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)
...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.
Do you at least agree with this part? Also I'm pretty sure all of God's laws are already codified so we don't need more of them. What we need is to ENFORCE them, and also to get rid of a ton of unconstitutional ones. And we certainly don't need to add Sunday laws.
Again I've already completely disagreed with the Sunday laws. That doesn't align with scripture. Period.
Sabbath isn't a judicial law in scripture at all.
That being said I completely disagree with that AI or otherwise modern interpretation. That applies only to the federal government and should and likely will be rolled back. If a state wants to vote in Christian values and standards, that's up to that state and not the scope of the federal government to interfere with.
Keep in mind it's the federal government that told states that they have to allow the murder of unborn children despite what their constituents closely held religious or moral beliefs wanted.
And yes we do need a complete tear down and simplification of modern laws an actual enforcing of the foundational laws and structure that made this country what it was.
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)
Do you at least agree with this part? Also I'm pretty sure all of God's laws are already codified so we don't need more of them. What we need is to ENFORCE them, and also to get rid of a ton of unconstitutional ones. And we certainly don't need to add Sunday laws.
Again I've already completely disagreed with the Sunday laws. That doesn't align with scripture. Period. Sabbath isn't a judicial law in scripture at all.
That being said I completely disagree with that AI or otherwise modern interpretation. That applies only to the federal government and should and likely will be rolled back. If a state wants to vote in Christian values and standards, that's up to that state and not the scope of the federal government to interfere with.
Keep in mind it's the federal government that told states that they have to allow the murder of unborn children despite what their constituents closely held religious or moral beliefs wanted.
And yes we do need a complete tear down and simplification of modern laws an actual enforcing of the foundational laws and structure that made this country what it was.
That does not include any laws about Sundays.