Okay you're apparently completely ignorant of our nations foundational principles.
I'll start with saying as a hardcore reformed Baptist and what the left would call a far right "Christian nationalists" (In reality that just means that I believe the Bible and that Christ just King) And I would be completely against any type of governmental Sabbath restrictions. I would however be in favor of employers respecting religious employees choice to not work on the Sabbath.
That being said are nation was founded as a Christian nation. Separation of church and state doesn't appear in any of our foundational documents. It appears one time in a letter and the context of that letter that you need to understand is that they founders were coming from England and Europe were very specific docturnal positions were interwoven with the government. For example you couldn't disagree on something like infant baptism or divorce without committing an actual crime.
After the the revolution (which England called the Protestant rebellion) the founders in their infinite wisdom and very recent experience decided the federal government couldn't declare specific doctoral religious positions but the states could and many did.
In fact the supreme Court even ruled that the United States is a Christian nation in the case called "Holy Trinity versus United States" in 1892
A large portion of our constitution and almost our entire Bill of Rights was taken out of the general equity of God's law. Meaning it was molded from the framework that God gave us in his word.
Our founding fathers recognized the tea Christian faith was a essential part of the foundational principles and framework of this nation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
I do not claim the founders were perfect, nor any supreme court justices, or legal opinions from them. God has moved upon the earth in glorious ways, which have led to the truths in His Word becoming "self-evident", when at times past they were not. However, codifying any aspect of any religion, such as a Sunday Law, is in effect forcing that religion's interpretation upon all the people, regardless of whether or not they themselves subscribe to it. Does that make sense? It's a slippery slope. There are even many Christians who disagree with Sunday being the Sabboth, as an example. I know they tried to include this in the Project2025 document but can you not see this spiraling out of hand? It's awful precedent.
At the time of America's founding there was already a mixed multitude among the founders. Many were Christians, many were Freemasons, some were both, others, neither. It is highly nuanced. I don't believe America was founded as a Christian nation, at least not in the sense that most people comprehend that term to mean, but I do believe it was established in accordance to the will of God.
Thank you for underlining the exact point that I made. That means everyone's freedom practice what faith they choose and how to choose it. It doesn't change the fact that the nation is founded as a Christian nation with Christian principles and those freedoms are given under that umbrella.
States are not Congress. States made laws establishing religion. The most recent one would be the Hawaiian Constitution stating that no laws of Hawaii would conflict with the law of Jehovah God.
Go look at that SCOTUS ruling I mentioned. It's a matter of record and ruled on.
Hmmmm.! That is interesting. I never considered that little detail. I asked an AI for some basic understanding of it (as I am not a lawyer):
The U.S. Constitution provides for a separation of church and state, primarily through the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the federal government and protects citizens' rights to freely exercise their religion.
This means that while individual states have some latitude to govern their own affairs, including the potential to enact laws that may reflect religious beliefs, they are still bound by the Constitution. Any state law that establishes a specific religion, enforces religious practices, or discriminates against individuals based on their religious beliefs would likely be challenged in court as unconstitutional.
Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections against state actions, ensuring that state governments cannot infringe upon the rights granted by the First Amendment.
Therefore, while states can have laws that may be influenced by religious beliefs, they cannot enforce religious laws that violate individuals' constitutional rights.
Based on this initial overview of the matter it would appear that Hawaii will be taken to court at some point. I don't think they will be able to keep that law...
no laws of Hawaii would conflict with the law of Jehovah God.
How exactly are they going to enforce this anyway? What are "the laws of Jehovah God"? Hawaii is a blue state, so I presume they allow for abortion and a bunch of other crap, yes? Does that not conflict with the laws of Jehovah God?
Point- the state, either an individual state or the fed, should not be the enforcers of any religion's laws or beliefs. (Christians get a nice little hidden boost, however, because we are right! So the laws will reflect our values, because they are RIGHT. BUT when the state decides to arbitrate matters of our faith it will always end badly)
Totally agree. The point of the Constitution is to sharply limit government to only certain roles, and establishing anything regarding religion is prohibited.
Chat GPT can be incredibly unreliable in many sensitive topics such as this. It has been programmed to lean highly to the left and overqualify anything remotely controversial.
I would recommend going with gab.ai and specifically use one of the "characters" That would give you the original interpretation and intent of our foundational documents such as the Thomas Jefferson character
https://gab.ai/g/65b8311dccea4c861b59b2e8
I agree the state shouldn't be enforcing non-judicial religious beliefs. But all morality is based on something and our laws are either based upon the perfect righteousness of God's law or they are based upon the ever-changing whims of secular society. Personally I like the ground I stand on to be firm and unchanging.
But on the flip side none of the laws of our nation should be in conflict with the moral and judicial law of God. (This is not to be confused with things like the holiness code or instructions for believers, This would be like the laws insurance that applied to anyone within the land to or gentile, like no murdering, theft, rape, stealing land, slavery, etc)
Okay you're apparently completely ignorant of our nations foundational principles.
I'll start with saying as a hardcore reformed Baptist and what the left would call a far right "Christian nationalists" (In reality that just means that I believe the Bible and that Christ just King) And I would be completely against any type of governmental Sabbath restrictions. I would however be in favor of employers respecting religious employees choice to not work on the Sabbath.
That being said are nation was founded as a Christian nation. Separation of church and state doesn't appear in any of our foundational documents. It appears one time in a letter and the context of that letter that you need to understand is that they founders were coming from England and Europe were very specific docturnal positions were interwoven with the government. For example you couldn't disagree on something like infant baptism or divorce without committing an actual crime.
After the the revolution (which England called the Protestant rebellion) the founders in their infinite wisdom and very recent experience decided the federal government couldn't declare specific doctoral religious positions but the states could and many did.
In fact the supreme Court even ruled that the United States is a Christian nation in the case called "Holy Trinity versus United States" in 1892
A large portion of our constitution and almost our entire Bill of Rights was taken out of the general equity of God's law. Meaning it was molded from the framework that God gave us in his word.
Our founding fathers recognized the tea Christian faith was a essential part of the foundational principles and framework of this nation.
Have you learned nothing from the enlightenment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
I do not claim the founders were perfect, nor any supreme court justices, or legal opinions from them. God has moved upon the earth in glorious ways, which have led to the truths in His Word becoming "self-evident", when at times past they were not. However, codifying any aspect of any religion, such as a Sunday Law, is in effect forcing that religion's interpretation upon all the people, regardless of whether or not they themselves subscribe to it. Does that make sense? It's a slippery slope. There are even many Christians who disagree with Sunday being the Sabboth, as an example. I know they tried to include this in the Project2025 document but can you not see this spiraling out of hand? It's awful precedent.
At the time of America's founding there was already a mixed multitude among the founders. Many were Christians, many were Freemasons, some were both, others, neither. It is highly nuanced. I don't believe America was founded as a Christian nation, at least not in the sense that most people comprehend that term to mean, but I do believe it was established in accordance to the will of God.
Key word "Congress" meaning federal.
Thank you for underlining the exact point that I made. That means everyone's freedom practice what faith they choose and how to choose it. It doesn't change the fact that the nation is founded as a Christian nation with Christian principles and those freedoms are given under that umbrella.
States are not Congress. States made laws establishing religion. The most recent one would be the Hawaiian Constitution stating that no laws of Hawaii would conflict with the law of Jehovah God.
Go look at that SCOTUS ruling I mentioned. It's a matter of record and ruled on.
Hmmmm.! That is interesting. I never considered that little detail. I asked an AI for some basic understanding of it (as I am not a lawyer):
The U.S. Constitution provides for a separation of church and state, primarily through the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the federal government and protects citizens' rights to freely exercise their religion. This means that while individual states have some latitude to govern their own affairs, including the potential to enact laws that may reflect religious beliefs, they are still bound by the Constitution. Any state law that establishes a specific religion, enforces religious practices, or discriminates against individuals based on their religious beliefs would likely be challenged in court as unconstitutional.
Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections against state actions, ensuring that state governments cannot infringe upon the rights granted by the First Amendment.
Therefore, while states can have laws that may be influenced by religious beliefs, they cannot enforce religious laws that violate individuals' constitutional rights.
Based on this initial overview of the matter it would appear that Hawaii will be taken to court at some point. I don't think they will be able to keep that law...
How exactly are they going to enforce this anyway? What are "the laws of Jehovah God"? Hawaii is a blue state, so I presume they allow for abortion and a bunch of other crap, yes? Does that not conflict with the laws of Jehovah God?
Point- the state, either an individual state or the fed, should not be the enforcers of any religion's laws or beliefs. (Christians get a nice little hidden boost, however, because we are right! So the laws will reflect our values, because they are RIGHT. BUT when the state decides to arbitrate matters of our faith it will always end badly)
Totally agree. The point of the Constitution is to sharply limit government to only certain roles, and establishing anything regarding religion is prohibited.
Chat GPT can be incredibly unreliable in many sensitive topics such as this. It has been programmed to lean highly to the left and overqualify anything remotely controversial.
I would recommend going with gab.ai and specifically use one of the "characters" That would give you the original interpretation and intent of our foundational documents such as the Thomas Jefferson character https://gab.ai/g/65b8311dccea4c861b59b2e8
I agree the state shouldn't be enforcing non-judicial religious beliefs. But all morality is based on something and our laws are either based upon the perfect righteousness of God's law or they are based upon the ever-changing whims of secular society. Personally I like the ground I stand on to be firm and unchanging.
But on the flip side none of the laws of our nation should be in conflict with the moral and judicial law of God. (This is not to be confused with things like the holiness code or instructions for believers, This would be like the laws insurance that applied to anyone within the land to or gentile, like no murdering, theft, rape, stealing land, slavery, etc)