One must bear in mind that most of the English-speaking colonists were refugees from Catholicism, and were Protestants. They only sought freedom of, and protection for, the following of their faith. And equal freedom for others.
Er, sorry. The Pilgrims were in trouble and fleeing from first-generation Protestantism or "The Church of England."
They thought that the "Anglican" church that Henry the 8th founded so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon, was still far too Catholic. Queen Elizabeth I disagreed, as did her successor, King James I (you've heard of his bible KJV) so they skedaddled to Holland, and then to America.
The Catholics were not who the Pilgrims were fleeing. They were 2 gens back. The pilgrims were fleeing KJV Protestants and had their own branch of Protestantism.
I stand corrected. But there were those from the Continent (e.g., Hugenots) who were fleeing the Catholic church. The Church of England was not so much Protestant as de-Pope-ulated. It was strictly a maneuver to get around the Catholic prohibition of divorce and re-marriage.
The main point being: they were religious refugees.
Different group at a different time. The Pilgrams were very much English who took refuge in Holland, and one of the distressing things was that the children were starting to speak Dutch.
The Church of England was very much Protestant. They were the OG. Got around the prohibition of Henry the 8ths marital woes, and not incidentally gave him free rein to pillage every church, monastery, and chapel in the country of anything of value. Gold, silver, cloth, anything. It was now property of the Crown.
I have that Bible and I like it, despite the archaic English. The King James version was commissioned because the King did not like how the Geneva bible footnote comments referred to Kings in general. As I understand it, the Geneva bible was the most common among Americans at the time of the Revolution.
what is actually enshrined in the constitution / bill of rights is the freedom of religion
Correct, thus rendering it unlawful for the State to attempt to enforce any particular religion or religious dogma. I don't think the judicial precedent is strong enough on this matter currently, but hopefully one day a case will reach the Supreme Court and bring solid closure on it.
As it currently stands, there are about 30 states with what are called "Blue Laws", which is just another name for Sunday Laws. Essentially, they are attempting to codify into law an aspect of the religion called "Christianity". This is problematic because it opens the door to other dogmas being codified, many of which even christians disagree on. Thus, which sect of christians get a special law? It's an extremely slippery slope and has only resulted in tyranny and abuses in the past. I believe at one point in the 1800s there were some states that would fine, imprison or execute you if you failed to attend church on Sundays.
What’s your opinion on whether a township can do it?
When I was growing up, every store in my town was closed on Sundays, and it was kinda nice. Please feel free to slap down my state solution here on this (I’m not even a fan of the thought myself), but if one business works 7 days a week and another doesn’t, the one that doesn’t is going to fall behind the other one if that one is inclined to expand.
Do you spend the day ministering to the open business maybe? What’s a sovereign way to address the situation?
Point blank: the choice to close on Sundays or on any other day should be left in the hands of the business owners. It should never be in the hands of the government.
If a business owner believes that he should close on a certain day due to his faith, he will put his faith over his profit margins. Otherwise he really worships money anyway.
Muslim businesses do this, as do Christian businesses. I believe Chik Fil A and Hobby Lobby are two examples. No problem! Freedom of religion (:
The instant the State decides which religious dogmas must be observed, religious liberty has been infringed upon; for a Muslim will be forced to close down on a day he has no regard for, as will a Seventh-Day Adventist Christian. It throws the entire principle into hazard.
That and if it’s regulated, it’s not personal obedience.
I tend to agree, even before getting into little technicalities like the Sabbath being on Sabado. 😉 Everything being closed on Sundays sure was nice though.
I know what you mean but these matters must be personal obedience to God like you said. These things have to be fruits of the Spirit not outwardly enforced regulations. You think it was nice to have everything closed on Sunday wait until you live in a Spirit-filled town where everyone observes Sabbath rest by free will choice! And yeah no I'm not shilling for Saturday or Sunday, I think it's merely "every 7th day" so if you start counting on Tuesday it would be every Monday
Yeah. Arguing with myself as much as the argument.
Everybody has their spots where they have something they want from the Ring of Power.
I do advocate for Saturday, but also agree that “every seventh day” (which could be on Sunday, even though that ends up not being functionally different) is much more valid than “1700 years ago, the Pope/Emperor of Rome said it should be on Sunday now.” Even Saturday could be wrong, after all. The discussions on lunar cycles get wildly, and highly erroneously, intense.
Agreed, I’d rather live in a spirit filled observance of sabbath than a statute ordained observance of it.
…
All these unions tell us constantly how they got us the 40 hour work week. For one, do we really need to work that much? For two, having two days off is necessary right now to allow for observance of God’s commands. These people who all fly a raised fist flag are trying to take God’s credit. Shocking.
To be even more explicit, what’s actually in the constitution is “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion”, which they got around by creating a fourth branch of government and largely delegating congressional authority to it.
Easy. They have a lot of money from oil, and we have people who have taken bribes.
Doing so is a sin, but only if one acknowledges the Old Testament as authoritative. The NT mentions it some, but not enough for it to sink into peoples’ heads.
The separation of Church and State is more about our country cannot tell us to follow one religion. In old Britain, the Kings would tell the people what religion they had to follow. We are free here to choose our own religion. That is what the separation means.
It's more we cannot use religion as basis for governing.
Otherwise, one day some guy could come along and be like "yeah my religion says we have to stone my wife to death because she dressed provocatively" and make that legal
How did all the muzzie in Congress able to wrap their heads without anyone telling them, "Oh, separation of church and state and you better not be a rag-head."
Only against the Christians, you can see that, right?
Must be getting ready for muslin lawsuits
Well, I don't know for sure.
How does this affect separation between Church and State?
separation of church and state is just a concept, not really enshrined in constitution or law
what is actually enshrined in the constitution / bill of rights is the freedom of religion
clairification: exact text:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
One must bear in mind that most of the English-speaking colonists were refugees from Catholicism, and were Protestants. They only sought freedom of, and protection for, the following of their faith. And equal freedom for others.
Er, sorry. The Pilgrims were in trouble and fleeing from first-generation Protestantism or "The Church of England."
They thought that the "Anglican" church that Henry the 8th founded so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon, was still far too Catholic. Queen Elizabeth I disagreed, as did her successor, King James I (you've heard of his bible KJV) so they skedaddled to Holland, and then to America.
The Catholics were not who the Pilgrims were fleeing. They were 2 gens back. The pilgrims were fleeing KJV Protestants and had their own branch of Protestantism.
I stand corrected. But there were those from the Continent (e.g., Hugenots) who were fleeing the Catholic church. The Church of England was not so much Protestant as de-Pope-ulated. It was strictly a maneuver to get around the Catholic prohibition of divorce and re-marriage.
The main point being: they were religious refugees.
Different group at a different time. The Pilgrams were very much English who took refuge in Holland, and one of the distressing things was that the children were starting to speak Dutch.
The Church of England was very much Protestant. They were the OG. Got around the prohibition of Henry the 8ths marital woes, and not incidentally gave him free rein to pillage every church, monastery, and chapel in the country of anything of value. Gold, silver, cloth, anything. It was now property of the Crown.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
They were a specific protestant, carrying a specific bible:
https://www.biblicalheritageexhibit.com/blogs/history-of-the-english-bible/1560-the-geneva-bible-the-pilgrims-bible
I have that Bible and I like it, despite the archaic English. The King James version was commissioned because the King did not like how the Geneva bible footnote comments referred to Kings in general. As I understand it, the Geneva bible was the most common among Americans at the time of the Revolution.
Correct, thus rendering it unlawful for the State to attempt to enforce any particular religion or religious dogma. I don't think the judicial precedent is strong enough on this matter currently, but hopefully one day a case will reach the Supreme Court and bring solid closure on it.
As it currently stands, there are about 30 states with what are called "Blue Laws", which is just another name for Sunday Laws. Essentially, they are attempting to codify into law an aspect of the religion called "Christianity". This is problematic because it opens the door to other dogmas being codified, many of which even christians disagree on. Thus, which sect of christians get a special law? It's an extremely slippery slope and has only resulted in tyranny and abuses in the past. I believe at one point in the 1800s there were some states that would fine, imprison or execute you if you failed to attend church on Sundays.
The year is 2025
What does that mean ?
What’s your opinion on whether a township can do it?
When I was growing up, every store in my town was closed on Sundays, and it was kinda nice. Please feel free to slap down my state solution here on this (I’m not even a fan of the thought myself), but if one business works 7 days a week and another doesn’t, the one that doesn’t is going to fall behind the other one if that one is inclined to expand.
Do you spend the day ministering to the open business maybe? What’s a sovereign way to address the situation?
Point blank: the choice to close on Sundays or on any other day should be left in the hands of the business owners. It should never be in the hands of the government.
If a business owner believes that he should close on a certain day due to his faith, he will put his faith over his profit margins. Otherwise he really worships money anyway.
Muslim businesses do this, as do Christian businesses. I believe Chik Fil A and Hobby Lobby are two examples. No problem! Freedom of religion (:
The instant the State decides which religious dogmas must be observed, religious liberty has been infringed upon; for a Muslim will be forced to close down on a day he has no regard for, as will a Seventh-Day Adventist Christian. It throws the entire principle into hazard.
That and if it’s regulated, it’s not personal obedience.
I tend to agree, even before getting into little technicalities like the Sabbath being on Sabado. 😉 Everything being closed on Sundays sure was nice though.
I know what you mean but these matters must be personal obedience to God like you said. These things have to be fruits of the Spirit not outwardly enforced regulations. You think it was nice to have everything closed on Sunday wait until you live in a Spirit-filled town where everyone observes Sabbath rest by free will choice! And yeah no I'm not shilling for Saturday or Sunday, I think it's merely "every 7th day" so if you start counting on Tuesday it would be every Monday
Yeah. Arguing with myself as much as the argument.
Everybody has their spots where they have something they want from the Ring of Power.
I do advocate for Saturday, but also agree that “every seventh day” (which could be on Sunday, even though that ends up not being functionally different) is much more valid than “1700 years ago, the Pope/Emperor of Rome said it should be on Sunday now.” Even Saturday could be wrong, after all. The discussions on lunar cycles get wildly, and highly erroneously, intense.
Agreed, I’d rather live in a spirit filled observance of sabbath than a statute ordained observance of it.
…
All these unions tell us constantly how they got us the 40 hour work week. For one, do we really need to work that much? For two, having two days off is necessary right now to allow for observance of God’s commands. These people who all fly a raised fist flag are trying to take God’s credit. Shocking.
To be even more explicit, what’s actually in the constitution is “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion”, which they got around by creating a fourth branch of government and largely delegating congressional authority to it.
We have always been a Christian country, I don’t know what happened with the government who decided to care about other religions like the Muslims.
Easy. They have a lot of money from oil, and we have people who have taken bribes.
Doing so is a sin, but only if one acknowledges the Old Testament as authoritative. The NT mentions it some, but not enough for it to sink into peoples’ heads.
Sorry but I am afraid of the religion of hate.
Ok? You asked why our government started caring about Muslims.
They likely took bribes from them. For the Christians, it is a sin to do so. For the atheists, it’s still supposedly illegal.
You are so right about that.
The separation of Church and State is more about our country cannot tell us to follow one religion. In old Britain, the Kings would tell the people what religion they had to follow. We are free here to choose our own religion. That is what the separation means.
It's more we cannot use religion as basis for governing.
Otherwise, one day some guy could come along and be like "yeah my religion says we have to stone my wife to death because she dressed provocatively" and make that legal
How did all the muzzie in Congress able to wrap their heads without anyone telling them, "Oh, separation of church and state and you better not be a rag-head."
Only against the Christians, you can see that, right?
Correct, Christians have been crucified killed mocked and persecuted per centuries.
exactly.
THANKS BE TO GOD -- AND TO OUR VALIANT PRESIDENT DJT !!!
Amen
Blue hair?? Expand please.
Leftish retard and no-god liberals.
I was thinking it might have been someone specifically and just wasn’t seeing who that was.
Here is a purple hair. I missed it by couple of shades. LOL
https://x.com/ImMeme0/status/1950290494925467673
I can’t see it brain.
Sorry. It has been taken off.
Many liberals (no god atheists) in the NW have blue or purple hair.