That’s how it’s designed. Sometimes you’re the bat and sometimes you’re the narrow-minded conservative. 
And why is your understanding of that superior to that of anyone else who calls themselves Christian?
From that passage alone, one could say “good” is;
- Giving away all your worldly possessions to those who need them.
- Generally helping people in need.
- Only applicable with regard to poor people; since treating poor people is how one treats Jesus, you can do whatever you want to rich people.
- If other people don’t give away their possessions, take them from them. They aren’t poor either. Leave them some, of course.
One passage from the Bible can be interpreted many ways. One sentence can be. One* word*. If I started a thread entitled “Post the part of the Bible that to you sums up what “good” is”, do you think all Christians would reply with the exact same passage and the exact same interpretation? Of course not. Whose interpretation of “good” is right?
That will happen in my lifetime. It’s obvious that those who wish deism to be pushed in the public sphere are merely fighting a defending action.
Not only will “In God We Trust” disappear from our money, “under God” will be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and non-demoninational prayers before the meetings of our legislatures will become truly non-demominational.
Um. The issue in this thread is what defines the followers of Christ. You maybe want to try to keep up with what’s going on.
Back away from the crackpipe. You said,
And you might want to set that crackpipe down for another minute. Until you define “good,” your statement is nothing but glurgy fluff. Your idea of good means nothing in the realm of a concensus about what a christian is. It is simply your mortal opinion.
Good luck with all that. We don’t know each other from Adam, but I figure our ages are similiar, plus or minus 10 years. If that’s the case, none of that is happening in our lifetime. Why would it?
:rolleyes:
There’s no consistency in Supreme Court Establishment rulings. At times, they have ruled that religion cannot be preferred. At others they have ruled that specific religions cannot be advanced. It’s a total mess up there.
Implying a consistent viewpoint might also therefore be seen as “irrelavent.”
:rolleyes:
Ultimately, the law is what the Supreme Court says it is. Your stance is an argumentum ad populum. It just doesn’t matter what you, or a whole bunch of smart legal minds think.
‘Superior’? Hardly. Self-evident, however.
Right
Um. Well, I suppose, if you want to invent things. Why ‘interpret’ what’s already quite clear?
I’d say the man who the religion is named after probably is a pretty good authority.
And you, too, seem to be suffering from an inability to read. I posted the quote from Christ himself. It’s not my idea of good; I didn’t come up withit. It’s the idea of the guy who is the focus of the faith.
And, for not the first time, there is no consistency in Supreme Court rulings on religion. To try and claim there is is one of two things; a lie; or woeful ignorance.
And, not for the first time, it doesn’t matter one whit what YOU think. Are you a liar, or woefully ignorant, or both?
It matters what the Court thinks. And there is no consistency on what they think on Establishment Clause issues. This is what I have been trying to say. Obviously not clearly enough, and for that I apologize.
You cannot present a view of the Establishment Clause as being settled law. Both the idea that no single religion can be given preferential treatment, and the idea that religion itself cannot be given preferential treatment appear in different decisions.
So both of those interpretations have a place in the law at the moment.
Not that I think they are equally correct interpretations of the law, but I haven’t been saying that my view is the only possible one, just that both these interpretations can find support in the law of the land as it stands at the moment.
Now, you might think differently, that the law is settled here. That would go against everything I have been taught and read on the matter. But you are entitled to your opinion, of course.
Perhaps. Do you have a cite, though?
Off the top of my head, and without looking up case citations etc, we have cases such as Smith v. Employment Division, which denies religion based exemptions from generally applicable laws, and the teacher-led school prayer cases, which deny the use of public equipment to religious invocations (overly simplistic analysis alert). These seem to suppose there can be no favoritism showed to religion over non-religion. On the other hand, there are cases such as Sherbert v. Verner, which requires payment of unemployment benefit to people who refuse a job because it would require working on their holy day, and the tax exemption cases, whereby religious property and activities are seen to be tax exempt. These would seem to allow the favoring of religion over non-religion, though not the favoring of a particular religion.