Leftist clergy want to perform same-sex marriages
I suppose I’m expected to feel sympathy for the “moral dilemma” faced by liberal clergy in California who want to perform same-sex marriages, but don’t want to go against their denomination’s rules. I don’t:
Last month, a former student, who has known Father Comella nearly 30 years, asked him to officiate at his same-sex wedding. Father Comella, 61, wrestled with the question but decided not to do it. If he were excommunicated, he would no longer be able to effect change through teaching, he says. It was also a personal decision: He has Parkinson’s disease and worries about losing his health care benefits. “I felt guilty for letting them down and not being able to be more courageous,” he says.
See, I’d like to help you out, friend, but it’s more important that I effect change. This is Berkeley, I’m sure you understand.
Here’s another profile in courage, from the Methodists:
When Messrs. Barron and Marler approached her, Ms. Lindsay had quickly agreed to sign their marriage license and say a special prayer during Sunday service. She even invited other gay couples to join.
But she soon began to feel concerned about her decision. At a United Methodist conference in Sacramento, she ran into the Rev. Renae Extrum-Fernandez, the former pastor at her church, who was now district superintendent. Ms. Lindsay asked whether Ms. Extrum-Fernandez wanted to know about her plans for the coming Sunday. Ms. Extrum-Fernandez, suspecting something risky, said no.
Ms. Extrum-Fernandez later told Ms. Lindsay that if someone were to raise a complaint about a pastor’s actions, she would have to pass it on to the bishop.
Hmm…I thought Christianity was supposed to be risky, but I’m not a preacher. Well, instead, it’s easier (and safer)to whine about how bigoted the bishops are:
“Most Holy God,” she [Eileen Lindsay] prayed before the assembled. “Today is a day of lament and a day of thanksgiving.” Her congregation …read from their programs in response: “We confess that we are members of a denomination whose official policies hurt and oppress people.”
If Ms. Lindsay really believes this she should promptly leave the Methodists. If she believes she is party to a religion of “oppression”, why is she staying with it?
I suspect the unpopular answer might be that gay marriage isn’t really something that liberal clergy feel strongly enough to actually quit their jobs over.
Biggles, who tipped me to this story, points out that these clerics aren’t exactly facing the dilemma of Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer here. That’s not fair, of course–Latimer and Ridley didn’t have to worry about losing their health care.
_____________
{Post by See-Dubya}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Idiots, Uncategorized
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Pundit & Pundette
» Various and sundryStop The ACLU
» Obama To Hold Another Prime Timer To Explain Our Afghanistan Strategy To Islamic ExtremistsAmSpecBlog
» Lieberman Says He's "Stubborn" on Gov't PlanTigerHawk
» Negative equity
No, it’s not. Because that would make water baptism works righteousness as a pre-requisite for eternal salvation.
This means exactly what it says, that you are baptized in the Holy Spirit when you put your trust in Jesus Christ and repent of your sins. You at that very moment are given a new heart with new desires and are a new creature in service to God. Water baptism is just an outward confession of your saying you put your faith in Jesus and not is not necessary for eternal salvation.
I urge you listen to the Way of the Master link I put up earlier. They do a whole lot of witnessing to people and one of their best ways to approach people and get them to think is to come up to them and say “I’ve just been stabbed in the back and I am know I am bleeding to death and don’t have more than 3 minutes to live. Tell me sir/ma’am how do I get Heaven? I’ve been a wretch my whole life”
So under your false doctrine, this person who genuinely wants to repent and put their faith in Christ and is dying on the spot would not receive eternal salvation because some priest didn’t dunk him under the water?
False preachers ftl. Which is why all we need do is what that thief on the cross did and ask for forgivness from God and repenting and turning from sin and having faith in Jesus.
Pretty simple, and that is the Good News of the Gospel. Your works righteousness is not needed.
The radio guys? I listen to a lot of Christian radio but have to turn the dial when those guys come on. They’re insufferably full of themselves, IMO.
alaskangrizzly said:
Baptism isn’t something you do, it is something that is done to you. You do not baptize yourself, someone else baptizes you.
alaskangrizzly said:
First, it does not say “he saved us, through the baptism of the Holy Spirit”. It talks about the “washing of regeneration” – how can you argue that “washing” can’t possibly be referring to water baptism?
I defy you to give a Scripture that says water baptism is merely a sign that you have already been saved.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit, in NT times, only happens twice – Acts 2 & Acts 10. The first time, it was to begin the Church (at Pentecost), and the 2nd time, to reveal that Gentiles can also enter into the Church. Both times, it was something that could be seen.
As far as being born again, Jesus said in John 3 that you must be born again – born of water and the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is what you do to receive the forgiveness of sin and the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).
alaskangrizzly said:
The robber on the cross was saved under the Mosaic dispensation, not under the Christian dispensation. That does nothing to disprove the necessity of baptism into the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus (none of which had even happened when the robber was saved).
They “said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, ‘Brethren, what shall we do [to be saved]?’” Peter’s answer? see Acts 2:38. Peter didn’t say “well, you don’t do anything, you are saved apart from doing anything, otherwise you would be earning your salvation.”
What do you do (having already believed the Gospel)? You repent. You don’t baptize, rather, Peter says you are to be baptized (by someone else). Why should I be baptized, to show that I have already been saved? No, but you are to be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.
Baptism doesn’t earn salvation anymore than believing Jesus is the Son of God. Rather, it is how God says we are to ask Jesus to save us, it is the moment we are born again, saved.
Well, that’s where we patently disagree. I believe a man or woman just about to die can still repent and put their trust in Jesus Christ and have everlasting salvation in Heaven.
You do not. And that is where we end our conversation.
I call BS on this one too, sorry, I said I was done but your twisting of scripture is horrendous.
Just peeking in on a break at work.
Salvation is not earned. Nothing we can do can earn salvation.
Salvation is a grace. It is a gift from God. Nothing, absolutely nothing we can do can earn it.
alaskangrizzly said:
You can believe whatever you want – I choose to believe what the Bible says.
alaskangrizzly said:
Hebrews 9:16-17 “For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.”
The covenant in Jesus’s blood could not have come into effect before His death. The robber was saved prior to Jesus’ death, therefore it was prior to the Christian dispensation. Twist that however you will.
I’m not the one twisting scripture to add works righteousness as a pre-requisite to receiving the gift of eternal salvation. That is you.
purplepeep–
I don’t think the WOTM guys are meaning to come across that way. They’re pretty sincere in their desire to reach the lost. I’d recommend giving it a listen (for more than a few minutes) and you’ll see. They have excellent tracts too.
I agree, the first few times I listened I a bit turned off by the tone as well. But once I realized Todd Friel has a stronger gift of sarcasm than I do that I saw how sincere he and Ray Comfort are at reaching the lost.
alaskangrizzly said:
You believe you have to put your faith in Christ in order to be saved, correct? Well choosing to believe in Jesus is something you do. Jesus said faith in Him was something you do, a work (John 6:26-30).
That would mean that you are teaching “works righteousness” to receiving the gift of eternal salvation.
If you say you must confess Jesus is Lord, then that is something you must do to receive salvation. If baptism = salvation by your own works, then so does salvation by faith in Christ, confessing Jesus, etc.
Believing in Jesus does not earn you salvation. Confessing Jesus is Lord does not earn you salvation. Being baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of sins does not earn you salvation.
We’re not talking about earning salvation, we are talking about how the Bible says we are to receive God’s free gift. We receive it on His terms, not on our terms.
You want to “pray Jesus into your heart” for salvation? Show me where that is taught in the NT. It isn’t there.
The Bible doesn’t talk about praying into Jesus, but it does talk about being baptized into Jesus. You want to refute me? Don’t quote the Pope or some radio show, quote the Bible or go home.
I’ve given the program quite a few listens. Having a pompous-jackass streak myself that pops out now and then, I recognize the critter quite well.
But that’s just my take, I’m sure they have many fans.
Also not much of a fan of the oft-featured eyerollingly formulaic “witnessing” bits. Just not my cuppa tea.
Tell me Oh wise man, how is it then that Ephesians 2:8-9 can say in one statement that you are saved by Grace alone by faith alone and then follow it up in the same breath with “not of works” if faith is a “work” that one must do. Because if faith is a work then that whole passage is a contradiction of terms.
I’ll use myself as an example. I was born into a family that was Irish and very Catholic was given an “infant baptism”. (Don’t get me started on infant baptism). I then grew up in said Catholic Church for 17 years or so. I then was deluded by the world as I entered college to follow the ultimate lie, that God does not exist, and I was as lost a soul as one could be for another 6 years or so and lived life about as wicked as TOS and lgm and Rusty combined I’m sure. Then, something remarkable happened. I was convicted of my life of sin by seeing myself in the mirror of God’s laws and repented and put my trust in Jesus Christ. From that day on, I can tell you with certainty that I was saved and my heart was forever changed in the service of the Lord. I didn’t get a water baptism from via my pastor at my evangelical church for a couple years after that, but I know for a certainty that my conversion from death to life came at the moment I did what Ephesians 2:8-9 allude to that one needs to truly repent and put their trust (not just believe, even the demons know of Jesus and believe yet defy) and they have the promise of the gift of everlasting life. It was like night and day, one day I was living the life of luxury and partying like nobody’s business. And the next day I felt as clean as rain and my former friends didn’t even recognize me and abhorred that I would want to go to church or *gasp* read the Bible. And my friends now can barely believe that I was once like I was.
So that my friend, is where we must agree to disagree.
alaskangrizzly said:
I’ve already explained that passage, but now I will go into more detail.
First, you aren’t saved by faith, you are saved by grace.
Second, Paul didn’t write that you are “saved by grace through faith alone”. He says you are saved “not as a result of works.” He can’t possibly mean any kind of works, because 1. we are not saved apart from Jesus’ works, and 2. faith in Christ is itself a work (John 6:26-30). So what kind of works are we saved apart from, according to the context?
Paul is saying that we are saved apart from works [of the Law of Moses], circumcision in particular.
In Ephesians 2:1-7, Paul teaches that “you [Gentile Christians] were dead in your trespasses.” He also teaches that “Among them, we [Jewish Christians] too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest [we Jews were just as dead in our sins as the Gentiles].
Paul then says that both Jews and Gentiles are saved by grace through faith in the working of Christ apart from keeping the Law of Moses and circumcision. That Paul is referring to circumcision in Ephesians 2:9 is evident, for in Ephesians 2:11, he contrasts “you, the Gentiles according to the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands…”
Some Jews were going around claiming you had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be a Christian – see Acts 15:1-11; Galatians 5:2-12, 6:11-15. Some of these people were telling the Gentile Christians in Ephesus that they had to keep circumcision.
They were trusting in the circumcision done with human hands for salvation, whereas Christians trust in the circumcision done without human hands – which occurs when we are buried and raised with Jesus in Baptism. That is why Paul compares baptism to circumcision in Colossians 2:8-17.
In Ephesians 2:11-22, Paul spends a great deal of time explaining that Gentiles were brought into the Messiah’s kingdom apart from works of the Law of Moses, since Jesus brought Jew and Gentile together through His cross.
This interpretation is confirmed when you compare Paul’s statements in Ephesians 2:8-9 with Romans 3:27-30 & Galatians 2:15-16.
We are saved by grace through faith in Christ, apart from works of the Law of Moses, including circumcision. Baptism into the name of the Lord is not a work of the Law of Moses, and therefore Ephesians 2:8-9 does nothing to argue against baptism being essential for salvation.
alaskangrizzly said:
You didn’t know you were saved, you believed you were saved. There is a difference. How you feel doesn’t prove anything. A lot of people believe they are saved, yet are lost all the same.
According to the Bible, we don’t know we’re saved based upon how we feel. In fact, the idea that you “know” you’re saved based upon your feelings is a Mormon doctrine, not a Biblical doctrine.
The Bible teaches that you know you are saved based upon what is written, not upon how you feel – 1st John 5:13. Don’t fool yourself.
And if it isn’t clear, I’m not Catholic. I have never been Catholic. I am not an evangelical. I am simply a Christian.
Baptism isn’t by sprinkling, it is by immersion in water. Baptism isn’t for infants, it is for sinners who believe, repent, and have confessed Jesus as Lord.
What’s to fool? Based on your twisted view I have met the standard anyways. It not just a feeling my friend, it correlates with everything the Bible has to teach about the fruits of the Spirit.
But am I going to convince you to believe like I do and those on that Christian radio program WotM you apparently dislike? Probably not, you seem pretty set in your belief that one has to have a water baptism to receive the free gift of Grace.
Surprisingly we can apparently agree on something related to the topic.
The Bible says there is one baptism. Which is it – water baptism (of John) or baptized with the Holy Ghost? It can’t be both because then there would be two baptisms.
Water baptism is important – not for salvation but rather, the first act of obedience – a public expression of your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
iamsaved said:
There is a third option: water baptism in the Name of the Lord. According to Acts 19:4-5, the baptism of John is distinct from and different from baptism in the Name of the Lord.
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus tells His Apostles to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
The Apostles (not the Holy Spirit) are to baptize disciples eis to onoma, literally into the name of God. What does it mean to baptize someone into the name of God?
The name refers to the power, the authority of God. So when you are baptized (by people), you are baptized into His name, into His authority. That is, you become His possession, you become one of God’s people. You become the workmanship of God, since, at the moment you were baptized into Christ, you were raised up with Him by faith in the working of God (Colossians 2:12).
Every person who chooses to follow Jesus is to be baptized (by people, and thus, water baptism) in the Name of the Lord. In contrast, the baptism of the Holy Spirit wasn’t a common event, but a rare, special event. It happens in Acts 2, when the Church begins at Pentecost, and it happens again in Acts 10, as a sign from God that Gentiles can enter the Church, too. Both times, the baptism of the Spirit could be detected by people who weren’t being baptized by the Spirit.
So the one baptism isn’t the baptism of the Spirit. Rather, all Christians are united by the one baptism – water baptism in the Name of the Lord.
iamsaved said:
All I ask for is one passage that says water baptism in the Name of the Lord means what you say it means. In Acts 2:38, baptism in the Name of Jesus comes first, only then do you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
As an addendum, before someone claims that Jesus baptized with water because of the phrase, “he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:” …
It points out that the baptism of Jesus with with the Holy Ghost and fire – not water.
I think you are stretching it a bit Trollman. You didn’t answer the question. There is one baptism. I didn’t say a number of ways to baptize with water – in the name of the Lord or however you want to refer to it.
To be baptized is to be identified with something.
I prefer to be baptized with the Holy Spirit – and that wasn’t only bestowed on the Apostles. One is given the gift of the Holy Spirit upon accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior and believing in who God says he is.
Regardless, if you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior and received water baptism, you’re signed, sealed and approved. The end result is what matters.
I do feel that man can do nothing but a symbolic gesture. They have no power to instill God’s Holy Spirit into a believer.
Cornelius and his household received the Holy Ghost before being baptized with water. How is that possible if they haven’t been Baptized with water in the name of the Lord?
Act 10:44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
I don’t know where you get that from John 6. tell me do you think when Jesus said you had to eat his flesh, and drink his blood, he was speaking literally?
yeah thats all he had to do to be saved…and all we have to do too! no baptism, sorry!
this is the will of the Father:
John 6:40
For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
didn’t say believes, and be baptized…guess Jesus forgot to talk to you about that!
yeah right, when you are the one twisting the bible to mean baptism, when it does not at all….
again you have to twist the scripture. If baptism was so important, then Paul would have been doing it all the time…but it wasn’t necessary for salvation.
Titus 3 has nothing to do with baptism. you really have to twist scripture to conform it to your beliefs….
Are you a mormon? and no, mormons are not christians.
its simple, if you don’t believe in the Trinity, that the Father is God Almighty, that Jesus is God Almighty, and the Holy Spirit is God Almighty….and there is ONE God
then you’re not a christian.
Jesus is before all things, and created all things, and holds all things together….blessed is His name.
I’m always happy to see so many well-reasoned comments related to the subject of the post.
iamsaved said:
I did answer the question. The one baptism that unites all Christians is water baptism in the Name of the Lord. All Christians have been baptized that way, but only a few were ever baptized in the Holy Spirit. Thus, baptism of the Spirit isn’t common among all Christians, so it can’t be the one baptism.
In both cases of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, it was a visible sign to those that weren’t baptized. Unless you suddenly started speaking in foreign tongues you didn’t know, or had tongues of fire on you, then you have never been baptized by the Holy Spirit.
iamsaved said:
Peter said you had to be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins, and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That is how the Bible teaches we receive the indwelling of the Spirit. Peter did not say to believe and receive the Spirit.
iamsaved said:
I know I am saved, because of what is written in the Bible. The question is, are you saved? The major English translations render Acts 2:38 one of two ways: 1. be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, or 2. be baptized so that your sins may be forgiven. The Bible is very clear.
The Bible does not say to be baptized because your sins are already forgiven. So what is the difference if you were baptized in water for a different reason? Being dunked in water doesn’t do anything. What distinguishes baptism from being dunked in water is the purpose you are being dipped into water. If you weren’t baptized to have your sins forgiven, then they weren’t forgiven.
iamsaved said:
You believing in Jesus doesn’t have the power to send the Holy Spirit. The power isn’t in man or in our actions, but in God’s actions. The only question is, how does the Bible say we receive the Holy Spirit? Through water baptism.
iamsaved said:
The Bible does not say they received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (which would be proof of salvation), but that “the Holy Spirit fell upon them… [and] the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.”
There is a difference between the indwelling of the Spirit (which is salvation) and the miraculous empowering of the Spirit (which does not necessarily indicate salvation).
King Saul, while trying to murder David, had the Holy Spirit fall on him, causing him to prophesy. Does that mean King Saul was a saved person? I think not! You can have the Holy Spirit fall upon you and still be lost.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit didn’t save the Gentiles. No where in that text does it say (explicitly or the equivalent) that the Gentiles were saved prior to water baptism. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was the sign to Peter that he could now baptize them into Christ (for salvation), hence his response “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did [the Apostles at Pentecost], can he?”
Again, if the order is salvation & the Spirit, then water baptism, then what do you do with Acts 19:5-6? These people are baptized in water, in the Name of the Lord, before “the Holy Spirit came on them”? Notice that the Holy Spirit only came on them from the laying on of Paul’s hands, not from believing. When they “received the Holy Spirit,” they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
That is because there is a distinction between the saving, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the miraculous, empowering of the Holy Spirit (regardless of salvation status). If these people in Acts 19 had believed and been baptized, how is it that they didn’t yet have the Spirit? They had the (indwelling) Spirit, just not the miraculous empowering of the Spirit.
your insistence upon baptism salvation proves that you are not a christian.
you trust in your batism, I’ll trust in what Jesus did.
again, are you a mormon?
oh yeah, how are all those OT guys like David saved, without baptism?
right4life said:
Jesus told them “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life.” So then, Jesus told them to work for salvation.
They responded “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” They understood Jesus was telling them to do something. So they asked what they are supposed to do.
Jesus said “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent?” Jesus says this is what you are supposed to do.
Both Jesus and His audience understood they had to do something to receive eternal life. In fact, Jesus calls it a work that they are to do.
Hebrews 3:18-19 indicates that disobedience and unbelief are synonymous with each other.
John 3:36 indicates that belief and obedience are synonymous with each other.
Romans, Paul’s masterpiece on justification by grace through faith, begins and ends with the “obedience of faith” (1:5; 16:26).
right4life said:
No, He wasn’t speaking literally. He later explains that the bread represents His body, and the wine represents His blood. This doesn’t help you avoid Jesus’ words in John 6:26-30, however. How can our works actually refer to Jesus’ works? Tell me, when you believe in Christ, is it you believing, or God believing for you? Jesus meant what He said.
right4life said:
Hey, Moses was saved apart from confessing Jesus as Lord. I guess that means we can be saved without confessing Jesus’ name, eh? As I have proven before, the robber on the cross was saved before the Christian era. The specific requirements for salvation differ under different dispensations (see Acts 17:30-31), although the basic principles remain the same (grace through faith).
right4life said:
We’ve been over this already. Acts 11:18b says “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” That doesn’t mention faith in Jesus, so I guess faith isn’t required either! Obviously, anyone who believes Jesus will be baptized. Acts 2:41 says “So then, those who had received his word were baptized.”
right4life said:
Less accusations, and more specifics, please.
right4life said:
Baptism was important. What wasn’t important was that Paul himself baptize them. Baptism is so important, Paul writes about it again and again and again, and even includes it on a very short list concerning the unity of the Spirit in Ephesians 4.
The fact is, you often see people being baptized immediately upon hearing the Gospel for the first time (Acts 8:35-38; and especially Paul in Acts 16:31-33).
right4life said:
All assertion, no evidence. Is it really that hard to believe that washing could refer to something that involves being bathed in water? Again, if you are saved apart from water, then why did Ananias tell Paul in Acts 22:16 to “Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name”? If this is talking about the baptism of the Spirit, then why can’t the Holy Spirit baptize him while he is sitting? He has to get up so they can take him to a bath tub/swimming pool so they can baptize him in water – hence the “washing” away of sins.
right4life said:
I am not a Mormon. I am merely a Christian. The only authority for doctrine and religious practice is the Bible. Not the Catholic church, not the Book of Mormon, not the Koran, etc.
And yes, Jesus is the God of eternity. There is only one God – consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just like the Bible teaches.
right4life said:
I do not trust in my baptism, or my faith, or my confession, or any of that. I was raised up with Christ in baptism through faith in the working of God (not in baptism itself) just like Colossians 2:12 says. My baptism doesn’t earn me salvation anymore than the fact I believe Jesus is the Son of God. The only thing that earns eternal life is the perfect obedience of Jesus.
right4life said:
No.
right4life said:
By grace through faith. David was saved without being baptized, since he lived before the command to be baptized was given.
Similarly, a Christian’s salvation is unaffected by the consumption of pork, since we live under a different covenant with different rules. I can eat pork without sinning, David could not.
you answered your own question…
belief is it, not works, not baptism…if you wish to think belief is a ‘work’ then you are basing your salvation upon something YOU do, not what Jesus has done. it is pride, and arrogance.
you say:
but then you insist that more is required than faith. your theology is quite confused. and twisted.
you cannot even believe in Jesus without the Holy Spirit drawing you:
“No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him.” (John 6:44)
again you seem to think you are the captain of your own soul…think again..
faith is a gift:
Philippians 1:
29For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, 30since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.
Ephesians 2:8: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (NASB
faith is a gift of God. you have NO FAITH without Him giving you that faith first…
you place a great deal of importance upon what you do. not what HE has done.
baptism is not necessary for salvation. it marks you as a salvation by works person, not a christian. not an accusation, just the truth.
this is nonsensical. I mean you’ve gotten to the point of so twisting scripture that you’re not even rational.
oh and again, I guess the bible forgot to mention the ‘baptism that leads to salvation’ ooops!!
if baptism was so important then paul would have baptized everyone. that he did not speaks volumes. except to those who twist the scripture to their own ends.
so now you admit that baptism is NOT necessary for salvation. you’re all over the place. your theology is very confused.
here you say you cannot be saved apart from baptism….
then you say:
I don’t see much reason to continue this. you really make no sense.
right4life said:
Jesus told them “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life”. What for the food which endures to eternal life? By the structure of the sentence, you are to work for the food which endures to eternal life. Jesus doesn’t say your work earns your salvation, it is still a gift (”which the Son of Man will give to you”), but that there are certain conditions attached if you want to receive the gift.
right4life said:
No, I am saying that faith incorporates obedience. The Bible teaches that there are 4 parts of saving faith: 1.knowledge, 2.mental assent, 3.trust/confidence, and 4.obedience. Faith without works/obedience is not complete and cannot save you (James 2:17, 22).
right4life said:
I don’t disagree with this. With no Holy Spirit, there is no Bible. Without the Bible, I wouldn’t know how to be saved, or even that I was lost in the first place.
right4life said:
Faith was “granted” to the Philippians in the sense that they had received an opportunity to hear the Gospel, allowing them the opportunity to believe and be saved.
Romans 10:14-15 makes it very clear that you cannot believe in Christ without first hearing about Christ. Not everyone actually gets to hear the Gospel of Christ. The Philippians were granted that opportunity.
right4life said:
That passage doesn’t say faith is the gift, it says grace is the gift. That is what the word grace, charisma, means – unmerited favor. Grace is a gift. The “food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you” is just that – eternal life, not faith. Faith is what you do, grace/eternal life is what He does.
If faith in God is a gift, apart from our wills, then why doesn’t God make everyone believe? After all, He does want all men to be saved.
Matthew 23:37-39 doesn’t even make sense if people can only believe in God if He makes them. Why should Jesus get upset with people for rejecting Him if that was Jesus’ decision? It only makes sense for Jesus to get frustrated if they freely chose to disbelieve (which makes it necessarily implicit that they could have chosen to believe).
He wanted to save them, but He couldn’t because “you were unwilling.”
right4life said:
So you think that by believing in Jesus, that you have earned salvation?
No, you would say that you believe in order to receive what you did not earn.
I believe and was baptized in order to receive what I did not earn.
Mental activity – believing – is still something you do, it is an action, a work. If hating someone in your heart is a sin (Matthew 5:22), then loving God in your heart is an act of obedience (Matthew 23:36-37).
Believing in Jesus is itself an act of obedience, a work. There is no contradiction in saying that 1. you are not saved by your works, and 2. you are not saved without works.
Of course the ultimate question is “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin”?
C’mon guys. Enough is enough. It’s been clear for hours now that neither one of you is moving.
One thing I think you both can agree on—no matter whether you define accepting salvation as a work or not—is that all other works, or lack thereof, do not give you salvation nor take it away. Right?
You can do all kinds of good works every hour of every day, you could pray for hours on end, give money to the poor, recite Bible verses until you’re blue in the face, but without accepting God’s offer of salvation, you will not be going to heaven. Matthew 7:21-23
Or you could live a life deserving of punishment, find Jesus right at the end, accept his gift of salvation and be assured of going to heaven without having done good works at all. Luke 23:39-34, Matthew 20:1-16
That’s not to say that our works do not matter, only that it has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. Romans 6:1-2, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.
Our salvation, or lack thereof, does prompt the works that we do. John 14:21, Hebrews 10:26-27, James 2:18
Agreed?
And they all said…AMEN!!
It’s funny how people, very often good well-intentioned Christian folks, can take something as simple and understandable as the Gospel and manage to confuse it up. I suspect the “clouding element” entered into the mix is ego.
purplepeep said:
Yeah, like that Apostle Paul guy. He went on and on about people preaching a different Gospel, which is really not another Gospel at all. And if anyone preaches a different Gospel, then they are to be accursed?! Calm down Paul, lay off the ego, will ya?
And Jude, lay off the “contend for the faith which was once and for all handed down to the saints”. It is much more important to bash liberals like Rusty than to hash out something that affects a person’s eternal salvation…
It’s funny how people, very often good well-intentioned Christian folks, can take something as simple and understandable as the Gospel and manage to confuse it up. I suspect the “clouding element” entered into the mix is ego.
I agree, TM. Michelle Malkin political blog commenters Jude and Paul shouldn’t pick on Rusty.
I’ll call ‘em on it next time.
Nonsense. this might be true of fifth-column loons, but the vast overwhelming majority of atheists just want thier rights untouched and religion out of politics.
Do I care that the pledge has “under God” in it? A bit, but I can recognize it as part of culture and not get to annoyed.
Do I care what folks do in thier own churches? Not really, unless of course they are saying stuff like “God damn America” or encouraging hatred or violence.
Blue laws, however, DO get my ire up. There is absolutely no reason why folks shouldn’t be allowed to sell liquor or cars on Sunday (or whatever particular law we are talking) just because of other people’s religion.
As far as this same-sex marriage issue is concerned: if a member of the clergy or some particular faith wants to perform a same-sex union because he / she believes there is nothing wrong with it; but refuses to do so because of acquiescing to the elders; well then, I guess that’s either practical or cowardly, depending on your POV.
So Lindsay calls on the name of the Most Holy God with an abomination on her lips and in her heart.
zeroangel said:
It is called democracy. If the majority votes to bar the selling of liquor on Sunday, or Tuesday, or whatever, that is democracy. So long as they aren’t forcing you to go to church, they aren’t forcing their religion on you.
I bet you didn’t cry about getting Christmas, er, ahem, Winter vacation when you were in school. Or perhaps you would prefer to work seven days a week, since weekends are based upon, you know, the idea that certain days like Sabbath and Sunday are… uh, special?
That is incredibly naive. As a (I will presume) conservative, do you feel [homosexuals/radical environmentalists/pro-choice movement] are imposing their belief system on you?
Have you ever been forced to attend a [gay pride parade/Greenpeace meeting/NARAL meeting]?
No?
I understand why it happens, that doesn’t mean I have to like it. It also doesn’t mean its right.
At the time I wasn’t an atheist and didn’t (and still don’t) care. Furthermore, Christmas (and I have no problem calling it that) is an aspect of culture and a commerical holiday (in my eyes) and doesn’t infringe on my rights in the slightest. Finally, if I want to work on Saturday or Sunday, I should be allowed to, if I own a car dealership in NJ, I can’t, and I lose valuable business on that day.
There’s a difference. A “Religious Requirements Committee” doesn’t show up at your house and haul you off.
Soon, a “Human Rights Commission” will (like it does in Canada) punish those who are guilty of thought crimes. And – if some environmentalists had their way – they’d force us to contracept or abort to “save the planet” for the non-existent next generation.
What part of “free expression of religion” is lost on you people? The Constitution doesn’t confine it to the home, the church, the car. “Free” means “free.”
If you choose not to participate in a religion, that’s your choice. But too many expect religion to be confined to neat little spheres and never, ever touch or offend their lives.
zeroangel said:
So you don’t like it for people to allow their religious beliefs to inform their political decisions? That isn’t right?! It is right, and it is a right.
This nation was founded upon the principle of keeping politics out of religion, not keeping religion out of politics.
You, the minority, do not get to dictate to the majority what is and isn’t right. You don’t like the local regulations (that do not inhibit your freedom of non/religion), then start your business elsewhere. Every place has its own costs of doing business.
You want to run your car dealership on Sundays? I’m sure there is a place out there that will let you do just that.
I can’t imagine going to a Hindu or Muslim country or whatever, and expect them to conform their culture to me. Do some countries want to make sure all restaurants are closed during the daylight hours in the month of Ramadan? You deal with it, or you don’t start a restaurant there, it is real simple.
You misread me. People might have a right to allow thier religious beliefs to affect their poitical decisions, but it is not right to force thier religious beliefs down other people’s throats.
What if you lived in a predominately Muslim area and the majority locally voted into to effect certain aspects of sharia law. We all rail against that, but when the shoe is on the other foot, its all, “If you don’t like it move!”
As Thomas Jefferson said:
How does it infringe upon your rights to let me open my car dealership on Sundays? How does that injure you?
You are comparing backward nations that aren’t even in the same league as the US. Of course I would expect a place like Pakistan to be oppressive. Are you saying it’s OK for the US to be in the same ballpark. I think not.
EQ:
I, for one, do not expect religion to be confined into neat little spheres, that would infringe on your rights. I just expect that there shouldn’t be a law dictating that I honor the sabbath by not selling cars on Sundays. That does infringe on my rights.
See my point? Works with all kinds of “choices” we make.
zeroangel said:
Yes, certain businesses not being permitted to be open on Sundays is forcing Christian beliefs on you. Because NJ doesn’t allow car dealerships to be open on Sundays, you have the belief in the resurrection shoved down your throat. Or not.
zeroangel said:
As long as the local laws were constitutional, I wouldn’t cry about it. I’d either deal with it or move.
zeroangel said:
It doesn’t. I couldn’t care the least if you sold cars on Sunday. The fact of the matter is, there is nothing in the Bible forbidding work on Sundays, nothing. Even if there was, I wouldn’t care if you worked on Sunday. But if the community decides that, then I don’t see a problem with that. I do see a problem with minority rule in a democracy.
zeroangel said:
Oh, you force me to take one day off a week, you are soooooo oppressive to me. I’m injured! Because I can’t open my car dealership in NJ on Sundays, I have been forced to become a Christian and now must go to heaven when I die… curse you all!!!
zeroangel said:
No one is forcing you to honor the Sabbath. Maybe you can’t do business one day out of the week, but no one is forcing you to honor the Sabbath.
And yes, that infringes upon your right to run a car dealership in NJ on Sundays, and that is found… exactly where in the Constitution? Do you really think the founding fathers would have a problem if some locals decided to pass a law mandating certain places of business be closed on Sundays? Yeah, don’t think so.
I see a section of the first amendment that gives a Constitutional right to freedom of religion. Any infringement on that right is Unconstitutional and in most cases illegal. And trying to limit that freedom to the sphere of just the church or the home is a clear violation of the freedom to exercise that right.
I don’t see one in there that gives a Constitutional right to the sinful behavior known as homosexuality.
chapoutier said:
You can be as gay as you like. The problem with the pro-gay movement, as seen in Western countries, including our own, is the trend to silence anyone who thinks it is immoral.
You want to be gay? Fine, but don’t come into my church and tell me I can’t read aloud certain portions of the Bible without being thrown into jail. Don’t tell me I have to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple or be punished. And that is exactly what the pro-gay movement is pushing towards.
Right.
Ref. the Establishment clause, do you think a law forbidding business on Sunday is preferential to one religion over another? This could be construed as a 1st Amendment violation.
Unless, of course, the majority is violating the Constitution.
Forcing a car dealership not to open on the weekend (a time many people are free to shop) could be pretty damaging to thier business. Is it akin to killing non-Muslims? No. But it is certainlly writing a law that favors one religion over another or religion over non-religion.
I certainly think that many (without a doubt Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin) would.
zeroangel said:
Do tell me, what religious belief are you forced to agree with by not being allowed to sell cars on Sunday?
zeroangel said:
Could? LOL, uh huh. Next you’re going to tell me that the Constitution mandates access to abortion…
So you’re telling me that the US government, since many offices are closed or have reduced hours on Saturdays and Sundays, that this means the USA has established Judaism and Christianity as the national religions?
Perhaps you should just push to get rid of the concept of “weekends” altogether.
zeroangel said:
You do not have a constitutional right to sell cars on Sundays, sorry.
zeroangel said:
All laws and regulations have at least the possibility of making business harder to do. Is it too harsh? Then push legislation through to change it.
zeroangel said:
So when do laws become the equivalent of promoting the lack of religion over religion?
zeroangel said:
You just lost all credibility. You are talking about a guy that had Christian worship services held in government buildings! The founding fathers weren’t worried about businesses being shut down on Sundays. They weren’t worried about the Bible being taught in schools. They weren’t worried about prayer in schools. They were worried about the government propping up one Christian denomination over other Christian denominations.
zeroangel said:
The Constitution protects religion from the government, not the other way around. You want to deny this right, while claiming you have a Constitutional right to sell cars on Sundays. I think that speaks for itself…
Trollman:
Isn’t it obvious? Let’s turn it around. What possible justification (other than religious) could be used for a law that forces business owners not to do business on Sunday?
You are confused. Having a 5 day work week at a government office is a different thing than FORCING a private business owner not to do business on a certain day. Furthermore, many government employees of all sorts often work on weekends (to include Sundays).
I have a Constitutional right for the state not to pass laws that favor one religion over another (or over non-religion).
This is true, and it is a constant source of bewilderment for me when my fellow conservatives (yes, I consider myself a conservative) are all gung-ho when it comes to small government and less-regulations concerning guns (I agree), free-market (also agree), and others. However, when it comes to blue laws, where is the outrage?
This should also be obvious. It would be the point at which, for example, the state passed a law that said private businesses (like car dealers) MUST be open on Sunday. I am not advocating this.
You might be interested to know (then again you might not) that both men were in all likelihood Deists. They were both great thinkers during the Enlightenment. Certainly, in Jefferson’s case, after all, how else would you explain the Jefferson Bible? If they were alive today, who is to say what they would think, I certainly don’t think either one would say it’s OK for the government to FORCE an entrepreneur to close his business on a particular day.
As for you last comment I thought I had cleared that up when I said:
I guess not. Allow me to clarify:
the vast overwhelming majority of atheists just want thier rights untouched and religion out of laws.
zeroangel said:
The only thing that is obvious is that this doesn’t force a religious belief or practice on anyone. Not going to work on Sundays isn’t a religious practice. Plenty of non-believing people in secular Europe stay home from work on Sundays, and it isn’t because they are having Christianity shoved down their throats.
I couldn’t care less what motivations people have for voting for what they vote for. I don’t believe in hate-crime legislation. Whenever you start deciding legal matters based upon what you think people are thinking, that is a slippery slope.
zeroangel said:
I have no problem with a community, city, or state deciding that they want to shut things down 1-2 days a week. I do have a problem with the federal government sticking its nose in matters that don’t violate the Constitution and only affect local matters.
zeroangel said:
The point is, there is a precedent for things shutting down on Sundays – and it has nothing to do with promoting Christianity over any other non/religious belief or practice. Over all, what day of the week has the fewest work hours? Do Malls have shorter hours on Sundays because they are trying to force Christianity upon you?
zeroangel said:
It is about local autonomy – keeping the feds out of things that aren’t their business.
zeroangel said:
That isn’t anti-religion. It is a bit silly, but not anti-religion.
zeroangel said:
I know more than you think. Jefferson’s beliefs were probably more fluid than simply saying he was a deist. Certainly he wasn’t religious in the sense that I am.
I’ll even go one further. It is likely that Jefferson had these worship services, stemming not from religious conviction, but to help avoid some political flak for his religious (or lack thereof) beliefs. Regardless, he apparently didn’t see a problem with what he was doing. Some of the fathers may not have been truly religious, but that doesn’t mean they had any aversion to other people practicing religion, or religious influence in the political realm.
zeroangel said:
You say you don’t want religious laws. The problem comes with what you define as a “religious law.” Shutting down businesses on Sunday is not a religious law. Laws against abortion are not religious laws. Laws against same sex marriage are not religious laws.
(Some) Atheists don’t go to work on Sundays. (Some) Atheists are against abortion. (Some) Atheists are against same sex marriage.
Are you supporting abortion or SSM? That isn’t what I am saying, but many people oppose these kinds of laws insisting these are religious laws, or are religiously motivated. Just like what you are doing with Sunday laws. None of these things are religious laws, but that doesn’t stop people like you from trying to claim they are.
One more thing about shutting businesses down on Sunday. I don’t think it is relevant why people vote for a law – I don’t think that has anything to do with whether or not a law is constitutional.
But there is a secular rationale for shutting down businesses that don’t provide services that are needed 7 days a week. Sunday is the only day of the week without a rush hour. As religious devotion and church attendance has decreased, Sunday has increasingly been transitioning from a day of worship to a day of leisure.
More so than any other day, people sleep in on Sundays. Many see it as family/recreation day. I see more people riding bicycles on the street Sunday than any other day. The same goes for boating at the lake, etc.
I see no problem (and certainly nothing religious) with a community wanting to shut down unnecessary businesses on Sundays for the sake of keeping congestion low and allowing people to go about their leisurely activities one day a week.
Trollman:
This is the main point you are misssing:
There is a difference from choosing to stay home on Sunday (or a mall choosing to close, or a business making its own policy not to be open) because its a cultural norm and forcing a business owner to not work on Sunday by making working on Sunday illegal. This is wholly making religious doctrine into a law. It is wrong.
I don’t believe in hate-crime legislation either. That’s not what this is about. I do understand what you mean when you say deciding legal matters on what people “think.” I’ll get to that below.
This is hardly a local matter. This is an entire state forcing business owners to obey other people’s idea of religious doctrine.
As far as local autonomy, what about the autonomy of the business owner?
We seem to agree ref. Jefferson, just disagree on what he might say today, which is really just speculation.
Then what is it? What is the justification for forcing a private business owner to close on Sunday? (afterthought, I see your second post, I’ll get to it below.)
Yes, on all counts. Now, the abortion debate and the same-sex marriage debate are a bit more heated and I don’t want to get into them today as this is already goign in circles. However, I should its plainly obvious that forcing a business owner to close on Sundays is just plain wrong.
That hardly makes sense. Why car dealerships? Car dealerships are hardly a huge culprit for congestion. Why Sunday? Why not Saturday? The root of the law is plainly religious. You insist that it isn’t a religious law, I insist otherwise and I don’t think your example of a secular reason for the law is well thought out.
So, yes, the issue is defining what exactly a religous law is. That said, concerning this particulat “blue law” I remain unconvinced that it is anything other than religous, and thus, I am opposed to it and I believe it is unconstituional.
zeroangel said:
There is nothing inherently religious about telling car dealerships that they can’t open 1 day out of the week. Period. Sunday isn’t a religious day, it is a day of the week. And I do get the difference in choosing and having the law dictate to you – the difference is simply irrelevant to whether or not this is a religious law.
zeroangel said:
It is local in that it is on the state level, not the national level. NJ isn’t a very big state, anyway. People in Texas have back yards that cover more acres than NJ. Whether or not people consider it a religious doctrine is moot, the law in no way infringes upon your religious freedom.
How does your car dealership being shut down on Sundays inhibit your atheism? Not one bit. Does it cut into your profits? Maybe, but that applies to all car dealerships, it doesn’t impact one religious group more than another.
zeroangel said:
Local business owners don’t get to set up porn shops near schools, homes, and churches – they are subject to the wishes/rules/regulations decided by the majority of that community.
zeroangel said:
The justification isn’t because the Bible says so, but because the majority of the folks say so. Why they voted that way simply doesn’t matter. If I vote for McCain because I believe God told me to do so, or because I made a reasoned choice based upon his political views, it doesn’t make one bit of difference. A vote is a vote. The motivation for voters has nothing to do with whether or not a law is constitutional. Period.
zeroangel said:
There is nothing inherently wrong with such a regulation. What is wrong is one person telling the community the way it is going to be, when his constitutional rights aren’t being curtailed.
zeroangel said:
I have no idea what NJ allows and doesn’t allow on Sundays. The point is, a community can choose to make such a decision if they like.
zeroangel said:
Because people are “lazier” on Sundays then Saturdays. Look at the traffic. Even if this wasn’t the case, if both days were about the same, then we’d have to pick one, so why not Sunday? And why do you think Saturday and Sunday are the 2 most leisure oriented days of the week, eh? Saturday (Judaism), & Sunday (Christianity), so to be consistent, you should be against weekends altogether.
zeroangel said:
Again, why people voted for it is entirely irrelevant towards it being constitutional or not. If you vote for a law not intending for it to violate people’s rights, yet it does violate their rights, the law is unconstitutional. That it wasn’t intended to violate people’s rights is irrelevant.
Show me what religious practice you are forced to observe by this law. You are forced not to work on Sundays. A lot of people don’t work on Sundays. Not working on Sundays (by choice or by force, it matters not) is not a religious practice since many, many, many nonreligious people don’t work on Sundays.
Trollman:
This is going in circles and is becoming pointless. I have answered all your questions and addressed all your points more than once now.
Porn shops have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with protecting children.
I believe this is a blue law, you don’t, I got it. You think there is a legitimate secular reason for this law, I don’t.
I brought it up only to make a point that atheists don’t want to do what EQ fears:
I plainly don’t care what mythology you follow or what God you worship as long as it doesn’t infringe on my rights.
I searched wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law
interestingly enough it has both our points there. I guess that we have both hit on the heart of the debate.
I could come up with another example, but instead I refer to snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/language/colors/bluelaws.asp
These laws all have religious roots and it’s absolutely not denied.
It is my very strong suspicion that if the shoe were on the other foot you wouldn’t be so supportive. For example, let’s say a local community in the US comprised of say, 55% Muslims decided that they were going to pass a law banning the sale of pork in their community because it is bad for you. By your logic this would be a secular reason and just fine. I would say it was unconstitutional. I am sure we can imagine many more progressively worse situations.
Trollman:
An afterthought:
It isn’t about being forced to observe a religious practice nessecerily.
What if my religion requires that I eat pork? What if the aforementioned community bans the consumption of pork based on the idea that its bad for you?
It isn’t hard to imagine scenarios where these laws do favor one religion over another.
Trollman:
Sorry, another thing that occurred to me whilst going through my morning emails:
Do you really care about this or do you just want to argue for the sake of arguing?
I’ve noticed your tone has gone from mainly sarcastic and condescending to somewhat thoughtful, which is appreciated, but do you think we could just agree to disagree? I mean jeez, we haven’t even gotten to the SSM / abortion / IT in schools, et al.
Sorry for the subsequent posts, but being as how I bet we are the only ones left reading this I hardly think it matters.
Furthermore, I am purposely trying to keep my responses short now as we have come full circle, but in doing so, I keep leaving out key things I wanted to mention. Mah bad.
(I just got done posting this elsewhere so I’ll post it here too..)
Both the legal and religious basis for establishing a commitment between two people of opposite and thus complimentary gender is to assure the nurture of the potential, (and hopeful), outcome that only such a union can provide – OFFSPRING which is the ONLY reason that Nature’s God endowed us with TWO genders in the first place.
Homosexuals are just as free to marry someone of the opposite sex as hetrosexuals. There is no ‘test for heterosexuality’ as some sort of prerequisite for marriage and thus nothing in the law prohibits homosexuals from doing so. Therefore, their claim of somehow being denied ‘equal rights’ has zero standing in fact.
Marriage is not about sexual gratification, it is about THE CHILDREN. Marriage is a promise to children that they’ll have BOTH a mother and a father committed to each other for the purpose of raising them. It always has been and always should be about the children. NEW LIFE is a gift from God. NEW LIFE is also an essential for the continuation of our country and civilization itself. New life is something that homosexuality cannot and will not ever provide.
Danceswithdachshunds:
By this logic a sterile male-female couple shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Your last paragraph seems to suggest that a single person (male or female) should not be allowed to adopt. Is this how you feel?
Umm, then that law is unconstitutional and would be overturned on appeal – infringing upon your ability to freely practice your religion. Either that or the government would order that you (and persons of your religious belief) would be exempt from that particular law, based upon your religious belief. And please don’t use the argument that certain sects of Mormans are discriminated against because of laws against polygamy. Polygamist marriages are not “required” by their religion – permitted by their religion, perhaps, but not “required”.
Biggest flaw I’ve seen in your arguments has been your insistence that you have a “right” to do business on Sundays. Please show me where the US Constitution or laws give you that “right”.
There is simply nothing unconstitutional about a community placing restrictions on when or where a business may operate, so long as those restrictions are not based upon reasons of race, sex, sexual preference or religious belief (or lack thereof).
I’m a Christian, and I’ve always thought “Blue Laws” were kind of silly, but it is still up to the individual community (in your case, the state of NJ) to determine the hours that they will allow businesses to operate – again as long as they don’t do so for discriminatory purposes. Don’t like the NJ laws? Then work to try to get them changed. Or move to a “friendlier climate” and go into business there.
No, this is not what I insist, and I have said as much:
This is the heart of it. I maintain that blue laws are based on religious belief.
zeroangel:
One more thought. Where do we draw the line as to what exceptions we grant in regards to religious practices? There are some muslims that would argue that the concept of “honor killing” is required by their religion. Do we accept that argument and allow the intentional homicide of muslim women because they somehow brought “dishonor” on their families?
It’s a slippery slope, and one that given the current times, a slope that we are currently coming closer and closer to the edge of.
But of this I’m certain: The decision we as a society reach on issues such as this are far more important than whether or not a local community decides that you can or can’t sell cars on a given day of the week.
Plus, I’d really like to know how you’d feel about the whole issue of your not being able to sell cars one day a week if the community decided that you could sell cars on every day of the week but, oh say, Tuesday? Would you still consider that to be an “imposition” of a religious belief on your business? Or would you shrug your shoulders, say “oh well, guess I’ll just take Tuesday off” and go on with your life? Or just what would your reaction be?
Certainly there would be no infringement of your constitutional rights in that case, would there?
I refer to my quote from Jefferson above.
At the point at which it becomes injurious to others. Honor killings certainly fall into that area.
What would be the rationale for not allowing cars to be sold on Tuesday? What would be the history of the law? If there was no religion involved at any point I would shrug my shoulders and say “man what a stupid law, I am not voting for that.” This is not the case ref. the “Blue Laws.” the history and rationale are clearly religious.
Maybe so. But those laws aren’t prohibiting YOUR (or anybody’s) ability to conduct business based upon YOUR religious belief (or lack thereof).
The laws aren’t discriminitory towards individual business persons. If the law said that ONLY Christians couldn’t do business on Sundays, or if ONLY Muslims couldn’t do business on Sundays, or if ONLY athiests couldn’t do business on Sundays, THEN you’d have a case.
But by prohibiting business in a blanket fashion, the laws aren’t discriminatory.
And no, car dealers aren’t a protected class.
Again. So what? The laws are not discriminatory so long as they are applied in a blanket fashion. As long as ALL car dealers are told “no sales on Sunday”, then you don’t have a discriminatory law.
Who cares what the history and rationale are? So long as the law isn’t discriminatory or doesn’t infringe upon constitutional rights, then it’s legal.
Your argument seems to border on a “Freedom FROM Religion” rational.
BTW, the “establishment clause” that you referenced earlier really is quite remarkable. I’m assuming that you do understand that it says nothing more than that the federal government will not establish an official state religion? Court interpretations aside, that’s really all it says. Nothing more, nothing less.
governmentdrone:
Your points are well made. Bravo, I will have to give some more thought on this matter. Perhaps a case by case assessment of such blue-laws is more appropriate.
Perhaps you are right.
I too, take the slippery slope arguement and apply it on the other end of the spectrum. I believe that if “Blue Laws” are given any credence, then laws against eating pork should be valid as well (as long as they are applied to all people in such a community) This I can’t get on board with.
Yes, naturally I feel that sometimes the courts get it right. A recent notable case was the Supreme Courth upholding gun rights in DC.
zeroangel:
It was a complete pleasure to debate this issue with you.
Blue laws existed in my community until very recently. The process of getting them repealed started a long time ago, and various laws fell one at a time over the course of, literally, decades. The most recent (and last, I believe) was repealed just a couple of years ago – it was a law prohibiting package liquor sales on Sundays.
I wish you luck should you decide to begin a campaign to have Blue Laws overturned in your community – just be aware that it can be a slow and somewhat painful process.
zeroangel:
One last thought – the laws against pork that you brought up as a hypothetical already exist (sort of). I’m thinking of the various communities that have banned “trans-fats” and other such nonsense.
But again, the big difference between your pork law and the various “nanny” laws, is that while the “nanny” laws may not be discriminatory, your pork law (as you outlined it above) would be discriminatory if my religion required that I eat pork – thus it’s unconstitutional or I get an exception to the law granted to me based on my religious belief.
No such luck for those of us who really, really liked McDonald’s french fries from way back in the day when they fried them in beef tallow. Wonder if I could find a religion that required me to eat McDonald’s fries specifically fried in beef tallow? Hmm . . .
Likewise. It is important, I think, to try and remain as civil as possible in any discussion. Sometimes it is difficult, especially when POVs are so radically different. Glad this was not the case with us.
Yes, this is happeneing in my neck of the woods: NYC and Philadephia.
As you point out, there is a difference between “nanny” laws, and my Muslims and pork example. However, I do think the “nanny” laws violate some kind of “inalienable” right spoken about in the Declaration. Do you know, perhaps, is there some clause in the Constitution itself that could be interpretted to forbid “nanny” laws?
As for McDonalds, well, that’s not hard, just found a new denomination of Christianity that adds trans-fat to the Eucharist *smile*. Either that, or found your own religion that worships the God of trans-fats.
Agreed.
Also agreed about your “nanny laws” points. As to the constitutional issues, maybe we could work it from the “right to privacy” angle. However, I’m not sure if that particular “right” is really in the constitution, or if it’s something that the courts “interpreted” into it. Like you, I applauded the recent SCOTUS decision on the Second Amendment, and the ability of 5 justices to actually read the darned amendment and NOT try to interpret something into it that simply isn’t there.
As to the God of trans-fats, do you think Fat Albert would mind being our diety?
governmentdrone:
From wiki:
We might have to ask Bill Cosby, there will probably be some kind of copyright issues or soemthing to that effect. *smile*.
While discussing these issues and whether or not they are Constitutional it occurs to me (though this has been said many times before) it is often hard to try and interpret what the Constitution means or “should” (?) mean.
At the time of its writing, there was no knowledge of trans-fats or nuclear weapons for example.
Would the founding fathers think its OK for any US citizen to arm themselves with a nuclear weapon based on a strict interpretation of the Constituion? I think not. It is often times liberals that are berated for saying the Constitution is a “living document.” I am not entirely sure what they mean by that, but if they mean that its interpretations can / should evolve, I don’t think they are wrong.
So zeroangel agrees with me now?
Trollman:
Not quite. I still disagree, however at the least governmentdrone has given me something to mull over.
governmentdrone’s main points are the same ones that I’ve been making.
Just because a law has a religious rationale or history, that doesn’t make it unconstitutional. In fact, many things that you presumably wouldn’t take issue with have the same – Christmas (and many public holidays), the concept of weekdays/weekends, our university system, our intrinsic rights (from our Creator) that are not subject to the government or the king, etc. If you are going to rail against laws prohibiting selling cars on Sunday – on the rationale of some religious heritage/connection – then be consistent. Whatever you believe or do, consistency is something we all should strive for.
As far as pork goes, I don’t eat pork – never really liked it. The only pork products I like are bacon and pepperoni, both of which I stopped eating years ago because they are so unhealthy.
Like I’ve said before, I don’t care about these laws. I couldn’t care less if you can sell cars on Sundays, sell pork, or whatever. If you want to change them, then do it the right way – pass the legislation. I’m sick of seeing unelected judges dictating to the entire country based solely upon their whims.
What I do care about is the minority dictating to the majority, when the minority’s rights aren’t being hurt.
I am also concerned that freedom of religion is now being construed as freedom from religion. Freedom to practice one’s religion is an explicit right, and it is about time people started recognizing that fact.
zeroangel:
I agree with you about the constitution being a “living document”. At least sort of. I think that things have to be seen (and yes “interpreted”) in context with the “intent” as well as the times we live in. I just have a disagreement with SCOTUS and all courts when they “interpret” something into it that can’t even be construed in your wildest imagination to be there (I’m thinking Kelo, for example).
Trollman:
I agree with you that freedom to practice one’s religion is an explicit right. However, nowhere do we have a right to FORCE our religious choices on others. As Christians, we do have a responsibility to spread the Word and try to win souls for God, but we don’t have the legal right (in this country) to pass laws that would force others to live by our moral standards.
zeroangel is looking at the NJ blue laws as that kind of forced imposition. Hopefully, my arguments about the constitutionality of those laws, when applied in a blanket fashion gave him/her a different way of looking at them.
Yes, and I see that now. Perhaps he is just a bit more artful in making his points? Or maybe he is just more patient and respectful when dealing with other people?
I thought I was clear on Christmas et al. I am consistent, I don’t think laws forbidding selling cars on Christmas are so hot either.
Ref. intrinsic rights (from our Creator): I do believe in “intrinsic rights” but I take the “from our Creator” portion as being something of an archaism that should be retained for the sake of nostalgia.
Then what is your feeling on gun control laws? Is it OK for the courts to back a minority if such a minority believes in an interpretation of the Constitution that allows personal firearms?
governmentdrone:
Kelo… you are talking about eminent domain, correct? I too, I very much opposed to eminent domain. Ironically enough, there is a beautiful beach nearby my office and home complete with a nice boardwalk and wonderful resturants. Ahhh, the Jersey shore! Despite all the jokes about Jersey its actually very nice. Sadly, it was built on land seized by eminent domain. Gotta love the People’s Republic of NJ.
It’s “him” BTW. Zero-Angel was chosen long ago when I was a partying college student. It was supposed to mean “not an angel.” I thought it was clever at the time, the androgynous nature of it didn’t occur to me, obviously. *sigh*
Oh, and no I didn’t join Malkin’s site while in college. I just have kept the “zeroangel” moniker on many sites over the years just to be consistent.
zero:
(no insult intended, more just a feeling of familiarity at this point re:your handle)
Yep, Kelo would be the imminent domain decision.
Also, no offense intended in having trouble discerning your gender. Your arguments and style are such that there just weren’t any clues.
I’ve only been to Jersey once in my life, about 30 years ago now. Spent an evening in Bayonne, I think it was. Anyway, we were on a bay or the oceanfront (sorry, age plays you-know-what with some aspects of memory), and you could see the Statue of Liberty from where we were. There was an horrendous storm moving in, but the gathering storm in the background of Lady Liberty was a sight I’ll never forget.
imminenteminent
/sigh
long day.
governmentdrone said:
I’m not forcing my religious standards on anyone. Forcing Christian beliefs upon others is counterproductive and antithetical to true Christianity. As I’ve already proven, shutting down car dealerships on Sundays doesn’t force any religious belief or practice on anyone.
As far as the moral standards, I partially agree. I don’t expect non-Christians to agree with every moral stance that the Bible advocates, but I do believe in laws that enforce a basic morality. For example, murder is wrong and should be illegal. The prohibition of murder is a moral law (it did not originate only after carefully conducting a cost-benefit analysis, but because it was considered wrong and unacceptable).
What I have been arguing all along is for local government to have as much autonomy as (reasonably) possible – hence I think they should be able to pass laws regulating business operating hours/locations, etc. Even if I don’t personally care for them (so long as they don’t violate the Constitution).
zeroangel said:
Or perhaps you were just stuck on disagreeing with me? Look, I’ve not insulted you. Did I start out sarcastic? Sure – because the notion that forcing 1 day off per week is “oppressive” is flat out absurd.
zeroangel said:
That, I think, is a real problem for atheism. It does not provide as solid a foundation for individual rights as does a Transcendent Being. It basically means your rights don’t really come from anywhere – let’s just pretend they exist so our lives will go better.
Lastly, I don’t understand your question about gun control.
governmentdrone:
Oh, no offense taken / percieved at all.
A co-worker of mine grew up in Bayonne actually.
Despite living all my life in the tri-state area (not including a few years in the Army). I have not once been to the Statue of Liberty. I have seen it many a times from afar, as you have, but never got around to touring it up close. Just one of those things I guess, when you live near some important tourist site, you often take the attitude of, “Heck its so close, I’ll get around to it.”
So, since we have gotten this far: I thought I might run my ideas of same-sex marriage across you (getting back to the topic of the article).
I am inclined to agree with MikeOK’s thoughts in comment #4 (scroll WAY up there).
I take it a step further though:
It is my contention that govt. has no business in religious “marriage” whatsoever. Churches also should have no business in the legality of a “union” IMHO.
I think people should have to have the religous portion and the legal portion done entirely seperate.
I believe that the state should refer to any union of any two individuals as a legal “civil union” and that union should be equal legally without consideration of the sexual orientation of the people involved.
That way, this would leave the word “marriage” to the domain of the various religions. It seems to me, this would solve many of the heartaches on this front.
Homosexual couples would have no grounds to debate whether or not they are “married” in the eyes of the state; they would have to take it up with whatever church they choose.
Further, no church can be forced into perfoming a “marriage” (because of whether or not they recieve govt. tax relief or otherwise). the churches would be free to perform whatever sacrement they like and it would have no legal ramifications.
I suppose that there would be the debate of whether or not a homosexual couple of this sort has equal grounds to adopt as a heterosexual couple.
Trollman:
If I was just stuck on disagreeing with you, I wouldn’t have been receptive to governmentdrone.
You were sarcastic and condescending, not to mention you seemed to make some blanket assumptions from the get go about my political views solely based on my lack of religion. Did you outright insult me? No, not outright and there are no hurt feelings on this end. All I am saying is that you might find people more receptive to you if you weren’t so sarcastic and condescending.
A solid foundation is found in the idea that individual rights are based on evolved empathy and morality that has be proven over the course of history to be good for society. I don’t need to invoke an unfalsifiable, unseen, transcendent being in order to say, “raping and killing people is wrong” (neither does anyone else for that matter).
OK, lets say a local community passed a law forbidding automatic weapons? Would you support the minority in pursueing “legislation from the bench” to have this law overturned? How would you respond to the majority when they claim the 2nd Amendment refers to militia or national guard?
Hmmm… I reread MikeOK’s comment in #4, actually turns out I don’t take it any further. His sentiments and mine are identical.
zeroangel said:
1.That doesn’t do anything to disprove what I was saying. When it was pointed out, you denied it by taking jabs at my writing ability and personality.
2. I may not be as articulate as, uh, um, Obama, but I do have a basic grasp of the English language. And you are obviously intelligent, so it is reasonable to conclude you were fully capable of understanding my points.
3. Which leads to the fact that you have repeatedly chastised me for (your perception) of my tone and attitude. This leads me to suspect that it isn’t about my posts, but that you weren’t going to agree with me not because of substance, but because of something else.
How can I say this without sounding sarcastic or condescending… ;^) maybe you aren’t the best one to be critiquing the personalities of others. Given your username, I would think you’d agree with me there.
zeroangel said:
I agree, you don’t need to resort to God in order to establish a basic morality… if you only take a shallow look at it. As a general rule, morality appears to be attainable without God.
For example, you shouldn’t go around murdering people because people won’t like that, and they might murder you. So far, so good. This can explain a great deal of things that we term “good”. However, it breaks down when you realize you can do something and get away with it. In such circumstances, there is no reason to do what is good. Under atheism, it makes sense to cheat when you know you can get away with it. Similarly, if you happen to find yourself in a position of sufficient power, you can safely ignore some of those restraints. This is why atheism fails to ultimately establish morality, rights, etc.
That is why, among atheist philosophers in the area of ethics and morality, the dominant view is that there is no such thing as true morality. Nothing is really wrong, and nothing is really right.
No God = no morality = no rights. So you have to end up playing “pretend”.
One more thing about God. Some gods, by their alleged nature, are not falsifiable/verifiable. However, some understandings of God are (at least potentially) falsifiable/verifiable – such as the Christian God.
zeroangel said:
I don’t know enough about guns to make an informed decision regarding “automatic” weapons, but I think I understand your 2nd question. I would respond by saying that the “well regulated militia” takes for granted that individuals have guns, since that would be a prerequisite for being able to come together to form a militia.
Now I have a question for you. How does not being able to sell cars on Sundays interfere with your ability to be a “practicing” atheist?
Trollman:
Though you may not think so, this isn’t about disproving anything, I still disagree with both you and governmentdrone. Governmentdrone was just a bit more approachable.
In these matters I am inclined to agree with a more liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. We are talking about POVs and interpretations of language (in the Constitution). It isn’t so cut and dry as, say, a mathematical proof. I agreed with governmentdrone when he said that perhaps I want “freedom from religion” in laws. This, however, does not mean I want to prosecute people for hating gay people or going to church.
I am not trying to be critical, chastise, take jabs at your writing ability, personality, or otherwise. I am not trying to win some “arguement” by making an ad hominem attack against you.
I was simply trying to give a bit of friendly advice. I realize it was unsolicited and I am sorry if you feel offended. The fact remains that you might find people more receptive to your POV if you weren’t sarcastic or condescending. If you can’t or are unwilling to accept that, then don’t.
Nonsense. Secular Humanism has some good things about how to be a moral person without a God. In any case though, if a person considers that being moral and a good person is an evolved and ingrained natural trait that is good for the survival of the species as a whole; then he can be a good person just because it is the right thing to do for the species.
Furthermore, the problem is I can’t believe in God, even if I wanted to. It logically makes no sense at all to me.
On top of this, how can you determine what your “true” morality is when there are about a million different Gods to choose from. What makes you more “right” than any of these anothers?
Or they could just keep them in the armory, and not at home. So, lets modify the question:
What if a local community forbade all handguns of any sort (excepting perhaps very special cases, like battered wives fleeing from thier husband), would you support the minority in “legislating from the bench?” (DC comes to mind here.)
Answered many times now, Trollman. My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment goes beyond yours and governmentdrone’s. I believe that the motivation for the law is religious and hence it is a violation of the Establishment Clause. I do not think (and never said I did) it actually interferes with my ability to be an atheist. Another concern is that if “Blue Laws” are accpetable, it’s conceivable that sharia law could begin to trickle into the US, as it has in Europe.
Trollman:
Another afterthought:
For a better idea of what I mean see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test
I believe the “no selling cars on Sunday” law fails item #1.
Morning zeroangel:
I’m a little saddened to see in your last post
I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree about the blue laws thing. However, like you said yesterday, you’ve given me something to chew on in regards to this whole debate. Good stuff here – it’s always nice to have an encounter that encourages you to use your thinking ability (something I’m trying to convince my 3 newly acquired step-children of).
As to the matter of civil unions: I don’t have a problem with the government recognizing certain living arrangements with a legal ceremony. I think that there are certain things that any co-habiting people should be able to take advantage of, for instance the income tax breaks that are currently available only to married couples. However, I’m not sure that I would stop at offering this kind of arrangement to just homosexual couples. Why not extend these types of advantages (through some sort of civil legal arrangement) to, say, sibilings who live together. Or to the unmarried son or daughter who finds themselves living with an elderly parent in a caretaking situation.
Both of these examples, to me, constitute just as legitimate a living arrangement as a homosexual couple. Should they be denied the legal benefits that would be extended to those homosexual couples through a “civil union”?
Marriage, however, is a different thing, at least in my book. It may seem like semantics to some, but to me, marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Period.
What’s the difference? Not much I suppose, at least from a legal/benefits standpoint. I agree with the sentiment that maybe there should be two different ceremonies – one civil and one religious. Make the religious ceremony available to those who would qualify according to that religion’s standards (this ceremony would be both fully religious and fully legal), and make the civil type available to those who either choose that type (athiest heterosexual couples, homosexuals, etc.). This would be a fully legal ceremony without (obviously) any religious ramifications.
I have to admit, I’ve been conflicted about this question for a long time. I’m still not sure exactly how I feel, but this type of arrangement seems to be the best type of thing I’ve yet been able to figure out.
zeroangel:
I believe the Lemon Test applies to legislation proposed that would deal with religions in an otherwise civil context; i.e., the example of this case where public money was being used to pay teacher salaries at a parochial school. I don’t believe the Lemon Test was intended to be a blanket test used for all legislation; i.e. Blue Laws. Again, it is the law itself and it’s application that must be judged – not what may have motivated the law in the first place.
governmentdrone:
Yes, sorry to disappoint, but I think we might have to agree to disagree. Ref.: the Lemon Test, if it’s not intended to be a blanket test, I believe it should be. This is my interpretation of the 1st Amendment (sorry, I said 2nd Amendment above to Trollman, my mistake).
Concerning SSM / civil unions:
Well, firstly, the insane tax laws complicate this whole thing immensely. If the whole “joint filing” thing was done away with (I believe it’s lived out its usefulness and harkens back to a time when the wife generally stayed at home) and replaced with just dependants (or even a flat-tax of some kind) things would be far less complex.
As far as siblings and unmarried son or daughters taking care of elderly parents: I agree, they should have this option as well. However, since they would have to “divorce” their parent or sibling if they decide to join in a more traditional union; I think this would dissuade most people from opting for this arrangement.
I think by making it fully legal you would still have the issue of homosexual couples claiming they are being discriminated against by the government. You would also have the issue of public funds for the church. Better to make the religious sacrament of marriage completely free from any legal implications. Make “civil unions” the only language of the legal portion, and this must be separate from the religious portion.
Small note, not really important, but it should be said that many atheists either choose to still marry in a church for the sake of their families, their new spouse, or just plain tradition and culture. Also, there are other atheist couples (I know one from my Secular Humanist group) that are married by a Secular Humanist “celebrant” (the closest thing we have to a pastor).
I too, have been conflicted for a long time. Despite being somewhat “progressive” I am uncomfortable with SSM.
zeroangel:
I can see your point about the ramifications involved with having the religious ceremony tied to the civil or legal ceremony. Perhaps these should be separated.
Quite frankly, it would seem that the tax ramifications are the only real and practical considerations left. In this day and age, things like property considerations, inheritance issues, etc. can be arranged for in other ways.
So perhaps if a “flat tax” or “fair tax” were instituted (or even a national sales tax – quite frankly I’m not sure which of the various plans floating around out there makes the most sense) the whole issue of marriages/civil unions would become more of a personal issue: Get married if you want or have a civil union if you want, otherwise who cares?
In other words, if you still want – for religious reasons – to get married, and your church’s doctrine allows for it, then get married. If your church’s doctrine doesn’t approve and you still want some kind of ceremony or “official stamp” on your union, then get a civil ceremony. Either way, no legal ramifications involved – in the case of the religious ceremony, it’s two people who want their union blessed by God. In the case of the civil ceremony, I guess it could be two people who want that feeling of “permanence” instilled by an official ceremony of some sort.
But more than likely, you’d still have the same kinds of things going on i.e., people who don’t qualify for a religious ceremony would be claiming discrimination and suing.
This kind of thing, frankly, amazes me. The Christian faith really isn’t something that exists as a convenience, or is something that can be “shaped” or changed depending on the whims of it’s members. There are certain beliefs that exist to guide each denomination, that must remain unchanged in order for that denomination to remain true to the faith.
I guess my view is, fine if you don’t like what this one believes and teaches, then find one that does. And if you can’t find one that does, then you’re either out of luck, or you can attempt to start your own. As a Christian, the concept of affecting “change from within” baffles me. You either accept it, or you don’t. It’s not something that is there to accept your views. Quite the opposite, really.
governmentdrone:
Very well said, it seems we are in complete agreement ref. SSM.
One thing I could add though:
I guess the only thing that would give them any grounds to complain (because like you said, they can join another religion, or found their own) is the fact that churches receive tax breaks and somehow that means they are tied to the state. I don’t necessarily agree with this idea, but I think, again, the tax laws need serious reconsideration. It seems taxes are the root of this (and many other) issues.
What are your thoughts on stem cell research and/or germ line gene therapy?
zeroangel:
Glad to see you’re still checking this thread.
Wow, you do ask the questions on the “explosive” issues, don’t you! jk, I like to talk about just about any issue – keeps me on my toes.
I’m pretty much for stem cell research, with the exception of fetal stem cells. No, my opposition to that isn’t based on religious issues, but rather because the evidence I’ve seen shows that it just isn’t that promising. There are other lines of research that are much further along and show great promise that I feel should be the area of concentration (cord blood for instance seems to be showing a massive amount of promise).
What I do object to are laws that are passed like what happened in my home state a couple of years ago (MO). A ballot issue was passed that was wildly misrepresented. The proponents claimed that it was just a simple little bill that would allow for stem cell research to be conducted in the state. However, when the issue was read (which very few voters bother to do with any ballot issue – they tend to rely on either the publicity generated by both sides or on the useless summaries that appear on the actual ballot), this issue provided for research into cloning (something that I am opposed to).
To me, this would have been reason enough to be opposed to it. However, I recognize that I may be in the minority on that, so I could see how that wouldn’t necessarily be an issue killer.
The thing that really should have put the red flags up was that the issue also contained a provision that the state legislature would be required to expend a minimum amount of tax dollars to support the research, and that this amount of support would NEVER be allowed to be reduced, and in fact the amount of support (at taxpayers expense) would HAVE to increase each year, such increase to be determined by factors such as increases in the cost of living and the total amount of revenue collected by the state.
The issue passed by a narrow margin. The people of this state now wonder where all the tax dollars are going.