Nadler derides God...

The Barbarian said:

It violates the Constitution,which is the supreme law of the land.

None of this really applies to the OP, i.e. the dishonesty of those people in lying about what Nadler said. That is the subject of this thread.

Click to expand...

Are you claiming Nadler did not say what he was quoted as saying?

As for the Constitution, I see no clause that prohibits anyone from using any argument they prefer , including religious based moral arguments in government proceedings. If anything the bolded part would suggest that it would be unconstitutional to prohibit such arguments. Congress can make no law establishing a religion but there is no Constitutional requirement for censorship of religious moral views in Congressional discussions.

First Amendment Text The First Amendment text reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

grasping the after wind said:

Are you claiming Nadler did not say what he was quoted as saying?

Click to expand...

Well, let's take a look...

The OP was
Nadler derides God...

Which, to be fair, was only saying what the source claimed Nadler said.

“God’s Will is No Concern of This Congress” – Top Democrat Nadler Derides God

But let's see what he actually said...

"Mr. Steube when any religious tradition ascribes as God’s will has no concern of this Congress."

Nadler was right, of course. Our nation does not They lied about what he actually said. He wasn't talking about God's will, but what people say about God's will. But of course, that's not going to work up the faithful, is it? They "improved" his statement to make it insulting to God. Which, in itself is an insult to God.

Does it bother you? It bothers me. They tossed out a faked story about God, just for political advantage.

grasping the after wind said:

The preamble, if one cares to pay attention to the words and not assume the words mean something other than they tells us, is giving us the purpose of the Constitution. It doesn't even mention government let alone define a purpose for government.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Law of the Land, the supreme authority for our nation. Laws are a function of government. And the Preamble gives us the purposes for that government. The purposes are:

"to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

That is what our founders saw as the proper role for government. Not to make us good, not to promote religion. Just the legitimate purposes of government, implemented in the laws that govern us.

SkyWriting said:

Nadler is correct. Congress must not allow for religious views to be used as an argument in Congress, Christian, Muslim, or others. But of course every person in congress does use their own views in their deliberations.

Click to expand...

Yes. That's legal, and it's what God wants from us.

Why do liberal Christians celebrate Godlessness?

The Barbarian said:

Yes. That's legal, and it's what God wants from us.

Click to expand...

How do you know God wants the law of the USA to be devoid of God?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

How do you know God wants the law of the USA to be devoid of God?

Click to expand...

Since He tells us that all men know what is good, it's not necessary:
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves:

And of course, Jesus never advocated government support for God at all, telling His people to render unto God, only those things that are God's, an unto Caesar only those things that are Caesar's.

The Barbarian said:

Since He tells us that all men know what is good, it's not necessary:
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves:

And of course, Jesus never advocated government support for God at all, telling His people to render unto God, only those things that are God's, an unto Caesar only those things that are Caesar's.

Click to expand...

Did Jesus ever condemn Governments which acknowledged God? Have the majority of Christian political entities been in gross error till the USA came along?

Hammster said:

“All authority on heaven and earth has been given unto Me.”

Click to expand...

Well, let's see what He said about government...

John 18:36 Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world.

I'll be very pleased when we have a real theocracy. But so far, all the "theocracies" have been oligarchies or dictatorships by men, proposing to do what God has declined to do so far.

We'll have a kingdom of God when He decides to give us one. And not until.

The Barbarian said:

Well, let's see what He said about government...

John 18:36 Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world.

I'll be very pleased when we have a real theocracy. But so far, all the "theocracies" have been oligarchies or dictatorships by men, proposing to do what God has declined to do so far.

We'll have a kingdom of God when He decides to give us one. And not until.

Click to expand...

So teh Papal States were and are a mistake to this day?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Did Jesus ever condemn Governments which acknowledged God?

Click to expand...

He seems to have avoided political activities entirely. I'm pretty sure I know why.

Have the majority of Christian political entities been in gross error till the USA came along?

Click to expand...

Let's ask one of the Founders...

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
James Madison, Against Religious Assessments

One reason the Founders feared religious establishment was the record of "Christian political entities" in Europe.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

So teh Papal States were and are a mistake to this day?

Click to expand...

Until the Concordat that left the Vatican a mere suburb with no political ambitions, yes.

Hammster said:

So in the mean time, you’re content to ignore Christ and let the world have its way.

Click to expand...

Since Jesus tells us that his kingdom is not of this world, only those seeking establishment of religion are ignoring His wishes.

The Barbarian said:

He seems to have avoided political activities entirely. I'm pretty sure I know why.



Let's ask one of the Founders...

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
James Madison, Against Religious Assessments

One reason the Founders feared religious establishment was the record of "Christian political entities" in Europe.

Click to expand...

So we should trust non-Christians more than Christians to rule us? Do you believe the Christianity would have fared better under non-Christian rulers and laws?

Also Jesus challenged the very heart of the Roman system by preaching a Gospel which undermined Rome's central message and narrative. Was Jesus politically neutral or just wise enough not to poke the bear directly?

Hammster said:

I’m not content to do that. Jesus also said to make disciples of all nations.

Click to expand...

When His disciples went out to do that, did they seek political change? Why do you suppose they didn't seek political establishment?

When you get that, you'll understand.

The Barbarian said:

Until the Concordat that left the Vatican a mere suburb with no political ambitions, yes.

Click to expand...

How Did God let the supposed successor of Peter not know about this until you came along? In fact, shouldn't Vatican city be surrendered to Italy? If not, why not? What right does the Pope have to be a King over that land and rule his subjects within?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

So we should trust non-Christians more than Christians to rule us?

Click to expand...

Experience has shown that people not under an established church do better. And as Madison observed, established churches are horrors.

"Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy."
James Madison, ibid

Do you believe the Christianity would have fared better under non-Christian rulers and laws?

Click to expand...

I observe, as does James Madison, that Christianity fares better without establishment.

Also Jesus challenged the very heart of the Roman system by preaching a Gospel which undermined Rome's central message and narrative.

Click to expand...

The pharisees tried that argument, too. Jesus "unasked" their question saying "give Caesar what's his, and give God what is God's."