A Win For Religious Liberty!

[Gondwanaland]

now THAT I will agree is indeed wrong.

You're the first! Good to hear.

But him praying in public or private is his constitutional right. Heck even if he were a complete hypocrite and praying in public to Satan himself, it would still be his constitutional right. Him being a Christian has nothing to do with it.

Again, I stated in my VERY FIRST POST agreement that it is his constitutional right and that the decision by SCOTUS was the right decision. It's interesting though, to see Christians' immediate response to criticism of his behavior being an assumption that somehow that criticism means I don't think he has the right to do it.

[tabibito]

For what purpose? To be seen kneeling praying in front of the SCOTUS building.

Are you saying that you judge him without knowing his intent? Surely not.

Again, I stated in my VERY FIRST POST agreement that it is his constitutional right and that the decision by SCOTUS was the right decision. It's interesting though, to see Christians' immediate response to criticism of his behavior being an assumption that somehow that criticism means I don't think he has the right to do it.

But saying that a Christian is violating the requirements of Scripture is a denial that he has any right to do it - laws of the land notwithstanding.

[rogue06]

Bruh, he literally is going around doing photo ops.

To be honest, I found the image of him before the SCOTUS as being in bad taste -- which I understand is entirely subjective.

It just seemed to be unnecessary gloating.

[Gondwanaland]

Are you saying that you judge him without knowing his intent? Surely not.

By his fruit we know him.

But saying that a Christian is violating the requirements of Scripture is a denial that he has any right to do it - laws of the land notwithstanding.

No, it is not. What sort of twisted logic are you using?

[tabibito]

No, it is not. What sort of twisted logic are you using?

What kind of twisted logic is involved in claiming that a Christian has the right to violate scriptural requirement?

[Gondwanaland]

What kind of twisted logic is involved in claiming that a Christian has the right to violate scriptural requirement?

A christian has the right to do whatever they want, just like any other person with free will, and they regularly violate scripture.

[tabibito]

A christian has the right to do whatever they want, just like any other person with free will, and they regularly violate scripture.

What a person does is often at odds with what the person has the right to do.
The outcome of your argument would have it that a person has the right to an abortion if that's what they want, or to go on a killing spree.
The Christian has the right either to assent to scriptural requirements or to lay down his "badge," with due acknowledgement that there are times when the person fails in the responsibility to follow through on the assent.

[Gondwanaland]

What a person does is often at odds with what the person has the right to do.
The outcome of your argument would have it that a person has the right to an abortion if that's what they want, or to go on a killing spree.
The Christian has the right either to assent to scriptural requirements or to lay down his "badge," with due acknowledgement that there are times when the person fails in the responsibility to follow through on the assent.

I'm unsure what you are having a meltdown over.

Christians regularly violate scriptural requirements. Sometimes daily.

I'll repeat my post:
Again, I stated in my VERY FIRST POST agreement that it is his constitutional right and that the decision by SCOTUS was the right decision. It's interesting though, to see Christians' immediate response to criticism of his behavior being an assumption that somehow that criticism means I don't think he has the right to do it.

I'm unsure what you're rambling about here or what windmill you've decided to tilt at.

[Mountain Man]

To be honest, I found the image of him before the SCOTUS as being in bad taste -- which I understand is entirely subjective.

It just seemed to be unnecessary gloating.

I personally thought the picture made a very powerful statement about showing humble reverence to God no matter who tries to silence you, but I can see how it might be interpreted other ways.

[Cow Poke]

I personally thought the picture made a very powerful statement about showing humble reverence to God no matter who tries to silence you, but I can see how it might be interpreted other ways.

Yeah, I cut him some slack because he's a football coach, he thinks in terms of life being a "game of struggle", and he sees the SCOTUS case as a "touchdown".

[NorrinRadd]

Cos religions that teach Death to the Infidels are bad because of it, but those that teach eternal hellfire for the infidels are good?

No, because it's unseemly to make that sort of thing part of a public prayer. If the infidel prays it quietly, it would not be an issue.

[NorrinRadd]

Good to hear at least some are willing to be consistent



Again, Matt 5 is about good deeds not about publicly praying to be seen or making photo ops.

We disagree about the variety of things that fall under "good deeds."