE to it as you do. If you agree to be enslaved, such as for charity,
and providing free health care at no cost to others, you are free to do so.
but by the same Bible you claim endorses slavery,
* it says to love one another as equal neighbors.
* it says to obey human institutions and civil authority,
so if laws say no involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime prescribed by law
then you as a believer would accept this rebuke and correction.

B. as for spiritual healing
I am asking for the same thing that applies for marriage

if people choose to endorse it or engage in it,
it is by free choice and not imposed.

so how can this be done for spiritual healing
as it is for marriage?

A) Voluntary slavery is contradictory - and where did I say I used YOUR bible? My bible says none of what you put down.
B) Spiritual healing, for the 10th time, violates the first amendment. Marriage is a contract. Spiritual healing can be just about any religious thing, such as snake handling, beatings (beat the demon), beads, rattles, feathers, prayers, speaking in tongues, prayer chains, etc. Since it directly violates the US Constitution by receipt of federal funding.

The same thing that applies for marriage? The difference is Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT and you want to impose YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS into MY HEALTHCARE. Marriage is upheld by the 14th, faith healing VIOLATES the first.

Dear Sneekin
A. then I find out what your religion, belief or Bible does say.
And if you are using the First Amendment to practice and defend that,
then I show you the rest of the First Amendment, Bill of rights and laws in context
that come with that. Whatever laws you are invoking, I learn what they are
and rebuke you where you are violating your own principles you ascribe to.

When this is done properly, the person respects the correction
because it is given in their own terms. Like taking a set of
math variables in a GIVEN problem, and using THOSE
to either demonstrate consistency or inconsistency with ITSELF

B. As for spiritual healing, what if that is someone's way of
getting their equal health care provisions.

So if you are requiring people through ACA to go through
GOVT ENDORSED AND APPROVED ALTERNATIVES
then ACA REQUIRES that *federal govt* endorse these choices
if people are to have them as "equal choices of health care"

 

[emilynghiem]

Here Sneekin how is this NOT federal govt
regulating or discriminating on the basis of RELIGION
to determine who is exempt and who is fined for not complying:

Are You Exempt From The Obamacare Insurance Penalty?

You are not subject to the penalty for 2014 if you qualify for any of the following exemptions

• You are a member of a health care sharing ministry, which is a tax-exempt organization whose members share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and have shared medical expenses in accordance with those beliefs continuously since at least December 31, 1999.
• 
  
• You are a member of a religious sect that has been in existence since December 31, 1950 and is recognized by the Social Security Administration as conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits.

NOTE: and NO I am NOT trying to diminish the definition of domestic violence.

Technically what I am going through constitutes LEGAL abuse or government abuse.
Where govt authority and public resources were abused to exclude and damage
an entire community, and in trying to cap or restore that community from damages,
I have become "enslaved" against my consent, to pay the costs using MY labor and income
to restore rights of citizens abridged or denied by govt induced damages until the restitution is resolved other ways.

The definitions of exemptions do NOT count legal abuse or govt abuse as a reason to be exempt.
But making me pay money ON TOP of restitution I am covering because govt failed to recognize
or pay these damages, is adding MORE burden and conditions on top of abuse I am already under.

so to deprive me of free choice and use of my own income and labor to pay fines or costs I didn't agree to,
is causing a FORM of involuntary servitude and economic abuse that is listed under domestic violence on the DOJ site
IF you count govt relations to be a relationship that is being abused this way!!!

Because Federal Govt IS INTRUDING into my personal life by taking my income (which I need to pay debts and damages
from PAST GOVT ABUSES), this IS affecting that personal relationship, so I DO count it as internalized abuse.

Sorry if that offends the traditional intended meaning of servitude and domestic abuse,
but that is the closest place in the given law that EXPLAINS the hardship I am under.

I can also argue that as a volunteer supporting the nonprofit volunteer efforts and organization
of Darrell Patterson who is an elected Precinct Chair for this community district,
I have be en forced to pay $300 a month to prevent loss of the Van he uses for elderly and youth.
I didn't agree to pay the whole amount, the original agre ement was that he raise the money,
but since he couldn't we then agreed to alternate where I pay 300 a month and he pays 300 the next.
That never happened.

Thus working a second job goes to pay for the VAN HE USES for HIS nonprofit group
under terms I never agreed to enslave myself to, but that's what happened.

so YES if that's what it takes to argue I have a hardship, I would argue
this is ECONOMIC ABUSE that meets the DOJ statement of
withholding one's access to money

Both Obama and Patterson are Democratic Party leaders who claim to
be against slavery. but I am arguing it causes A FORM OF involuntary servitude
to endorse these policies of ACA mandates REQUIRING me to pay
MORE than I agreed to, on top of already paying for a van of the Party Precinct Chair out of my income.

that is depriving me of my labor and income against my consent.
I am forced to go along with these terms to avoid worse consequences,
but I didn't agree to the terms that are imposed on me.
THUS INVOLUNTARY.

Now, if you would like an interesting example for your law students to investigate:
what is the best way to correct this problem I am saying infringes on my rights?

If I cannot find a lawyer, does that mean I have to endure this abuse
for lack of one? Whose fault is it: is it my fault for having beliefs that
are violated by ACA mandates, or is it Democrats fault for passing
and enforcing such mandates I am saying infringe on me without
any due process to show I committed a crime and deserve to lose liberty!

Do I sue the Precinct Party chair for breach of contract?
If he has no money how does that help?
My condition on helping is that we work together to assess
and collect restitution owed for ALL the abuses going on in our district.
That is the agreement. Do I sue or petition him to take action
and contact Obama, or who can fix this problem of govt abuses costing us both money?

And what is the best way to Explain the need for corrections to
* Darrell Patterson and other Democrats
* Sheila Jackson Lee and Obama
Would involuntary servitude explain why this is wrongful and abusive?
Or what would you suggest?

 

[Faun]

Then

Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.

Dear Faun

There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.

Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.

^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?

If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?

B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.

Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?

WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?

????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies

Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.

1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?

2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?

Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?

I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.

Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?

Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?

Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with "yes" or "no."

ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???

WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.

Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??

That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?

That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.

A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)

In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.

What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.

The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.

RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
(and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
then ALL people get that.
C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.

Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
I am trying to address these things in context.
the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).

* NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?

While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.

What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.

Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?

 

[Faun]

Emily... step away from your computer or mobile device and call your mother.

 

[Sneekin]

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions. So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion. Your definition is NT law. I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery. Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine). Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian. You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible. There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and (translations) a) kissed; b) chastely kissed on the cheek; c) shook hands. Some translations recognize several same sex relationships. Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie. Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century. That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.

Not at all Sneekin

by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
see Matthew 18:15-20

I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!

to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.

If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
I am called to leave you alone.

But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
either agreement or neutral stalemate.

It is a mutual process of exchange,
not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.

Emily - again you bring religion into it. Enough. Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion. You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate. Enough discussion.

 

[emilynghiem]

Then

Dear Faun

There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.

Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.

^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?

If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?

B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.

Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?

WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?

????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies

1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?

2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?

Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?

I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.

Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?

Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?

Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with "yes" or "no."

ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???

WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.

Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??

That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?

That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.

A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)

In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.

What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.

The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.

RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
(and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
then ALL people get that.
C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.

Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
I am trying to address these things in context.
the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).

* NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?

While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.

What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.

Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?

NOPE
1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution

2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed

Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through
options that aren't equally available for all people?

And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.

if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
OR ELSE FACE FINES?

Please answer that question ^
Thanks Faun

 

[Sneekin]

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. And as i told you, no slavery violates my rights. My religion allows slavery to this day. You VIOLATE MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. You are prohibiting me from the full performance of my religion.

B. 1) Spiritual healing is religious. I don't care if it's equal choice, it violates the 1st amendment if it receives government funding
B 2) There is no such thing as gay marriage. The Civil Marriage law was not opened up and added NOTHING as a CHOICE. The law imposes NOTHING on ANYONE. The Government isn't endorsing Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage. It allows couples to get marriage, if THEY CHOOSE. No endorsement at all, never has been.
C) A religion can reject gay marriage (religious marriage). It can refuse to officiate a civil marriage between same sex partners. You, as a US citizen cannot choose to agree or reject MARRIAGE except as an opinion. No one is forced to change any beliefs. You must comprehend that MARRIAGE is a RIGHT.. Can you explain to me how CIVIL MARRIAGE forces anyone to do anything? You keep combining religious matrimony with civil marriage. Quite a difference.

Sneekin

A. And I would tell you that you have the right to exercise slavery VOLUNTARILY
with those who AGREE to it as you do. If you agree to be enslaved, such as for charity,
and providing free health care at no cost to others, you are free to do so.
but by the same Bible you claim endorses slavery,
* it says to love one another as equal neighbors.
* it says to obey human institutions and civil authority,
so if laws say no involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime prescribed by law
then you as a believer would accept this rebuke and correction.

B. as for spiritual healing
I am asking for the same thing that applies for marriage

if people choose to endorse it or engage in it,
it is by free choice and not imposed.

so how can this be done for spiritual healing
as it is for marriage?

A) Voluntary slavery is contradictory - and where did I say I used YOUR bible? My bible says none of what you put down.
B) Spiritual healing, for the 10th time, violates the first amendment. Marriage is a contract. Spiritual healing can be just about any religious thing, such as snake handling, beatings (beat the demon), beads, rattles, feathers, prayers, speaking in tongues, prayer chains, etc. Since it directly violates the US Constitution by receipt of federal funding.

The same thing that applies for marriage? The difference is Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT and you want to impose YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS into MY HEALTHCARE. Marriage is upheld by the 14th, faith healing VIOLATES the first.

Dear Sneekin
A. then I find out what your religion, belief or Bible does say.
And if you are using the First Amendment to practice and defend that,
then I show you the rest of the First Amendment, Bill of rights and laws in context
that come with that. Whatever laws you are invoking, I learn what they are
and rebuke you where you are violating your own principles you ascribe to.

When this is done properly, the person respects the correction
because it is given in their own terms. Like taking a set of
math variables in a GIVEN problem, and using THOSE
to either demonstrate consistency or inconsistency with ITSELF

B. As for spiritual healing, what if that is someone's way of
getting their equal health care provisions.

So if you are requiring people through ACA to go through
GOVT ENDORSED AND APPROVED ALTERNATIVES
then ACA REQUIRES that *federal govt* endorse these choices
if people are to have them as "equal choices of health care"

Imagine that - the ACA requires you to have insurance that actually does something and cover something. Go figure. I'm sorry - you elected your representatives. They lost. It's the law. Deal until you get your legislators can change the law. This is NOT the forum to do it on.

My scriptures aren't even on the same shelf as my constitution - there's actually a physical separation - it helped my kids when they were younger to understand. You can't impose your religious beliefs on spiritual healing and expect that a collective "you" will decide if my religion, belief or bible suits your needs, or if I have to change it. The only law I'm invoking is separation of church and state. You are hell bent on combining them with spiritual healing. Enough. Stalemate, move on.

 

[emilynghiem]

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions. So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion. Your definition is NT law. I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery. Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine). Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian. You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible. There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and (translations) a) kissed; b) chastely kissed on the cheek; c) shook hands. Some translations recognize several same sex relationships. Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie. Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century. That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.

Not at all Sneekin

by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
see Matthew 18:15-20

I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!

to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.

If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
I am called to leave you alone.

But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
either agreement or neutral stalemate.

It is a mutual process of exchange,
not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.

Emily - again you bring religion into it. Enough. Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion. You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate. Enough discussion.

1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.

2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
laws too which come from God.

My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.

This works by fr e e choice, never by force.

So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!

 

[Sneekin]

A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions. So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion. Your definition is NT law. I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery. Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine). Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian. You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible. There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and (translations) a) kissed; b) chastely kissed on the cheek; c) shook hands. Some translations recognize several same sex relationships. Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie. Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century. That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.

Not at all Sneekin

by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
see Matthew 18:15-20

I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!

to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.

If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
I am called to leave you alone.

But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
either agreement or neutral stalemate.

It is a mutual process of exchange,
not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.

Emily - again you bring religion into it. Enough. Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion. You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate. Enough discussion.

1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.

2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
laws too which come from God.

My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.

This works by fr e e choice, never by force.

So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!

No - freedom from ALL religions. Your religious beliefs are not my constitutional rights and won't be. My religious beliefs are not to be factored into the law as well (and not).

That may be Mustafaa's belief (followers of the book), but it's not all - and it doesn't cover all religions. It doesn't cover the NT - which didn't exist to all 3 parties. The book is the OT. Followers of Abraham would be another name for them, as they are descended from a single religion (Judaism). So, we are back to Jews who recognize slavery, etc, etc. No shellfish, no pork, no mixing meat and dairy - the list goes on. Except, then Christians can't have their Lobster, Muslims can't have their meat be Halal, etc.This too would violate law. Of course, much of this violates tenets of other faiths. I've been on threads where people have stated that Catholics are cannibals - because they believe in transubstantiation - that bread and wine is converted to the actual body and blood of Christ. by eating/drinking actual blood and flesh, one would be a cannibal. Only a few religions believe in that concept any more (Christian), and non-Christians don't believe it at all. This is why we don't have what you ask for.

 

[Sneekin]

A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions. So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion. Your definition is NT law. I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery. Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine). Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian. You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible. There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and (translations) a) kissed; b) chastely kissed on the cheek; c) shook hands. Some translations recognize several same sex relationships. Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie. Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century. That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.

Not at all Sneekin

by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
see Matthew 18:15-20

I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!

to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.

If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
I am called to leave you alone.

But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
either agreement or neutral stalemate.

It is a mutual process of exchange,
not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.

Emily - again you bring religion into it. Enough. Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion. You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate. Enough discussion.

1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.

2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
laws too which come from God.

My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.

This works by fr e e choice, never by force.

So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!

Emily, normally I'm drawing parallels between the Qur'an and the Old Testament (with a smattering of NT). But to clarify, there are interpretations by Muhammad that do not in any way follow what you consider to be the Christian bible.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions. So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion. Your definition is NT law. I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery. Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine). Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian. You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible. There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and (translations) a) kissed; b) chastely kissed on the cheek; c) shook hands. Some translations recognize several same sex relationships. Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie. Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century. That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.

Not at all Sneekin

by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
see Matthew 18:15-20

I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!

to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.

If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
I am called to leave you alone.

But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
either agreement or neutral stalemate.

It is a mutual process of exchange,
not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.

Emily - again you bring religion into it. Enough. Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion. You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate. Enough discussion.

1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.

2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
laws too which come from God.

My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.

This works by fr e e choice, never by force.

So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!

Emily, normally I'm drawing parallels between the Qur'an and the Old Testament (with a smattering of NT). But to clarify, there are interpretations by Muhammad that do not in any way follow what you consider to be the Christian bible.

Dear Sneekin
With most people I have used this method to communicate with,
they either follow some variation of the Biblical scriptural authority,
or they use natural laws as in Constitutitional language and concepts,
or some other system like Buddhism or their own words.
One friend used respect for Truth, respect for Freedom, and
respect for People or the Environment for the last one.
this still aligns with the same three levels of
individual, collective level, and relationship between the two.

so regardless what words or system people use to describe it,
it's going to follow some basic patterns and we can still align
and communicate what is within the rules and what is a violation
they are opposed to .

As for Freedom or free will, i frame that in context with
peace, where the balance between freedom and peace
is justice. so whatever terms or even religions people use
fall into those same areas.

I think the distinction you are trying to make is between
* people who apply laws with Retributive Justice
and rely on judgment and punishment for enforcement
* people who approach them with Restorative Justice
and focus on corrections of wrongs and restoration of relations

so if people choose to go the retributive route,
they get policed by other people who take that route.

I am focused on how to work out policies cooperatively
by aligning people who take the Restorative route.

Those are the ones where I find we can communicate
to align our value systems and agree on universal standards in both systems,
even where we use different terms.

If people are bent on bullying and making war to force others by oppression,
they aren't on the level of communicating to prevent such conflicts.
I would start with the ones who ARE ready,
and then enlist the help of leaders who CAN connect with the
fundamental types and still form a consensus indirectly.

i would delegate that work to people who can do both.
They can negotiate and get the internal policies aligned
and they can also defend between competing groups externally.

Does that make sense.

the way I would reach those groups is through others
who are able to communicate on their level.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions. So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion. Your definition is NT law. I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery. Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine). Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian. You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible. There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and (translations) a) kissed; b) chastely kissed on the cheek; c) shook hands. Some translations recognize several same sex relationships. Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie. Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century. That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.

Not at all Sneekin

by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
see Matthew 18:15-20

I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!

to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.

If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
I am called to leave you alone.

But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
either agreement or neutral stalemate.

It is a mutual process of exchange,
not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.

Emily - again you bring religion into it. Enough. Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion. You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate. Enough discussion.

1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.

2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
laws too which come from God.

My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.

This works by fr e e choice, never by force.

So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!

No - freedom from ALL religions. Your religious beliefs are not my constitutional rights and won't be. My religious beliefs are not to be factored into the law as well (and not).

That may be Mustafaa's belief (followers of the book), but it's not all - and it doesn't cover all religions. It doesn't cover the NT - which didn't exist to all 3 parties. The book is the OT. Followers of Abraham would be another name for them, as they are descended from a single religion (Judaism). So, we are back to Jews who recognize slavery, etc, etc. No shellfish, no pork, no mixing meat and dairy - the list goes on. Except, then Christians can't have their Lobster, Muslims can't have their meat be Halal, etc.This too would violate law. Of course, much of this violates tenets of other faiths. I've been on threads where people have stated that Catholics are cannibals - because they believe in transubstantiation - that bread and wine is converted to the actual body and blood of Christ. by eating/drinking actual blood and flesh, one would be a cannibal. Only a few religions believe in that concept any more (Christian), and non-Christians don't believe it at all. This is why we don't have what you ask for.

Right Sneekin

So why is it that you understand not to impose spiritual healing through govt, since it violates the beliefs of you and others
but can't understand when health care mandates violate someone's BELIEFS and should not be REQUIRED by govt under penalty for noncompliance?

Is it only because you don't see religious freedom as
applying equally to political beliefs but only religious beliefs?

 

[Mudda]

Gay marriage is a constitutional right of equality.