Posted on 10/04/2020 6:43:19 AM PDT by Terry L Smith
[Next time number the questions. It makes responding easier.]
- It is legal for a US citizen not to be Christian.
- As a Christian, I hold that it is to his detriment that he not be.
- It would be wrong because, IMHO, the Christian belief and life are the royal road to human fulfillment, along which we stagger.
- If Christianity is true, refusing it is refusing the truth.
- To teach and preach the Christian religion are protected activities which do not step, in principle, on any right.
- The 1st Amendment is no stumbling block.
- The 1st Amendment applies to all.
Pretty irrelevant question....who would say yes!!!!
“What causes a person to wonder about such things?”
__________________________________________
Wow. Mariner - I hope you didn’t mean to sound so condescending. It’s not your usual verbage...
All those questions are valid.
I’ve known Christians who can literally such the enjoyment out of the room with their badmouthing of folks who would not celebrate Christmas!
It would range from attempting to shame them, imply they are totally ignorant, going to hell, personally responsible for any illness they may have and that’s for starters.
There are folks who are deep in depression caused by death, rape, murder, theft, abuse and other vile acts. You would have them fake the celebration? That would be called LYING...which, the last time I looked was considered a SIN.
There are those who have not heard the Word explained to them with love and thereby have not actually seen the love of Jesus. Not that I’m pointing fingers.....
This is America. That alone, should be enough to explain free speech and free thought. Not every grants others that gift of free speech and free thought.
If a person does not feel it in their heart out of pain, or more to the point, they are a Non-believer, I **want** to know who they are so I can pray for them and their family members.
More to the point, as with other Christians, I **need** to know who they are so I can do as My Lord instructed...to spread the word of Salvation.
Good Sunday, Terry L Smith -
Please see my reply to Post 2 by Mariner.
Though it’s not as eloquent as other replies, I value your worth and found the questions applicable.
Given these days of agitation, it seems even the Christians have barbs hidden within their answers.
While the rejections of Christ leads to a terrible eternal death for Non-believers, the sharing or non-sharing of the Christmas Holiday is personal decision and should not be mocked.
There are too many variables in the flawed human life to reject out of hand those who do not celebrate Christmas.
Some of these answers is actually the reason we do ***not** have a theocracy. For that, I am eternally grateful.
Hebrews 4:5-7 New American Standard Bible (NASB)5 and again in this passage, “They shall not enter My rest.”
6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience,
7 He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,
“Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.”
The Greek word translated disobedience here also means unbelief. God had made Himself so obvious to them through their miraculous deliverance that He used the two words interchangeably.
And this is still true today. To Him, those who claim unbelief are really just being disobedient.
It’s not that they can’t believe, it’s that they won’t
Thank you for reading these questions, even if you just shake your head, and move on.
Is it wrong according to the 1st amendment? No. Now what God thinks about it may, or may not, be different. We’ll all find out one day, according to Christian doctrine.
You can do what you want but
Christianity gave you the First Amendment.
Dear Mr Smith, first I want to thank you for your military service.
As others have said, the 1st Amendment, like much of the rest of the US Constitution, is a restraint on Government actions. In the ‘religion’ clause, a ‘forced’ church is forbidden while no religion may be banned. In the various tests of this clause over the past centuries, interpretations of the ‘free exercise’ have become totally open EXCEPT for violation of civil constraints like human sacrifice and the like.
Individuals, outside government, are not constrained by this ‘religion’ clause, save by being protected by it from government actions. Thus all citizens, regardless of affiliation or lack thereof, have this protection. Nowhere is any flavor of Christianity mentioned here or anywhere in the US Constitution.
Frankly, your post confuses me but I hope I have offered some clarity.
I believe that your definition of "state religion" differs from mine as the 1st Amendment's religion clause speaks towards an "Established" religion where the government favors a specific one and makes provisions for its support. Modern example is Iran's Theocracy and the Shi'a sect of Islam.
The closest I can find in the US States is *probably* what you are recalling, a requirement of/for exclusive 'religious' oaths, as in court or in taking office. Maryland had the last law that made such the only legal oath and it was overturned in a 1961 US Supreme Court decision, [Torasco v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 1961]. Current common usage in these circumstances is the wording "swear or affirm".
What might cause a person to make any sense of these questions at all?
Perhaps the person who posted is really asking, “Shouldn’t there be a law forbidding people from wishing me or anyone else to have a Merry Christmas?” Let’s invent a right not to be triggered by the speech of others.
Isn’t this like asking how you can refuse to partake in a meal?
Just because there is food on the table doesn’t mean you have to pick up a fork and eat it.
Sounds sort of trollish to me given this is a conservative website.
‘Sounds kind of trollish’, eh?
Nope, asking real questions.
So, you shook your head, and moved on.
Good!
Nope!
A meal is a one time thing, you eat and drink, then it’s ‘gotta go somewhere’.
This is a life question, according to christians i have known.
That ‘right’ already exists. It’s called ‘ignore them’.
Now, since you see no validity in what i ask, go back to the tv.
Someone wrote something worth reading!!
T.y.!!
Yeah, it did, in that forming a country where the head is not the figurehead of a national religion, and ensuring that every citizen embodies the Jeffersonian model.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.