- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
What type of nation state and how large?So when a nation state does it, you are perfectly fine with it then.
Fair enough.
Upvote
0
What type of nation state and how large?So when a nation state does it, you are perfectly fine with it then.
Fair enough.
What type of nation state and how large?
That is actually different than your charge that "Administering an oath to someone in the presence of their choice of holy book is not a sin." for it is one thing to quite your job because doing so would signify support for something immoral (like creating a cake for a KKK celebration), versus arguing that this cannot not be considered a sin for the person doing so.
As for your present argument, you are confusing the state upholding free speech, that of the right of an artist to decide what express moral expression he will morally support with his art or use his services for (versus the amoral/ racial nature of the persons themselves) with a Theocracy in which all must show assent to theological beliefs.
In reality though the state is not to officially promote a formal state religion, the state can require obedience to laws on morality, even which are to some degree based on moral theological beliefs (and can affirm faith in general, as the Founders in government abundantly did), but not requiring assent to theological faith beliefs.
However, if the state can effectually require signification of assent to ideological beliefs, then i agree that one should quit or not take a job that requires it if it conflicts with his conscience, but I do not agree that the state should always compel such.
Except that it is not a response to "Is it a sin". It is a response to your comment. "Wrong again. Biblical law supersedes laws of men. And the items sworn upon when the oath is made are no more meaningless than using a picture of your mother in promising fidelity to your wife would be."That is actually different than your charge that "Administering an oath to someone in the presence of their choice of holy book is not a sin."
It’s based on the tax revenue. Having a large and working middle class allowed us to have Social Security and Medicare.Let's pretend it's simply a state... how about Rhode Island... That's a small one.
How does size (population count) affect the general premise in your view?
Is the correctness of the policy dependant on the size and or origin of the population that adheres to it, or is it either correct or incorrect regardless?
I think the best test would be a large state like California. I think they should be a testbed for universal health care. If it works there without federal aid then it might just work nationally. But I think it might not work as people who feel the pinch will just move elsewhere. And who can blame them? They would be paying more for less.
Or Maybe New York?I think the best test would be a large state like California.
Which countries?Why not just see what other countries do that makes it work for them, at a much lower cost than we spend on privatized health care?
I see, yet it is relative to this being a matter of sin, for while you addressExcept that it is not a response to "Is it a sin". It is a response to your comment. "Wrong again. Biblical law supersedes laws of men. And the items sworn upon when the oath is made are no more meaningless than using a picture of your mother in promising fidelity to your wife would be."
by saying'If he does this willingly, does this demonstrate that he personally believes swearing an oath upon the Koran is equally binding to swearing an oath upon the Holy Bible?"
yet this presumes the VP would be looking at it from your point of view, and not, as explained, swearing in upon a book as signifying being bound to perform what he swore due to the authority of the document he uses to swear upon, versus this being meaningless."it doesn't matter what the VP considers binding what matters is what the law considers binding and it is the oath that is considered binding, not what items may be present when the oath is made,"
NY is probably the closest I would agree as they expand their medcaid programs.Or Maybe New York?
The case for single-payer, explained in 3 charts
NY is probably the closest I would agree as they expand their medcaid programs.
Yet another state bleeding electoral votes as people are leaving the state. As is the case in California. Why? Higher taxes pinching take home pay in high cost of living areas. I’m originally from NY. The middle class there is dying. Natives of the state when graduating college can’t afford to live in the state. They cannot even afford their own parents home if they chose to live in the same neighborhood they grew up in.
No. That is not the same. Pence is just performing a ritual that has nothing to do with his faith. The Koran means nothing to him.I see...Kinda like how a Christian baker can’t rightly claim he/she would be participating in or promoting/condoning immoral sexual behavior or going against his/her own religion by baking a cake for a gay wedding?
No. That is not the same. Pence is just performing a ritual that has nothing to do with his faith. The Koran means nothing to him.
Yet many on CF (even a mod) have contended that even contracting to create a special work of art for the express known purpose of celebrating that which is unlawful in the light of Scripture (as well as the state constitution at the time) is not doing anything that should conflict with what one believes, or that he has no basis for refusing to provide this work, or reduce it to a simple cake.When you provide your artistic talents for weddings - as a Christian - presumably weddings do mean something in your faith. You would decline to provide your artistic talents for something that is not and cannot ever be a wedding in your faith, same as you would decline doing other events that violate your faith (baker declined Halloween events, divorce events, etc).