Boomboomchucka
Active Member
- Jan 12, 2026
- 27
- 3
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That wasn't what I intended to convey. Religion, in the context of the 1st amendment was what I addressed. I said nothing about secularism other than what today secularism conveys. Nor did I mention for example, the freedom to express homosexuality but briefly included it under the Greek Porneia.If their intent was as narrow as you contend they would have to define it in great detail. That they did not narrowly define first amendment rights as only apply to Christians and excluding blasphemous speech I don't see the basis for you claim that it was their intent to do so.
I will plainly express my view; homosexuality is condemnable to death. Can I go wrong by stating or making an allusion to what G-d commands? That is, in the context of the 1st amendment. Now, take that same statement and reverse it, the homosexual states Christians should be put to death. In the context of the 1st amendment are both protected in speech? And I do understand the 1st amendment today is not a right to act upon our faith or religion. For example, I cannot simply stone a homosexual, though never could under the law which required the civil magistrates and witnesses.
Upvote
0