Chick-fil-A and beyond (incarnation, hell, punishment, Moses)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They did not surpass the Constitution. The 1st amendment is very specific in restricting the power of the Congress ONLY.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It was not until the 14th amendment, when the States were forced to stop sponsoring Christianity. It is clear, however, that the founders intended to leave it to the States to decide their own laws regarding religion.
There are eight States in US where constitution text prohibits atheists from holding public office. In the 1960s the SC ruled the laws are can no longer be enforced, but again the intent of the framers of those constitutions is clear. All State constitutions mention creator.
MA Constitution today: " the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily"
I'm not going sit here and debate what Was, that would be like whistling in the wind. We do not live in the past, we live in the here and now and we have to abide by the Laws for the here and now and those laws say that some things are unconstitutional and I am aware of Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.. which appears to have started the whole thing with the Supreme Court upholding the entitlement of the separation of church and state and required all states to take a look at their constitutions and make the appropriate changes and those that didn't can not enforce that section of their state constitution. I don't care what the intent was of our founding fathers, they're not here to tell us, we cannot read their minds. I care only about here and now and the laws that we have to abide by now. If people don't like the laws that we have to abide by now than they should lobby the U.S. Congress to make those changes, otherwise abide the law.
I'm 46 years old and firmly set in Generation X.
Younger generations like Gen-Y and younger overwhelmingly support same sex marriage based on what they have been exposed to within the confines of the classroom.
Formal church participation is in a continuing nose dive.
What the participants in this thread have been debating will be a moot issue as these younger voting blocks reach the age of consent.
As polarizing views and actions from the opposing side of same sex marriage shrink and begin to fall upon deaf ears the majority will inevitably control future social norms.
You will always have a faction of society that will oppose anything concerning GLBT advances but as time moves forward that opposition grows ever weaker.
You can see the changes appearing before us with the elimination of DADT in the military ranks and the slow but steady progress same sex marriage is making across the country.
Just as Jerry Falwell has died so will the CEO of Chik Fil A and time will continue it's march forward.
I'm not going sit here and debate what Was, that would be like whistling in the wind. We do not live in the past, we live in the here and now and we have to abide by the Laws for the here and now and those laws say that some things are unconstitutional and I am aware of Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.. which appears to have started the whole thing with the Supreme Court upholding the entitlement of the separation of church and state and required all states to take a look at their constitutions and make the appropriate changes and those that didn't can not enforce that section of their state constitution. I don't care what the intent was of our founding fathers, they're not here to tell us, we cannot read their minds. I care only about here and now and the laws that we have to abide by now. If people don't like the laws that we have to abide by now than they should lobby the U.S. Congress to make those changes, otherwise abide the law.
You don't care then I am not sure why you keep talking about it.
I'm not going sit here and debate what Was, that would be like whistling in the wind. We do not live in the past, we live in the here and now and we have to abide by the Laws for the here and now and those laws say that some things are unconstitutional and I am aware of Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.. which appears to have started the whole thing with the Supreme Court upholding the entitlement of the separation of church and state and required all states to take a look at their constitutions and make the appropriate changes and those that didn't can not enforce that section of their state constitution. I don't care what the intent was of our founding fathers, they're not here to tell us, we cannot read their minds. I care only about here and now and the laws that we have to abide by now. If people don't like the laws that we have to abide by now than they should lobby the U.S. Congress to make those changes, otherwise abide the law.
We are heading toward a socialistic dictatorship. Enjoy the new Law.
Man-O-Man, there is a lot of hate in this world, too much mind thinking, too much in our own understanding. However, what I cannot understand is the mass justification of immorality (a immoral act or practice) going on in this country alone, but the entire world in general. I say immorality as standing in for all immoral actions or practice, not just one singled out like in this topic. I only pray that the end of days will arrive soon, and the moral, faithful, and loving will be reconciled with God our Father. Simply put....."We can go home!"
Even through the many, many immorality's of this world, we must continue to have FAITH and continue to give LOVE to all, even the most unclean my brothers and sisters. LOVE is unconditional forgiveness, even if immoral.
"Victory party"? You consider people going out of their way to supporting bigotry and discrimination a 'victory'?
Alright, Cruz! No, had not heard about it.
It's not bigotry. It's called being faithful to one's God, to what one believes. It's mostly called FREE SPEECH, something that isn't for minorities, only. It's called the American Way.
I am glad many Christians don't share your view. Your religious views should not control the lives of others, especially through law and public policy. You mistake being salt and light as a Christian in your personal life with attempts to control and oppress people who think differently. Moreover, your understanding of Christianity is not the sole Christian view on some matters. No wonder people want nothing to do with Christianity today. Such an awful witness.
--Devout Lutheran Christian
I'd consider - God's Law becoming the law of the land - a victory.
Why one earth would Almighty God need our puny and imperfect enforcement of His laws??? He wants each of us INDIVIDUALLY to accept His laws VOLUNTARILY. Where do you get the hubris and vanity to think you should therefore FORCE everyone to obey what YOU think God's laws are???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.