The golden rule is fairly easy to understand but very difficult to follow. When it really matters is when it’s the hardest. What are your steps for level 2? Lol. I don’t think forcing religious belief on others is the problem. Its just used to divide and conquer.[/QUOTE]
Evil? How so? Yes its a requirement that positive law treat everyone equally. Exactly how do you think that applies here? Since when is religion under the law? Religious rights are 'reserved' rights. 'Under' which law? LIkewise with speech, and arms, where in the BoR did the people agree religion is subject to our corrupt/criminal gubmint? Seems you are wrong: The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was amended in 1882 by the Edmunds Act, and then again in 1887 by the Edmunds–Tucker Act. Enforcement of these acts started in July 1887. The issue went to the Supreme Court in the case Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States that upheld the Edmunds–Tucker Act on May 19, 1890. Among other things, the act disincorporated the LDS Church. Within five months, the LDS Church officially discontinued the practice of plural marriage with the 1890 Manifesto. On October 25, 1893, a congressional resolution authorized the release of assets seized from the LDS Church because, "said church has discontinued the practice of polygamy and no longer encourages or gives countenance to any manner of practices in violation of law, or contrary to good morals or public policy."[3]
Theocracies become evil when their leaders punish infidels for doing nothing more than not believing what the theocracy believes or punishes them for not believing it the same way
"Since when is religion under the law? Religious rights are 'reserved' rights. 'Under' which law? LIkewise with speech, and arms, where in the BoR did the people agree religion is subject to gubmint oversight?" example, you can not stone someone for picking up sticks on the weekend as the bible suggests, because it's a crime - religious freedom does not trump that
so then its the punishment of infidels that evil, Therefore germany is a theocracy since they punish and jail holocaust infidels
so is picking up sticks, its a crime in violation of religious law, subject to punishment under said religious law, so then there is no religious freedom, your religion is what the gov says it is, Ok people step right up here are your choices for religion that we the gov, in the land of the free will 'allow' you to practice ........
you are allowed to believe what you want, you are not allowed to punish others for not believing what you do if this was a theocracy, then yes religion would be allowed to do that - and also punish you for any perceived blasphemy
( but not exercise them IYO ) Deceptive 1/2 truth! Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; There I corrected your error Thats your strawman, religions dont punish anyone outside their religion. all 'organized' isms that take the shape of religion are theocracies.
in name, so are the branches of gov 'in name', they all work for the same corporation. I said: "stoning is a religious right for gross violations of their practiced religion," please try to understand it in context I wrote it
You failed to understand my example. There was one instance of violation of the Golden Rule - I did to him what I hate when it's done to me - and one instance of following the Golden Rule - I did to him what I'd like others to do to me. I had to break the rule in order to respect the rule. The Golden Rule, as taught by Jesus, applies only to individuals. Jesus' "give Caesar" clearly absolves authorities of any obligation to follow the Golden Rule in their dealings with the ruled. The problem is, it's impossible to live by this rule at individual level. What's level 1?
religion may or may not affect social change in a society that has no need for it, if such society exists. no, the point of religion is self governance and in your own best interest, in theory doing no injury or damage to others in the process.
ok, yes, congress can pass laws preventing religious people from stoning others religious freedom does not give one the right to harm others
According to modern-day conservatism, the point of Religion is to justify one's hatred of the many people we are expected to hate. At least one would think so if you followed how conservatives ACT.
I have given you a number of examples previously. Matt 7 gives a number of them "Judge not - lest you be Judged" would be one of them. I can rattle off 10 more examples if you like - "NONE of which" fit with your examples which are NOT this form of the Golden Rule. You are stating only the positive form - "Treat others as you would be treated" which suggests action - positive action ... if you want others to be kind to you - you should be kind to others" What I have been talking about is "NOT" that. The negative form does not elicit any action - it is about NON Action. If you don't want your neighbor killing you and your family - then you should NOT - kill your neighbor and his family. This form of the GR does not suggest any action - it is telling you what NOT to do - "Don't do this" rather than "Do this".
So since congress is getting away with violating the 1st amendment that makes it a-ok with you? Its clear that in your eyes gubmint freedom (the state religion) gives them the right to harm countless millions. Nice double standard you roll out.
I gave you an example of a violation of the negative of the Golden Rule. The negation of a negation is a positive. The negative of inaction is action.
No you didn't . Pisa - logic is not my weak suit. If you gave an example - then post that example that you gave ... rather than me go searching for something I have already addressed..
did I say it was ok, no, in fact I think it's wrong of Congress to deny right to ex-felons, rights are for everyone - they are not privileges
