ed: It is a plain violation of the free exercise clause. So you don't care about violations of the Constitution? Would you also force a jewish baker to bake a cake for a Neo Nazi celebrating Hitlers birthday?
ia: Um. The one is a hate crime, the other is a harmless expression of love.
Ed, can I suggest you rethink your arguments. Because, quite simply, none of them make any sense.
No, in both cases the government is forcing someone to violate their deeply held beliefs. And preventing one to exercise their religion which means not endorsing a behavior which they believe is wrong.
↑
ed: Name one time.
ia: Name one time Donald Trump has violated the First Amendment? Okay. I think the worst incident was probably when he ordered police to attack a peaceable gathering of protestors. Please think about this seriously before you defend Trump. It was a gathering of innocent and peaceable protestors, and he ordered them cleared out of his path with gas and violent assaults so that he could walk across the street.
No, they were mixed in with protestors that were throwing rocks at the Secret Service guarding the White house. It would have been very difficult to separate them out.
ia: Also, there was that time Trump tried to block people on Twitter, and they took him to court and won, because the judges rules that he was violating the First Amendment.
And also, let's be honest: Donald Trump is quite obviously a person who doesn't care in the slightest for people's right to free speech.
Evidence he tried to block people on Twitter? Actually he strongly endorsed the investigation by Congress of Big tech censoring conservatives on Google, Facebook and Twitter.
↑
ed: So you have no problems with violating the Second Amendment either? No wonder you like them. Doesn't surprise me coming from someone that admires Communist China.
ia: (shrug) So what? I just happen to agree with most civilised countries that its a very bad idea to allow your citizens to have unfettered access to any kinds of firearms they wish.
You do know that one of the Nazis first actions against the jews was to confiscate their guns dont you? The fate of the jews might have been very different if the Nazis had not done that
↑
ed: I doubt seriously he would agree with you on much. He said mans law should be judged how well it accords with Gods law. It sounds like you have never read the letter. How would you determine whether it is immoral or not? As an atheist you dont believe in any objective moral law.
I think Martin Luther King and I would probably agree on a lot.
ia: And since you're a supporter of Donald Trump and I'm a vocal critic of him, I think Martin Luther King would be more on my side than yours.
His niece actually supports Trump. And Trump is trying to bring our nation back to Gods law which MLK strongly believed in, read A Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
↑
ed: I didn't say person, I said being. A being can be the essence of something. And that being can also be a person. But beings can be the essence of many things, such as a raccoon contains the essence of being a raccoon.
ia: You said that God is three persons. Okay. Fine. I don't mind what you believe. But you repeating yourself and then claiming not to have repeated yourself is getting a little boring.
Where did I repeat myself?
↑
ed: All those things.
ia: A shame, since they contradict each other.
In what way?
↑
ed: I am not claiming that it can be proven with absolute certainty. Only that it can be shown to be most likely to be good and sound by experience.
ia: Okay, then. So you have nothing.
So are you saying your experience with your wife is nothing? Experience is plainly not nothing.
ia: You say that Christianity provides a sound foundation for morality, but it can't "be proven with absolute certainty" but is just "most likely" because of your "experience."
It has a foundation in the existence of God whom can be shown to most likely exist by logical reasoning. Atheism has absolutely no rational foundation for morality. It is non existent.
↑
ed: We have built in goodar, ie moral conscience, our moral conscience recognizes what is good. So over time as we know and experience Him we discover He is good, just like you do with any other person.
ia: I see. And how did you get this "goodar"?
"Over time and experience" sounds like you develop a sense of morality naturally, which means you don't need God.
From our moral creator.
↑
ed: From my experience with Him just like you know this about your wife.
ia: but we're not talking about how you can know that God is good or not. We're talking about how you can know what goodness itself is. And your arguments are hopelessly self-contradictory at this point.
By our moral conscience.
↑
ed: By doing good things for me, helping me in times of trouble and etc.
ia: And how do you know that doing good things for someone and helping them is a good thing to do?
Our conscience.
ia:On what do you base your morality?
He who created our moral conscience.
↑
ed: Where did I say that? I said I could prove it to the same level that you can prove that your wife loves you.
ia: But I can't prove my wife loves me. And if you now agree that you can't prove that God is the foundation of goodness, then...golly, I guess that means I won the debate.
I can demonstrate that He most likely exists using logic and science. Then after that when you establish a relationship with Him you discover that He is the foundation of goodness.
↑
ed: No, I never said I could prove it with absolute certainty. That is what faith is.
ia: Gotcha. You say that Christian morality is reliable and objective, since it is based on God's character. Just so long as you have faith.
Faith based on the objective existence of God than can be demonstrated that most likely He does exist.
ia: Well, it's good of you to be so straightforward in conceding defeat. Next time, please could you do it on the first or second page, instead of the twenty-first or twenty-second? It save time.
I am not conceding defeat as far as the existence of His moral character which can be demonstrated to exist using logic and science.
↑
ed: If He is the good, then He cannot logically do evil. It would be logically impossible for Him to do evil.
ia: Except that if He did it, it would not be evil. Because, as we've already established, God Himself is the standard of goodness, and since there is nothing outside of Him that he can be measured by or be forced to abide by, He can declare that anything He wants is good - and you cannot object to it.
He is forced to abide by His own character which is good.
↑
ed: No, actually they dont. What appears to be out of character is probably just a part of their character that you had not seen yet.
ia: Fine. Maybe God just has a part of His character you haven't seen yet.
Possibly but it cannot be an evil part.
↑
ed: It is not proof but it is evidence that God is good since His people (Christians) generally only came up with inventions for the good of humanity like the medical sciences. Of course, that would only be considered good for those that value humans.
ia: Again, nonsense.
Evidence?
↑
ed: No, He is a person with a divine essence just like you are a person with a human essence.
ia: You said He was three people. So is it three or one?
Yes, He is three in person, but only one in divine essence.
↑
ed: So you deny that American has the principles and rights I mentioned above?
ia: I deny that these rights and principles are exclusively Christian, yes. I'd be happy to say that the USA is founded on principles shared by Christians, Jews, atheists, Muslims and quite a lot of people. If that's what you're arguing for, cool.
Muslims do not believe in human equality, at least the ones that follow the Koran. But yes other religions and philosophies do teach some of these principles but among the Founders they only respected Christianity and Unitarianism so they plainly got the principles from Christianity and the Bible.
↑
ed: It comes from the actions of Christ and His disciples. They never used force to convert anyone. Jesus said if they reject your message just walk away.
ia: And that's it? You base a whole argument on a single sentence or two? Sounds like Jesus was just giving them sensible advice for spreading the gospel.
Not if they were concerned about numbers, many more would have converted by force. It is not just that verse, there is also the examples of Peter and Paul.
ia: And what about the first of the Ten Commandments? They don't matter any more?
Even the Ten Commandments do not threaten any punishment for not worshiping God. It is just a command.
↑
ed: No, Jefferson said we get our rights from the Unitarian God which is basically identical to the Christian God, he just does not intervene supernaturally. And he gives us the same rights and moral laws.
ia: Sure, Jefferson may have said that. And then he decided to build a society in which God had nothing whatsoever to do with the law.
No, he wrote the philosophical foundation for our society, the DOI, upon which most of our laws are based as I demonstrated earlier how it is considered part of our legal code and was the basis for MLKs actions.
↑
ed: See above about free speech and freedom of conscience. Gods ideal form of government was revealed to the hebrews when Jethro told Moses to have the people choose their leaders from among them, ie election, and also in the Book of Acts the apostles told the church members to choose their deacons and elders from among them, ie elect them.
ia: Fine. Their deacons and elders. Not their kings, lords, parliaments and presidents.
Yes, their representatives and judges, similar to our Congress.
↑
ed: The first amendment is referring to a Federal church. That has nothing to do with not being founded on Christian principles. This is a straw man. John Adams wrote to Jefferson "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young gentlemen could unite. And what were these general principles? I would answer the general principles of Christianity...." And I could provide more.
ia: All you have to do is point out what these "Christian principles" are that the USA is supposed to be founded on. I'm still waiting to hear.
I did see above about equality and many parts of the Bill of Rights.
↑
ed: Separation of Church and state was taught by Christ, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars and unto God what is Gods". But He did not teach separation of God and State.
ia: That sounds like exactly what he was teaching - in the single sentence response you base your entire argument on. Come on - how can you expect me to take this seriously?
No, not just that sentence, read Romans 13. The government punishes societies evildoers but not the church. The church just punishes church members and only with excommunication.
↑
ed: I admit trial by jury is not a christian principle But freedom of speech and conscience is as I demonstrated in my previous post above.
ia: Of course it isn't. Have you forgotten? God gave rules to His people to follow. And the first one was, "Thou shalt have no God above me." Which is, of course, completely at odds with the US constitution.
But no punishment was provided for not doing so and see my statements about Jesus and the disciples they never forced anyone to convert and often verbally debated with pagans about who was the true God, they could not have done that without allowing free speech.
↑
ed: No, the First Amendment just meant that there could be no federal church and could not favor one Christian sect over others. Franklin recommended that public schools acknowledge a creator God and His moral laws and an afterlife where your deeds will be judged. Apparently he felt that a generic religion like that did not violate the First Amendment.
ia: The First Amendment means exactly what it says: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. In other words, no religion in government. Not just "one Christian sect." No religion. A very sensible idea. If Franklin was inconsistent about this, or was occasionally hypocritical about it, well, he was a fallible human in the early days of one of the first secular countries in the world.
No, establishment meant church or organization, it says nothing about incorporating Christian principles into government. And in fact the free exercise clause encourages it since influencing others including members of government is a Christian duty.
↑
ed: Besides the principles I referred to above and in a previous email, one of the US most important principles is human equality which is also a Christian principle.
ia: First, highly debatable. Second, you have to prove it is an exclusively Christian principle, one that cannot be held by people of other religions or no religions.
No, there are a few others that have this teaching like Judaism but the Founders only respected Christianity and Unitarianism so that is where they got it from. And atheism has no rational basis for believing in equality even if they may believe it.