Respectfully, I decline to make your cake

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The Freedom Of Religion includes the Freedom from religion. That part lost on many ...

Because it isn't true. Just because something is religious doesn't mean that it has to removed from public or govt. Too many people think that they should be shielded from all religious based materials- while conveniently pushing their values systems that are based on their belief systems that don't have a 'religion' attached to them.

[Hmac]

The Freedom Of Religion includes the Freedom from religion. That part lost on many ...

One of the many freedoms designed by the founding fathers that I exercise regularly.

[WillBrink]

Because it isn't true..

Of course it is and it was intentional by the Founders. Anyone who can't see that, well, we will never agree on that one if it's not totally obvious to some. My comment has nothing to do with removal of religiosity from public/gov spaces per se, but that has been the result of those intent on separation of church and state. No one should be able to tell you what faith you wish to follow, no one should tell me I have to follow, or be part of, any religious/faith based entity. Either infringes on my/your "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

One of the many freedoms designed by the founding fathers that I exercise regularly.

Indeed.

[ramairthree]

People forget the whole intent of no official stare religion was so you could be catholic, Protestant, etc. without having to be in the official C of E or whatever the state decided was the right one.

It was never intended for some people to use it to keep others from practicing their religion.

[Adrenaline_6]

Church disciple is a biblical mandate from the Lord. Excommunication (handing over to Satan) is the last resort to get the person to understand that his or her behavior is sinful and must change. If he has a partner, that must change. His sin is a big sin, not something that can be covered over with love. So far from your description he doesn't sound like he thinks it some sort of a an addiction (your words which I wouldn't use). Taking on a partner in this crime against the Lord doesn't sound like he's struggling in any way against the world, the flesh and devil, but quite the opposite. Flat out, if his sin has become or is public then others must get involved in helping him get on the right path again. Church IS for sinful broken people, but it's not for people that want to remain static and wallow about in that sin...sanctification must follow justification, the two are organically connect so that you can not have one without the other. Of course none of this applies if true faith is absent.

Again, agreed for the most part, but again, it seems you are setting levels to sin (like one is worse than the other). They are not. You dirty it up, it is dirty. Period. In this particular sin, having a partner is what makes this sin happen in the first place, no different than a drug addict having a crack pipe, needles, or a contact in his phone to his drug dealer. As far as his struggle, I have no clue what it may be or if it exists and I do not know how public it has become or if it has. I don't know if he wants to remain static and wallow either. He may or may not. I do agree that if it does become public, some sort of intervention must be made.

[Adrenaline_6]

People forget the whole intent of no official stare religion was so you could be catholic, Protestant, etc. without having to be in the official C of E or whatever the state decided was the right one.

It was never intended for some people to use it to keep others from practicing their religion.

I agree. Not having a religion for many people is a religion in itself and try and force that "religion" on every one else. It seems that separation does not apply to them.

[WillBrink]

I agree. Not having a religion for many people is a religion in itself and try and force that "religion" on every one else. It seems that separation does not apply to them.

And with that, I'm out of the thread. Enjoy y'all.

[RetroRevolver77]

With these exceptions of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#..._United_States

In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of religious freedom, expressed in Thomas Jefferson's letters and included in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence.

Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout the United States and Europe).

Unlike the many deist tracts aimed at an educated elite, Paine's treatise explicitly appealed to ordinary people, using direct language familiar to the laboring classes. How widespread deism was among ordinary people in the United States is a matter of continued debate.

Obviously the pilgrims have almost nothing to do with the beliefs of the founding fathers. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington seem to be up for grabs and their actual beliefs are debated. But really it does not matter, even if we were founded by men who subscribed to any specific religion, they deliberately did NOT establish a theocracy and that is why we are perhaps a "nation of christians, catholics, jews, agnostics and others" but we are not a christian, jewish, catholic or deist nation. We are also not an agnostic or atheist nation, we are instead a nation with the freedom to choose whatever beliefs you may hold.

Obviously you didn't read the link I provided. The actual history of the matter is quite different and the founding fathers' established this nation as a Christian nation just as the link outlines. The difference being though, they didn't want an official established specific Christian sect but allowed all manners of the Christian faith to be practiced. Obviously the original Pilgrims were a little different than say the Protestants and later the Catholics. Washington once was followed by a British spy and found praying for hours the evening before a battle. The day after they wrote the 1st Amendment the founding fathers' called for a national day of prayer for the new nation- so obviously they weren't saying there was a separation of church and state. The entire concept of inalienable rights within the Bill of Rights are that your rights are granted by God and cannot be imposed upon by man. The first Supreme Court ruled that this is a Christian nation. The Revolutionary War was fought in part that many believed that King George himself was the anti-Christ. Most of that is in the link I provided but other stuff you can research. It's not to say they weren't a mix of varying degree of scientific minds such of Franklin and Jefferson, or a little more rowdy mindsets of Paine but even Paine also later gave praise to God in his writings. Bottom line, the United States of America was founded by professed European Christians despite the new age revisionism to water down just how important the Christian faith was amongst them. Therefore the US is a European Christian nation that allows people the freedom to practice whatever they want.

[Adrenaline_6]

And with that, I'm out of the thread. Enjoy y'all.

Will, that post was not directed at you if that was what you think. It was directed at the more aggressive anti religious people who try and strip any hint of religion from the public eye because it offends them, not the live and let be ones like you. Didn't mean to offend whatsoever.

[TomMcC]

Again, agreed for the most part, but again, it seems you are setting levels to sin (like one is worse than the other). They are not. You dirty it up, it is dirty. Period. In this particular sin, having a partner is what makes this sin happen in the first place, no different than a drug addict having a crack pipe, needles, or a contact in his phone to his drug dealer. As far as his struggle, I have no clue what it may be or if it exists and I do not know how public it has become or if it has. I don't know if he wants to remain static and wallow either. He may or may not. I do agree that if it does become public, some sort of intervention must be made.

To answer the first part of your statement about "levels of sin", I will ask a few questions. Is hating someone unjustly in your heart equal to actually murdering that person. Are these two sins equal in the sight of God. Is lusting in your heart equal to actually committing adultery? Is hating God equal to hating your neighbor? Is there different levels of punishment in hell...Some receiving few stripes..some many?

I would also point out that according to the Apostle Paul, on going unrepentant homosexual behavior is often a sign of reprobation.

The fact that you and your wife know about this situation would show that the problem is already public.