I wish a question would be asked about the future of religious freedom and what it would mean if HC became President.

 

Question is better posed to be asked of Trump, since he is openly proposing religious tests.

 

A couple points, if you care about religious freedom, find an atheist and say "thank you." We are the only ones who consistently fight for religious freedom. Most religious people fight for the right to impose their religion on others and call it "religious freedom."

 

Trump's religious test today for Muslims is tomorrows test for Mormons and the next days test for Catholics or Church of Christ. Everyone assumes their "religion" will never be the one discriminated against. Why is that? It's not a slippery slope, it's a cliff.

 

Separation of Church and State.

Question is better posed to be asked of Trump, since he is openly proposing religious tests.

 

A couple points, if you care about religious freedom, find an atheist and say "thank you." We are the only ones who consistently fight for religious freedom. Most religious people fight for the right to impose their religion on others and call it "religious freedom."

 

Trump's religious test today for Muslims is tomorrows test for Mormons and the next days test for Catholics or Church of Christ. Everyone assumes their "religion" will never be the one discriminated against. Why is that? It's not a slippery slope, it's a cliff.

 

Separation of Church and State.

 

Christians believe Jesus Christ gave us the Great Commission, not the Great Imposition. We present the truth about God to others who don't accept it. In so doing, we aren't imposing anything on them. Christ wants a free acceptance of himself and his message. Evangelization is not an imposition but an act of charity.

 

By the way, I'm not in favor of preventing someone from entering our country based solely on religion.

He needs to show empathy, or at least pretend to, for people who are downtrodden or sick and tired of the same old political promises without anything ever being done to help. He needs to touch on her issues, but bad mouthing her continuously is not really going to win any new voters.

 

I believe there are a lot of voters who could still be won over to his side, but I doubt he has the discipline or possibly even the ability to show people that he cares about their situations and not just his own.

Question is better posed to be asked of Trump, since he is openly proposing religious tests.

 

A couple points, if you care about religious freedom, find an atheist and say "thank you." We are the only ones who consistently fight for religious freedom. Most religious people fight for the right to impose their religion on others and call it "religious freedom."

 

Trump's religious test today for Muslims is tomorrows test for Mormons and the next days test for Catholics or Church of Christ. Everyone assumes their "religion" will never be the one discriminated against. Why is that? It's not a slippery slope, it's a cliff.

 

Separation of Church and State.

 

You mean fight for freedom FROM religion.

Christians believe Jesus Christ gave us the Great Commission, not the Great Imposition. We present the truth about God to others who don't accept it. In so doing, we aren't imposing anything on them. Christ wants a free acceptance of himself and his message. Evangelization is not an imposition but an act of charity.

 

By the way, I'm not in favor of preventing someone from entering our country based solely on religion.

 

It's not an imposition on you, but it is on me. For there to be religious freedom, everybody has to have it. If the government gets involved in this, then not only freedom is imperiled, but religious liberty. Again, separation of church and state.

 

Additionally, and I make this point more for your sake than mine, but you say "Christians" this and "we believe this" etc. But no one person speaks for all Christians, and there is no uniform set of Christian beliefs. I think the assumptions that "I'm in the majority" and "my version is the majority" undercuts the importance of separation of church and state unfortunately.

 

This one is pretty simple imo. If you value religious freedom, don't support the one candidate who openly doesn't.

It's not an imposition on you, but it is on me. For there to be religious freedom, everybody has to have it. If the government gets involved in this, then not only freedom is imperiled, but religious liberty. Again, separation of church and state.

 

Additionally, and I make this point more for your sake than mine, but you say "Christians" this and "we believe this" etc. But no one person speaks for all Christians, and there is no uniform set of Christian beliefs. I think the assumptions that "I'm in the majority" and "my version is the majority" undercuts the importance of separation of church and state unfortunately.

 

This one is pretty simple imo. If you value religious freedom, don't support the one candidate who openly doesn't.

 

If you and I were having a conversation and if I mentioned anything that you were not open to hearing, I would expect you to say something and I would respectfully discontinue my point. That sort of free exchange of ideas in an adult manner is an essential part of our freedoms. Government should not impose religion (and that includes anything secular such as humanism that disguises itself as "religion"). Govenment should not prevent citizens from freely expressing their faith in a public or private manner. There is a big difference.

 

I agree that Christianity is fragmented. No one person speaks for ALL Christians. However, an old song says "They know we are Christians by our love". Doesn't always happen, but it should be what identifies our motives and actions. I don't try to get too much into the "separation of church and state" argument because there is no common agreement on what that actually means in regards to Thomas Jefferson's words. It is fruitless debate between the points of view. However, I am a firm believer in that faith issues have contributed greatly over the years to the formation of our country's civil and moral law. In an extreme example, I'm glad that rape of teenage girls is illegal and I certainly don't want millions of perverts voting together to make it legal. I'm glad there is such a thing as "majority rules" and I'm very glad that currently there is "religious freedom" (to some degree). No matter who wins, this is a very important issue for me.

It's not an imposition on you, but it is on me. For there to be religious freedom, everybody has to have it. If the government gets involved in this, then not only freedom is imperiled, but religious liberty. Again, separation of church and state.

 

Additionally, and I make this point more for your sake than mine, but you say "Christians" this and "we believe this" etc. But no one person speaks for all Christians, and there is no uniform set of Christian beliefs. I think the assumptions that "I'm in the majority" and "my version is the majority" undercuts the importance of separation of church and state unfortunately.

 

This one is pretty simple imo. If you value religious freedom, don't support the one candidate who openly doesn't.

 

Well said.

I'm sure if I took the time to research it, I would find something. I think a bigger indicator would be if she chooses NOT to denounce what was said by her staff.

 

I think it may come down to acknowledging the emails as real and credible. Some may be, but some have proven to be false also. So if you or your campaign says you know in that one email we said something stupid about Bernie then immediately the whole dump becomes attached to HRC: true or false.

 

At the end of the day we have an illegal activity occurring being proliferated by wiki leaks and dare I say the Russians. It's funny when it ain't your side until it is your side. The ramifications for entertaining this attempt at sabotage may prove to be larger than we know.

 

To stay on topic:

 

Stay on topic. Those who hate Hillary know why they don't want to vote for her. Why should they vote for him?

If you and I were having a conversation and if I mentioned anything that you were not open to hearing, I would expect you to say something and I would respectfully discontinue my point. I put it that way to illustrate that the concept of commission and imposition depends upon perspective. Not to suggest a limitation on private discussions. Perhaps it was worded vaguely. That sort of free exchange of ideas in an adult manner is an essential part of our freedoms. Government should not impose religionor endorse a religion or restrict one or inhibit the right to have none. (and that includes anything secular such as humanism tion that disguises itself as "religion"). Govenment should not prevent citizens from freely expressing their faith in a public or private manner. There is a big difference.

 

I agree that Christianity is fragmented. No one person speaks for ALL Christians. However, an old song says "They know we are Christians by our love". Doesn't always happen, but it should be what identifies our motives and actions. I don't try to get too much into the "separation of church and state" argument because there is no common agreement on what that actually means in regards to Thomas Jefferson's words. It is fruitless debate between the points of view. Well, it's not fruitless. We are a nation of laws and there is a procedure to decide what thw words mean. We may disagree about meaning, but the procedure to decide is in place, and we all agree to live by the decision and abide by the law. That's what makes trump so dangerous, he doesn't acknowledge these things. However, I am a firm believer in that faith issues have contributed greatly over the years to the formation of our country's civil and moral law. In an extreme example, I'm glad that rape of teenage girls is illegal and I certainly don't want millions of perverts voting together to make it legal. I'm glad there is such a thing as "majority rules" Except majority doesn't rule. The Constitution is perhaps the greatest document ever that fights against the idea of "majority rules." The bill of rights? Those are individual rights and held by us all as individuals. This illustrates, imo, the danger of religion and government. Majority rules equals the tyranny of the majority. I appreciate the conversation on this so far, I hope to have not been too bombastic and while we disagree, I hope not to offend. and I'm very glad that currently there is "religious freedom" (to some degree). No matter who wins, this is a very important issue for me.

 

three characters to post this lol abc

three characters to post this lol abc

 

When I stated "fruitless", I was referring to the sides being so set in their points of view that debate is very difficult.

 

By "majority", I was referring to the voting process which leads to the electoral college. In no way was I suggesting that individual rights should be suppressed in a republic such as the United States.

 

Nope, I'm not offended at all. I like a good conversation.:thumb:

No, he just has a long record of being one of the corruptors...

...and boasting about it.

It's not an imposition on you, but it is on me. For there to be religious freedom, everybody has to have it. If the government gets involved in this, then not only freedom is imperiled, but religious liberty. Again, separation of church and state.

 

Additionally, and I make this point more for your sake than mine, but you say "Christians" this and "we believe this" etc. But no one person speaks for all Christians, and there is no uniform set of Christian beliefs. I think the assumptions that "I'm in the majority" and "my version is the majority" undercuts the importance of separation of church and state unfortunately.

 

This one is pretty simple imo. If you value religious freedom, don't support the one candidate who openly doesn't.

 

BAM!

I wish they would ask Trump and Clinton why they aren't buddies anymore and when their relationship went from friends to enemies.