If Don't Honor God You Don't Know How To Honor Other People

Replies

• EN

  

  Erik Natams

  Feb 6, 2017

  First: What has this to do with naturism???

  Second: It is time to separate church and government. Keep your religion to yourself and don't force other people to live by your believes. That is true freedom!

  ReactReply
• PA

  

  Paul

  Feb 6, 2017

  So you want a country to ban nudity because the church has too much say in things like this and forgetting that the country needs to stop religion been used to brain washed people into making the country far worse and more likely far more blood shed because of this.

  ReactReply
• HA

  

  Half

  Feb 6, 2017

  Religion - keeping the sheeple in line since the dark ages...

  ReactReply
• T=

  

  Tom === Thomas S. Tierney

  Feb 6, 2017

  [quote]Religion - keeping the sheeple in line since the dark ages...[/quote]Agree!

  ReactReply
• JI

  

  Jim

  Feb 7, 2017

  Nice letter to the President, I don't understand the hatred for the President, But i'm sure they are in the minority. Alot of them are paid protesters. Most people I talk to like what he is doing. There is a small group of Rich people(Illuminati,etc) who are losing control of America, They wanted to turn it into a one world government, They control the News media, They control politicans,They put teachers in our schools to brainwash our kids.They control other countries. And they are doing everything they can to make Trump look bad, But its not working, Alot of people have woken up to all the corruption.

  ReactReply
• DL

  

  Dave Lowhangers

  Feb 7, 2017

  This person claims to be a writer in his profile. This writer needs an editor.

  This person claims to be a nudist. No nude profile pics.

  This person claims to be American but fails to see the constitutional right for freedom of religious-based law.

  This person has the right to his opinion. Though few appreciate this rhetoric.

  And finally. When you write poetry, do you start mort sentences with "I" as you do in your profile?

  My interest is not to attack. I do not believe in a god. I do believe man created this to solve problems an underdeveloped brain can solve. Continued evelotion will solve more of the unsolved. But then, that's my opinion. God does bless America, and however you interpret "god" we shall be a nation of laws and not religiosity based doctrine.

  ReactReply
• FU

  

  FullSun

  Feb 7, 2017

  I agree with the replies above regarding freedom of religion even though I am a Christian. The writer really does not understand things though as they are obviously oblivious to the teaching of Jesus. He taught love and grace. He hung out with sinners and people from different areas and backgrounds and taught against prejudice. However Trump has no grace for people and is prejudice calling people of various origins or backgrounds terrorists without having any idea of who they actually are.

  It amazes me that people call conservatives of today the ones supporting freedom when they are the ones that want to restrict what people do in their own lives and do not care about the disadvantaged while the Democrats work to open up freedoms accepting people and working to help the disadvantaged and level the playing field. In my view it is no ones business how people live their lives as long as it is not hurting anyone else. For example, if someone likes to drink it is not my business it becomes my business when they drive drunk.

  ReactReply
• DE

  

  DesertRat

  Feb 8, 2017

  [strong]Stephen,
  
  As a preface to my remarks I would like to say that I am a Christian and I honor One Supreme Being.
  
  I agree with others in saying that you lose all credibility if you have a lot of spelling and grammatical errors in anything that you send out. It is also wise to condense your letter to make your points succinctly.
  
  Although reading and studying of Holy Scriptures is to be commended and encouraged, the Bible is not and can not be used as the legal basis in following the laws of our Constitution. When disputes arise courts are obligated to only follow the words of the Constitution. The Bible cannot be used as the primary authority in deciding the constitutionality of any legislation.
  
  In the United States, when someone takes the oath office, they swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws provided by it. They do not swear to follow the Bible, but they do ask for Divine help in carrying out the duties of their office.[/strong]

  ReactReply
• PA

  

  Paul

  Feb 16, 2017

  The Pilgrim Fathers must be turning in their graves with what has happened with their dream of the freedom of the new land and the repressive religion where you have to do what you are told to do.

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Feb 16, 2017

  The idea that Christianity and socialism are somehow opposed forces is a propaganda invention of the Cold War - call it "Godless Communism." Repeat. True, Marx was very down on religion. But other socialist movements have been explicitly Christian. Christian social ethics, when thoughtfully worked out, are as much socialist as capitalist. (And, no, for the record, I'm not a socialist; I can make this point without having to defend socialism.)

  Jesus spoke to the issue of a religious state, since he lived in an era when the Zionist movement wanted very much to establish / re-establish one in Judea. And he was having none of it. Remember the tax protesters who tried to enlist him against Rome? "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's." The briefest and most powerful sermon on the separation of church and state on record.

  Of course any religious person will be guided by their own moral sense in every aspect of their lives. This does NOT somehow imply that they have a duty to coerce others into behavior consistent with the dictates of their religion. We meet our co-religionists in church/temple/synagogue, where we encourage one anothers' religious practice. Others, we meet in the marketplace, where our obligation is to fair and honest behavior, and to turn the other cheek to perceived slights and conflict, preserving the peace, being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

  ReactReply
• NO

  

  no_pants_bloke

  Feb 17, 2017

  I think you are just pressing buttons, having a joke, one of those keyboard fools, but laugh about this. Current inquiry into child sex abuse by ONLY the Catholic Church here in Australia, 4500 victims in 35 years, covered up. Find that funny? Want to keep spruiking about your imaginary friend?

  ReactReply
• ME

  Member

  Feb 18, 2017

  People tend to proclaim Separation of Church and State so that they may impose their religion of atheism upon all of us. To tell us we cannot speak in public of our beliefs or live our lives (Oregon Bakers) according to our Faith. They are in fact, imposing their religion upon us.

  The difference between the socialist nature of Christian beliefs and modern day socialism is huge. The former is voluntary and founded in Love. The latter; dictatorial at the point of a gun with exceptions given to favored people and based in acquisition of power. In other words---Holy vs. evil.

  Should Christianity be forced on everyone? No. Of course not. Neither should Atheism,,,or Genderism. We should all be permitted to live our lives according to our beliefs. You want to live a life that is self destructive? So be it, as long as I am not forced to pay for your consequences and you don't murder the most innocent of that action. I don't want to make a cake for your wedding, which my Faith does not recognize? Find another baker, don't destroy my life.

  ReactReply
• T=

  

  Tom === Thomas S. Tierney

  Feb 18, 2017

  [quote]The Pilgrim Fathers must be turning in their graves with what has happened with their dream of the freedom of the new land and the repressive religion where you have to do what you are told to do.[/quote] The Pilgrims who settled Plymouth Colony were part of a faction known as Separatists; they had left the Church of England to create their own denominations. Separatists were a minority, and most Puritans, including the ones who later settled Massachusetts Bay Colony, sought to reform the Church from within.

  ReactReply
• ME

  Member

  Feb 18, 2017

  [quote]The Pilgrim Fathers must be turning in their graves with what has happened with their dream of the freedom of the new land and the repressive religion where you have to do what you are told to do. The Pilgrims who settled Plymouth Colony were part of a faction known as Separatists; they had left the Church of England to create their own denominations. Separatists were a minority, and most Puritans, including the ones who later settled Massachusetts Bay Colony, sought to reform the Church from within.[/quote] They also tried communism. And it failed miserably.

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Feb 18, 2017

  [quote]People tend to proclaim Separation of Church and State so that they may impose their religion of atheism upon all of us. To tell us we cannot speak in public of our beliefs or live our lives (Oregon Bakers) according to our Faith. They are in fact, imposing their religion upon us.[/quote] Certainly atheists have a stake in separation of church and state, but so do many others. A person invited to give an invocation at the Drain Commission meeting who preaches against the existence of God would (rightly) be thought inappropriate, as well. It doesn't happen. There are times and places for such discussions, and governmental business meetings are not among them. Over the counter at a bakery? Oh, OK. That feels like a borderline case because of the nation's history with public accommodations; once upon a time blacks really couldn't effectively participate in interstate commerce because of local public and private restrictions on the services available to them; the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a needful corrective, given the history and makeup of the country. I grant that to apply the same logic to cake-baking and wedding photography stretches that logic to the breaking point. [quote]The difference between the socialist nature of Christian beliefs and modern day socialism is huge. The former is voluntary and founded in Love. The latter; dictatorial at the point of a gun with exceptions given to favored people and based in acquisition of power. In other words---Holy vs. evil.[/quote] True as to Christian belief. But there's socialism and there's socialism. Soviet-Union-style socialism was of course wrenchingly violent. The present socialist governments of northern Europe are probably less coercive that many free-market countries. I don't mean to defend socialism. Only to make the point that there's nothingparticularlyChristian about a devotion to a free-market polity.

  ReactReply
• ME

  Member

  Feb 18, 2017

  Te bakers' business and lives were destroyed by the government because they held to their religious belief. The couple buying the cake could have gone to another baker. Instead, they conspired to destroy citizens who had done no harm. It's on par with the civil rights violations that you wrote of, it also awfully close to the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. The only difference is that the guns were not drawn.

  Our country was founded on the beliefs of Christian teaching-it's irrevocable from the founding documents. The problem of today is that the pendulum of freedom of religion has swung far to the point of freeing communities from religion. That is not what the Founders intended. The motive was to guarantee all to practice without restriction. Including a prayer at the borough meeting.

  ReactReply
• RO

  

  Rob

  Feb 18, 2017

  Sorry but I find no mention of Christianity in our Constitution.

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Feb 18, 2017

  I don't eat meat, and follow a religion that discourages the killing of animals. My business is to grow, pack, and sell culinary herbs. Every November, I'm asked to provide more-than-usual amounts of parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme, which I know full well, and am sometimes told, is going to be used to stuff a turkey. I've had to give this some thought. I could refuse. The customer would (correctly) feel judged, and would very likely be offended. As dissatisfied customers will, she might communicate her dissatisfaction to others. Now, no one has asked me to slaughter a turkey, nor has my action stopped the slaughter. All I've really accomplished is to communicate my judgement. This may be my right. But it's very bad for business. If a business owner chooses to indulge in behavior that they know full will upset customers,whoexactly is responsible for ruining their business? There's a certain satisfaction in expressing a judgement about someone else's behavior. Do it publicly, and you'll enjoy support from members of your idealogical team. But is there real merit in doing this? Is it good foranybody? I don't think so.

  ReactReply
• CH

  

  Christopher

  Feb 18, 2017

  [quote] Our country was founded on the beliefs of Christian teaching-it's irrevocable from the founding documents. The problem of today is that the pendulum of freedom of religion has swung far to the point of freeing communities from religion. That is not what the Founders intended. The motive was to guarantee all to practice without restriction. Including a prayer at the borough meeting.[/quote] Some of the founding fathers were Christians, some Deists, and some rather well known atheists; Christianity may have been the majority religion but it was certainly neither the only religion or the official religion. The flip side of "freedom of religion" is "freedom from religion". They are opposite sides of the same coin. Everyone has the right to practice their own religion. But one's right to practice their religion does not include the right to adversely effect others due to said practice. In prior decades people of color did not receive the same rights as the white majority. Prior to the civil rights movement there were "white only lunch counters"; water fountains, public schools, public accommodations, and even segregation in the US Armed Forces. Christianity itself was supportive of segregation with white only churches and preaching to keep the races separate. Separate but equal was ruled illegal and in current times racial integration is the law of the land. A person or business is prohibited from saying that they don't serve or accommodate those of a specific race. If that person or business states they are prohibited from "the mixing of the races" and refuse to serve or accommodate those of a specific race they would be in violation of federal law. Bruce supports the right of a florist shop not to provide flowers to a gay wedding. Bruce believes that the flower shop's owners religious beliefs allow them to discriminate and not serve the public. Bruce believes that the flowers could have been purchased at another florist. In short, Bruce wants to take us back to SEPERATE BUT EQUAL. The reason that the florist shop received the $1,000 violation is because they are a public business and refused to serve the public based upon discrimination. Bruce, in prior years when churches preached against mixed-race marriages would you have supported the florist's right not to sell flowers for a black/white wedding? Taking Bruce's logic further, let's say I go to a candlestick shop to purchase candles to celebrate the Sabbath? Since I'm Jewish would it be ok for the Muslim/Christian/Buddhist to refuse to sell me the candles since s/he doesn't particularly care for Jewish people and say it's a tenant of their religion? Let's say Bruce needs to take either a taxi or bus home from shopping. Let's say that Bruce stopped at the meat market to buy a pork product. Can you imagine Bruce if the Muslim/Jewish taxi driver or bus driver wouldn't let him ride because both the Jewish and Muslim religions disallow the consumption of pork products and the driver(s) said it was against the religious beliefs to drive Bruce home?

  ReactReply
• CH

  

  Christopher

  Feb 18, 2017

  [quote]Nice letter to the President, I don't understand the hatred for the President, But i'm sure they are in the minority. Alot of them are paid protesters. Most people I talk to like what he is doing. There is a small group of Rich people(Illuminati,etc) who are losing control of America, They wanted to turn it into a one world government, They control the News media, They control politicans,They put teachers in our schools to brainwash our kids.They control other countries. And they are doing everything they can to make Trump look bad, But its not working, Alot of people have woken up to all the corruption.[/quote]
  
  Shameless, you must be operating under what is now being called "alternative facts" The small group of ultra-wealthy people is Trump's cabinet! Take a look at who he has brought into his administration! I hope you enjoy the Kook-Aid that you have been drinking from AM/Hate radio and Faux News: He appointed a Secretary of Education who has never experienced public schools. She, and her children went to private school. She is a b I l l I o n a I r e who has spent millions advocating for charter schools. The new head of the EPA has sued the EPA for protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink since such regulations get in the way of the oil industry's profits. Need I remind that Steve Bannon, Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, and others are all multi-millionaires who have been employed at Goldman Sachs. Yes, Mr. Shameless, that is the very same Goldman Sachs that President Trump vilified while he was campaigning. In fact candidate Trump condemned candidate Clinton for associating and giving lectures to the very same Goldman Sachs.
  
  Sadly Mr. Shameless you were duped!

  ReactReply
• ME

  Member

  Feb 18, 2017

  [quote]I don't eat meat, and follow a religion that discourages the killing of animals. My business is to grow, pack, and sell culinary herbs. Every November, I'm asked to provide more-than-usual amounts of parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme, which I know full well, and am sometimes told, is going to be used to stuff a turkey. I've had to give this some thought. I could refuse. The customer would (correctly) feel judged, and would very likely be offended. As dissatisfied customers will, she might communicate her dissatisfaction to others. Now, no one has asked me to slaughter a turkey, nor has my action stopped the slaughter. All I've really accomplished is to communicate my judgement. This may be my right. But it's very bad for business. If a business owner chooses to indulge in behavior that they know full will upset customers, who exactly is responsible for ruining their business? There's a certain satisfaction in expressing a judgement about someone else's behavior. Do it publicly, and you'll enjoy support from members of your idealogical team. But is there real merit in doing this? Is it good for anybody? I don't think so.[/quote] I am in full agreement with you. That's how it should be. The difference with the bakers is that the customer deployed the power of government through people with an ideological agenda to destroy the lives of the bakers. What you just described is how it should be; what I described is akin to the Stalins and the Hitlers. It's the power of the government destroying innocents over their faith.

  ReactReply
• ME

  Member

  Feb 18, 2017

  [quote]Our country was founded on the beliefs of Christian teaching-it's irrevocable from the founding documents. The problem of today is that the pendulum of freedom of religion has swung far to the point of freeing communities from religion. That is not what the Founders intended. The motive was to guarantee all to practice without restriction. Including a prayer at the borough meeting. Some of the founding fathers were Christians, some Deists, and some rather well known atheists; Christianity may have been the majority religion but it was certainly neither the only religion or the official religion. The flip side of "freedom of religion" is "freedom from religion". They are opposite sides of the same coin. Everyone has the right to practice their own religion. But one's right to practice their religion does not include the right to adversely effect others due to said practice. In prior decades people of color did not receive the same rights as the white majority. Prior to the civil rights movement there were "white only lunch counters"; water fountains, public schools, public accommodations, and even segregation in the US Armed Forces. Christianity itself was supportive of segregation with white only churches and preaching to keep the races separate. Separate but equal was ruled illegal and in current times racial integration is the law of the land. A person or business is prohibited from saying that they don't serve or accommodate those of a specific race. If that person or business states they are prohibited from "the mixing of the races" and refuse to serve or accommodate those of a specific race they would be in violation of federal law. Bruce supports the right of a florist shop not to provide flowers to a gay wedding. Bruce believes that the flower shop's owners religious beliefs allow them to discriminate and not serve the public. Bruce believes that the flowers could have been purchased at another florist. In short, Bruce wants to take us back to SEPERATE BUT EQUAL. The reason that the florist shop received the $1,000 violation is because they are a public business and refused to serve the public based upon discrimination. Bruce, in prior years when churches preached against mixed-race marriages would you have supported the florist's right not to sell flowers for a black/white wedding? Taking Bruce's logic further, let's say I go to a candlestick shop to purchase candles to celebrate the Sabbath? Since I'm Jewish would it be ok for the Muslim/Christian/Buddhist to refuse to sell me the candles since s/he doesn't particularly care for Jewish people and say it's a tenant of their religion? Let's say Bruce needs to take either a taxi or bus home from shopping. Let's say that Bruce stopped at the meat market to buy a pork product. Can you imagine Bruce if the Muslim/Jewish taxi driver or bus driver wouldn't let him ride because both the Jewish and Muslim religions disallow the consumption of pork products and the driver(s) said it was against the religious beliefs to drive Bruce home?[/quote] BTW- It's "separate". Race is different. A service is a voluntary act. And if the taxi driver said to me that his religion is opposed to him permitting me to carry pork in his taxi, I would respect his beliefs and find another taxi. That is freedom. Using your taxi analogy, should I call the government and have the guy's taxi license revoked? I say no; you believe I should have that right if you oppose the bakers.

  ReactReply
• CH

  

  Christopher

  Feb 18, 2017

  [quote]I don't eat meat, and follow a religion that discourages the killing of animals. My business is to grow, pack, and sell culinary herbs. Every November, I'm asked to provide more-than-usual amounts of parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme, which I know full well, and am sometimes told, is going to be used to stuff a turkey. I've had to give this some thought.I could refuse. The customer would (correctly) feel judged, and would very likely be offended. As dissatisfied customers will, she might communicate her dissatisfaction to others. Now, no one has asked me to slaughter a turkey, nor has my action stopped the slaughter. All I've really accomplished is to communicate my judgement. This may be my right. But it's very bad for business. If a business owner chooses to indulge in behavior that they know full will upset customers, who exactly is responsible for ruining their business?There's a certain satisfaction in expressing a judgement about someone else's behavior. Do it publicly, and you'll enjoy support from members of your idealogical team. But is there real merit in doing this? Is it good for anybody? I don't think so.I am in full agreement with you. That's how it should be. The difference with the bakers is that the customer deployed the power of government through people with an ideological agenda to destroy the lives of the bakers. What you just described is how it should be; what I described is akin to the Stalins and the Hitlers. It's the power of the government destroying innocents over their faith.[/quote]
  
  In essence Bruce, you just stated that using the government to enforce the law is wrong and that you don't support civil rights laws.
  
  So, when the taxi driver, bus driver, first responders or emergency room physician asks your religion and says he chooses not provide services to those of the Catholic faith you'd be fine looking for another provider? I think not! If an anti-Catholic EMS worker wouldn't tend to a Catholic's heart attack is it ok just to wait for another ambulance crew? I am a gay Jewish male. What if instead of a flower shop it was a pharmacy and they wouldn't sell me my insulin since the store owner had issues with both Jews and males? What if... What if.... what will it take for you to understand that discrimination is immoral and illegal and rightly so?
  
  Discrimination based upon race, religion, gender, or sexuality is unacceptable and illegal.

  ReactReply
• ME

  Member

  Feb 18, 2017

  I said no such thing. You've completely twisted my point. The bakers would bake a birthday cake for the gay couple. They are not opposed to people having birthdays. Their faith does not recognize a voluntary service and so they choose to not participate in the service. No life or death issue. No discrimination. A decision to not participate in an activity that they do not support as a matter of their faith. And the government destroyed their lives. Heil Leftism!

  ReactReply