[The Urban Sombrero]

▶ Was the United States founded as a nation for Christians, or as a nation based on full and free religious liberty, freedom of conscience?

It matters. If the idea is, "Hey, this nation is for Christians, but you other people can live here," that's a very different construct from a nation founded on ultimate respect for freedom of conscience.

My view is that the Framers desired that our nation would be one where citizens grounded their morality and laws in religious truth, but they, ultimately, valued freedom of conscience supremely.

[TheRealThing]

▶ Was the United States founded as a nation for Christians, or as a nation based on full and free religious liberty, freedom of conscience?

It matters. If the idea is, "Hey, this nation is for Christians, but you other people can live here," that's a very different construct from a nation founded on ultimate respect for freedom of conscience.

My view is that the Framers desired that our nation would be one where citizens grounded their morality and laws in religious truth, but they, ultimately, valued freedom of conscience supremely .

That is impossible to prove or disprove. However, I am really happy to see you've brought it up, and then there is this tidbit within the writings of the founding documents;

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Some bullets just cannot be dodged. An examination of the true foundation of American law must begin with the question: “Is the law of God supreme or is it subject to the laws of peoples and nations?” Two answers to this question are possible. The first answer is that God exists and his law, including his laws pertaining to the creation of nations, governments and constitutions, are supreme, right and absolute. The second answer is that whether or not God or his law exist, the law of peoples and nations, are supreme, right and absolute at least until they are changed. *[Lonang Institute]

So, you are in the second camp Sombrero?

[The Urban Sombrero]

That is impossible to prove or disprove. However, I am really happy to see you've brought it up, and then there is this tidbit within the writings of the founding documents;

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Some bullets just cannot be dodged. An examination of the true foundation of American law must begin with the question: “Is the law of God supreme or is it subject to the laws of peoples and nations?” Two answers to this question are possible. The first answer is that God exists and his law, including his laws pertaining to the creation of nations, governments and constitutions, are supreme, right and absolute. The second answer is that whether or not God or his law exist, the law of peoples and nations, are supreme, right and absolute at least until they are changed. *[Lonang Institute]

So, you are in the second camp Sombrero?

Would you, then, Constitutionally, disallow adultery?

▶The "Nature's God" aspect, by extension, goes to "endowed by their Creator" with "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.". I believe the argument being constructed suggested that no King or Tyrant could or should supercede the freedom endowed by the Creator. Without question, human dignity (liberty) is being grounded in the Creator, not anything created. But, if you are suggesting the Framers saw it as establishing a New World Israel relationship with God for America, I cannot concur.

I reject the "only got two options" aspect of your question. That American law was based on Judaeo-Christian ethics, I do not dispute. That America was positioned in covenant relationship as was Israel cannot be initiated by Man.

What I am asserting is that freedom of conscience was of supreme value to the Framers.

[TheRealThing]

Would you, then, Constitutionally, disallow adultery?

▶The "Nature's God" aspect, by extension, goes to "endowed by their Creator" with "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.". I believe the argument being constructed suggested that no King or Tyrant could or should supercede the freedom endowed by the Creator. Without question, human dignity (liberty) is being grounded in the Creator, not anything created. But, if you are suggesting the Framers saw it as establishing a New World Israel relationship with God for America, I cannot concur.

I reject the "only got two options" aspect of your question. That American law was based on Judaeo-Christian ethics, I do not dispute. That America was positioned in covenant relationship as was Israel cannot be initiated by Man.

What I am asserting is that freedom of conscience was of supreme value to the Framers.

We are at odds. The rights endowed by God shows the origin of those rights to be of heavenly origin. The laws of nature and Nature's God, was a message addressed to the King of England and frankly anybody else who lived on earth in that day, to inform him and them, as to the authority by which we Americans were about to shed ourselves of the rule of England.

The covenant relationship was with Abraham. It was extended to the gentile nations via the grafted branch, and therefore is today, and will be again for the Jew when Gentile and Jewish history merges again in the spiritual sense, after the Tribulation Period.

The wild olive branch (Gentiles) is thereby grafted into the domesticated and fruitful tree, which is again the representation of God's chosen people Israel. Therefore, all those not of the House of Israel, who bow before Him and are consequently forgiven of their sins, are the grafted branch. In that sense then, we are literally become the children of Abraham, of the House of Israel. In no way do I see the connection however, that you seem to have made with this as it might pertain to the US Constitution. The reason there are only two possible answers to the question is simple. God is either what He says He is, or He is not.

Still, the records of our founding prove beyond doubt, the framers never intended to make the US a kind of pseudo theocracy, nor would there ever have been any sort of Christian requirement for it's citizens to enjoy the benefits of the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

Freedom of conscience if supreme, would mean those arguing for abortion and gay rights and manmade laws that supercede those given to man in God's Word. Which I believe is a direct contradiction to The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. But, that is surely what we have and I am very concerned because of it. It boils down to the same old thing, what really is supreme, God's sovereignty, or man's conscience/will.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ For me, what is sovereign is Christ, ultimate revelation of the Father. And though I have walked out of his will at times, it was never the government that forced me to. In the United States, I have lived out my faith untroubled and unfettered, free from threat of physical violence. I pray in secret, as instructed, and my prayer closet has never been violated. I meet together with likeminded believers, and my place of meeting has never been forbidden. My freedom of conscience has never been hindered. For that I give thanks, and am very wary of anyone, no matter how well intended, who would violate freedom of conscience to any American, as the freedoms I enjoy are only as assured and safe as those of my neighbor. And we all know who Christ taught us to view as neighbor.

[TheRealThing]

⬆⬆ For me, what is sovereign is Christ, ultimate revelation of the Father. And though I have walked out of his will at times, it was never the government that forced me to. In the United States, I have lived out my faith untroubled and unfettered, free from threat of physical violence. I pray in secret, as instructed, and my prayer closet has never been violated. I meet together with likeminded believers, and my place of meeting has never been forbidden. My freedom of conscience has never been hindered. For that I give thanks, and am very wary of anyone, no matter how well intended, who would violate freedom of conscience to any American, as the freedoms I enjoy are only as assured and safe as those of my neighbor. And we all know who Christ taught us to view as neighbor.

And under Christ, what is our responsibility to our neighbor who is overtaken in a lifestyle that we both know precludes him from any hope of God's forgiveness? Knowing only the blood of Christ will wash away, or cover our sin at the judgment, are we just supposed to give them a figurative pat on the head and embrace such as our equal in God's eyes? Or are we supposed to point them to the cross or, and I'll borrow your reference for this one, help them to look up at the serpent on the staff and live? But your argument would more aptly be presented in Sunday School than in trying to base pursuit of happiness legislation upon.

The practices you described, are all acts which are protected under the freedom of religion clauses of the first amendment. Any thing, or extrapolation past that construct is a literal house of cards. To say man's law is higher than God's law was never the framer's intention. I guarantee if there were anything to the idiom, George, Thomas, James and friends, would all turn over in their graves every time some self absorbed judge or lawmaker took steps to overrule God's Word.

We can establish punishment for crimes against society, and we should. But only the supremely arrogant would dare to repeal DADT, (which BTW was a compromise conceived in deference to God's Word to give the homosexual a kind of social buffer). And then continue to dream up and pass ever expanding legislation while at the same time, declaring people suffering from that sexual deviancy, as is so clearly defined in Scripture, a protected class under the US Constitution. You asked an absurdly rhetorical question earlier; would I under the US Constitution disallow adultery? Answer; Nope it's none of my business, nor is another man's bent for homosexuality. Still it would make no more sense then, to declare adulterers a protected class and carve out special rights for them backed up by federal legislation, than it does having done so for homosexuals. One is God's purview, one is man's,

[The Urban Sombrero]

And under Christ, what is our responsibility to our neighbor who is overtaken in a lifestyle that we both know precludes him from any hope of God's forgiveness? Knowing only the blood of Christ will wash away, or cover our sin at the judgment, are we just supposed to give them a figurative pat on the head and embrace such as our equal in God's eyes? Or are we supposed to point them to the cross or, and I'll borrow your reference for this one, help them to look up at the serpent on the staff and live? But your argument would more aptly be presented in Sunday School than in trying to base pursuit of happiness legislation upon.

The practices you described, are all acts which are protected under the freedom of religion clauses of the first amendment. Any thing, or extrapolation past that construct is a literal house of cards. To say man's law is higher than God's law was never the framer's intention. I guarantee if there were anything to the idiom, George, Thomas, James and friends, would all turn over in their graves every time some self absorbed judge or lawmaker took steps to overrule God's Word.

We can establish punishment for crimes against society, and we should. But only the supremely arrogant would dare to repeal DADT, (which BTW was a compromise conceived in deference to God's Word to give the homosexual a kind of social buffer). And then continue to dream up and pass ever expanding legislation while at the same time, declaring people suffering from that sexual deviancy, as is so clearly defined in Scripture, a protected class under the US Constitution. You asked an absurdly rhetorical question earlier; would I under the US Constitution disallow adultery? Answer; Nope it's none of my business, nor is another man's bent for homosexuality. Still it would make no more sense then, to declare adulterers a protected class and carve out special rights for them backed up by federal legislation, than it does having done so for homosexuals. One is God's purview, one is man's,

Equal protection under the law is a function of justice. Two men come to the court and ask that the state grant them the protection of marriage. Upon what grounds does the state deny them this protection? The state says, "You may not pursue happiness in this manner." Why not? Two consenting adults of the same sex come asking. Upon what grounds are they denied? Are you sure Thomas Jefferson would dismiss this question as out of hand? Would he, in fact, say, "Why, by God's natural law, only a man and a woman may marry." Or, is it also plausible that the mind that was in Jefferson might also come to the conclusion that civil authority, operating under the Equal Protection Clause, should not tell two consenting adults they cannot marry, as that stricture takes the teaching and authority of a religion and uses it to limit the freedom of citizens? It is not beyond logic to think so, or to also question whether an 18th century man, no matter how enlightened, could possibly entertain how a society might evolve over the course of hundreds of years?

I do not believe that granting homosexuals the right to marry under the Equal Protection Clause compromised essential liberty at all in this nation.

[TheRealThing]

Equal protection under the law is a function of justice. Two men come to the court and ask that the state grant them the protection of marriage. Upon what grounds does the state deny them this protection? The state says, "You may not pursue happiness in this manner." Why not? Two consenting adults of the same sex come asking. Upon what grounds are they denied? Are you sure Thomas Jefferson would dismiss this question as out of hand? Would he, in fact, say, "Why, by God's natural law, only a man and a woman may marry." Or, is it also plausible that the mind that was in Jefferson might also come to the conclusion that civil authority, operating under the Equal Protection Clause, should not tell two consenting adults they cannot marry, as that stricture takes the teaching and authority of a religion and uses it to limit the freedom of citizens? It is not beyond logic to think so, or to also question whether an 18th century man, no matter how enlightened, could possibly entertain how a society might evolve over the course of hundreds of years?

I do not believe that granting homosexuals the right to marry under the Equal Protection Clause compromised essential liberty at all in this nation.

That's the talking point version. Don't forget the part about how American heroes who lay down their lives in defense of their country deserve to pursue happiness. Somehow, and understanding escapes me in such cases, but somehow there are people who are driven to do extremely reckless acts such as playing Russian Roulette for pastime. They have the right to do that too, but I don't believe for one second the practice makes them happy. Should we carve out legislative considerations for any family members left behind when the inevitable happens to them as well? If you would allow yourself to be completely honest about this, you'd have to admit drug usage, sex addiction, over eating, smoking, alcohol addiction, compulsive gambling, even a life of crime, all fit the definition of pursuing that which makes one happy. That's the secular side of the argument and I suppose is the reason liberals can't seem to get over their bent to release the contents of the prison system back out to rape, plunder and murder all over again.

There are laws which govern this universe. Thermodynamics, physics and possibly astro-physics, the laws of gravity, time and space. All of these things are the stuff of a finite and orderly universe, they continue to be what they are apart from man's perception, which BTW, varies greatly over time. Man can no more just jump up and declare one of these fundamental laws null and void, anymore than he can pass laws to by edict, declare them null and void. The founders were aware of this and therefore included language to that effect within the founding documents.
"and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them"

Regardless of his achievement or level of arrogance, man cannot overrule the laws of nature. The same holds true for The Word of God, which whether one might want to admit it or not, cannot be changed, modified or overruled. Men ought not call that good which He has called sin. Homosexuality is sin, and for the United States to embrace the practice from the enlightened 21st Century point of view is just as rebelliously absurd as it was in Old Testament days. Incredibly we have created a protected class under the Constitution based on noting more than sexual deviancy. And like I said in the previous post and you side stepped it, alcoholism is another sin which holds many in it's death grip. So what's it gonna be, legislative carve-outs all around, or not?

In any case, Jefferson's writings are sufficiently replete so that I am confident that he would not have supported gay marriage. And he certainly would not have condoned the Supreme Court's having usurped individual State sovereignty and the standing referendums on the matter.

[WideRight05]

That's the talking point version. Don't forget the part about how American heroes who lay down their lives in defense of their country deserve to pursue happiness. Somehow, and understanding escapes me in such cases, but somehow there are people who are driven to do extremely reckless acts such as playing Russian Roulette for pastime. They have the right to do that too, but I don't believe for one second the practice makes them happy. Should we carve out legislative considerations for any family members left behind when the inevitable happens to them as well? If you would allow yourself to be completely honest about this, you'd have to admit drug usage, sex addiction, over eating, smoking, alcohol addiction, compulsive gambling, even a life of crime, all fit the definition of pursuing that which makes one happy. That's the secular side of the argument and I suppose is the reason liberals can't seem to get over their bent to release the contents of the prison system back out to rape, plunder and murder all over again.

There are laws which govern this universe. Thermodynamics, physics and possibly astro-physics, the laws of gravity, time and space. All of these things are the stuff of a finite and orderly universe, they continue to be what they are apart from man's perception, which BTW, varies greatly over time. Man can no more just jump up and declare one of these fundamental laws null and void, anymore than he can pass laws to by edict, declare them null and void. The founders were aware of this and therefore included language to that effect within the founding documents.
"and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them"

Regardless of his achievement or level of arrogance, man cannot overrule the laws of nature. The same holds true for The Word of God, which whether one might want to admit it or not, cannot be changed, modified or overruled. Men ought not call that good which He has called sin. Homosexuality is sin, and for the United States to embrace the practice from the enlightened 21st Century point of view is just as rebelliously absurd as it was in Old Testament days. Incredibly we have created a protected class under the Constitution based on noting more than sexual deviancy. And like I said in the previous post and you side stepped it, alcoholism is another sin which holds many in it's death grip. So what's it gonna be, legislative carve-outs all around, or not?

In any case, Jefferson's writings are sufficiently replete so that I am confident that he would not have supported gay marriage. And he certainly would not have condoned the Supreme Court's having usurped individual State sovereignty and the standing referendums on the matter.

As you mention numerous times on this forum, the decline of our moral society always seems to go in small steps. We start out with divorce becoming more common. In 1969 when The Brady Bunch first came out, there was a debate as to whether the character Mrs. Brady would be divorced from her husband. The writers decided just not to mention how she became remarried in the episode, in part out of fear of a major backlash from showing a divorced person on TV.

Fast forward another 20 or 30 years, and then you have "co-habiting" becoming and more and more acceptable - despite it leading to higher divorce rates. Combine that with high schools opening day care centers due to the overwhelming number of teenage pregnancies, and that creates some serious problems.

This society has a mentality of, "if it feels good, do it." You have drug usage, the 26 year old gang member that is a "child" in the eyes of the liberal, and more and more deviant behaviors that you mentioned that are being paraded. Now, it's hip for somebody to think they are the opposite gender - or define themselves as no gender at all.

We have certainly changed as a society, and not to the good. We're no longer at a time where you can park your car downtown and leave your windows down with your key in the ignition.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ From two consenting adults seeking equal protection under the law, we deviate to drug addiction, alcoholism, etc. Logic joined Elvis and left the building.

I realize a lot of posters on this forum have a "God first" viewpoint, and that colors everything. However, a close reading of the cited document suggests the argument being made is thus:

▶Human beings are created and endowed with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

▶ The civil authority is not the originator of those rights, thus has not legitimate authority to take them without cause, subject to due process. The civil authority exists to safeguard those rights, and to ensure them in the present and to posterity.

Now, we come again to two consenting adults, not asking for heroin and a needle, or a case of bourbon, or a sheep with which to mate, but rather asking that the protection of marriage be afforded them under the seal of the state. May two consenting drug addicts marry? Alcoholics? Ah, but the state says, "But they are male and female. And God says marriage is only for male and female."

I just cannot concur that marriage should be denied two consenting adults by the civil authority. No one is positing what that union is in God's eyes, but for the purposes of the State, and equal protection under its laws, the seal is granted.

[The Urban Sombrero]

As you mention numerous times on this forum, the decline of our moral society always seems to go in small steps. We start out with divorce becoming more common. In 1969 when The Brady Bunch first came out, there was a debate as to whether the character Mrs. Brady would be divorced from her husband. The writers decided just not to mention how she became remarried in the episode, in part out of fear of a major backlash from showing a divorced person on TV.

Fast forward another 20 or 30 years, and then you have "co-habiting" becoming and more and more acceptable - despite it leading to higher divorce rates. Combine that with high schools opening day care centers due to the overwhelming number of teenage pregnancies, and that creates some serious problems.

This society has a mentality of, "if it feels good, do it." You have drug usage, the 26 year old gang member that is a "child" in the eyes of the liberal, and more and more deviant behaviors that you mentioned that are being paraded. Now, it's hip for somebody to think they are the opposite gender - or define themselves as no gender at all.

We have certainly changed as a society, and not to the good. We're no longer at a time where you can park your car downtown and leave your windows down with your key in the ignition.

I understand your "downfall of society" lament. I leave my keys in my car most everywhere I go. To this point, I have driven it to my next destination each time. Granted, I do not live in anything remotely approaching a big city.

It occurs to me that 350 million people can create a lot more lawlessness than 100 million. At one time, the story goes that God looked upon the earth and could find nothing upon it good. It rained. A lot. The idea that people were once better than they are now is dubious. More people...more trouble. Without question the America of 2016 is much different than of 1952. However, the "betterments" at least rival the "detriments."

[TheRealThing]

⬆⬆ From two consenting adults seeking equal protection under the law, we deviate to drug addiction, alcoholism, etc. Logic joined Elvis and left the building.

I realize a lot of posters on this forum have a "God first" viewpoint, and that colors everything. However, a close reading of the cited document suggests the argument being made is thus:

▶Human beings are created and endowed with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

▶ The civil authority is not the originator of those rights, thus has not legitimate authority to take them without cause, subject to due process. The civil authority exists to safeguard those rights, and to ensure them in the present and to posterity.

Now, we come again to two consenting adults, not asking for heroin and a needle, or a case of bourbon, or a sheep with which to mate, but rather asking that the protection of marriage be afforded them under the seal of the state. May two consenting drug addicts marry? Alcoholics? Ah, but the state says, "But they are male and female. And God says marriage is only for male and female."

I just cannot concur that marriage should be denied two consenting adults by the civil authority. No one is positing what that union is in God's eyes, but for the purposes of the State, and equal protection under its laws, the seal is granted.

You could concur, but you won't. And even if you couch your protests in your best powdered wig par écrit du jour, you know my argument makes sense.

[TheRealThing]

I understand your "downfall of society" lament. I leave my keys in my car most everywhere I go. To this point, I have driven it to my next destination each time. Granted, I do not live in anything remotely approaching a big city.

It occurs to me that 350 million people can create a lot more lawlessness than 100 million. At one time, the story goes that God looked upon the earth and could find nothing upon it good. It rained. A lot. The idea that people were once better than they are now is dubious. More people...more trouble. Without question the America of 2016 is much different than of 1952. However, the "betterments" at least rival the "detriments."

There is more crime in this country right now in one day, than there used to be in a whole month back in 1952. According to Scripture, the state of man will be severely depraved just prior to the end. How does that scenario work with those Émile Coué rose colored glasses you're looking through?

[The Urban Sombrero]

There is more crime in this country right now in one day, than there used to be in a whole month back in 1952. According to Scripture, the state of man will be severely depraved just prior to the end. How does that scenario work with those Émile Coué rose colored glasses you're looking through?

I would say prior to the Big Rain the state of man was entirely depraved. I would say no one dies these days from infected tonsils. I would say potable water reaches nigh 99% of all Americans, minus Flint.

I have tried to find where I have ignored the massive problems and "the human heart is desperately wicked" evidence all around. I can't find it. However, just to simply bash everything is to make a fundamental theological error I saw through clearly years ago.

The suggestion that in many ways life in 2016 is preferable to 1952 seems non-controversial to me. In saying that, one is not ignoring the negative, the wicked, the horrific in my view. The good seed grows in the midst of the tares. I doubt it offends God that polio is almost gone from the face of the earth.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You could concur, but you won't. And even if you couch your protests in your best powdered wig par écrit du jour, you know my argument makes sense.

I do not question that what you are saying makes sense. Within the framework in which you seem to be operating, it makes perfect sense. But to argue that Jefferson saw the world as a fundamentalist Christian is flawed in my view. To suggest that the filter to use in interpreting our foundational documents is the Christian fundamentalist one is, to me, flawed.

[TheRealThing]

I would say prior to the Big Rain the state of man was entirely depraved. I would say no one dies these days from infected tonsils. I would say potable water reaches nigh 99% of all Americans, minus Flint.

I have tried to find where I have ignored the massive problems and "the human heart is desperately wicked" evidence all around. I can't find it. However, just to simply bash everything is to make a fundamental theological error I saw through clearly years ago.

The suggestion that in many ways life in 2016 is preferable to 1952 seems non-controversial to me. In saying that, one is not ignoring the negative, the wicked, the horrific in my view. The good seed grows in the midst of the tares. I doubt it offends God that polio is almost gone from the face of the earth.

^^You're defining the secular humanistic way of thinking. So, we've abandoned Jefferson completely, for Scripture in which you say you saw fundamental theological error years ago?
Romans 7:18 (KJV)
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

The only good thing in man is imputed the day he finds Christ. You just quoted the Scripture yourself. Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV)
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Before the flood man had gotten so wicked God said the following; Genesis 6:13 (KJV) 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Man got to that point once before and that was the reason for the great flood. As I have laid out for you before, I believe the Bible is full of accounts in which God has regulated man's progress over time, (such as confounding his language at Babel) to orchestrate the events of history to it's inevitable end, Armageddon. There is nothing good in mankind. (that would be God's standard of good, not the standard of men)

[TheRealThing]

I do not question that what you are saying makes sense. Within the framework in which you seem to be operating, it makes perfect sense. But to argue that Jefferson saw the world as a fundamentalist Christian is flawed in my view. To suggest that the filter to use in interpreting our foundational documents is the Christian fundamentalist one is, to me, flawed.

One need not see the world as a fundamentalist Christian to know the inherent truth of God as Creator. Romans 1:19-20 (KJV)
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

All men know God is real. They would rather deny it for sure, but they know. God showed it to them. And though we cannot see Him yet, He is seen clearly through His Creation, even the Godhead. And they therefore, that would be all men. Are without excuse.

So, Jefferson knew even though he may not have been an evangelical. Trump has shown that he too, recognizes the sovereignty of Almighty God and he sure isn't an evangelical.

[The Urban Sombrero]

One need not see the world as a fundamentalist Christian to know the inherent truth of God as Creator. Romans 1:19-20 (KJV)
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

All men know God is real. They would rather deny it for sure, but they know. God showed it to them. And though we cannot see Him yet, He is seen clearly through His Creation, even the Godhead. And they therefore, that would be all men. Are without excuse.

So, Jefferson knew even though he may not have been an evangelical. Trump has shown that he too, recognizes the sovereignty of Almighty God and he sure isn't an evangelical.

Alright. The horse is dead. We agree to disagree. Good discussion.

[WideRight05]

⬆⬆ From two consenting adults seeking equal protection under the law, we deviate to drug addiction, alcoholism, etc. Logic joined Elvis and left the building.

I realize a lot of posters on this forum have a "God first" viewpoint, and that colors everything. However, a close reading of the cited document suggests the argument being made is thus:

▶Human beings are created and endowed with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

▶ The civil authority is not the originator of those rights, thus has not legitimate authority to take them without cause, subject to due process. The civil authority exists to safeguard those rights, and to ensure them in the present and to posterity.

Now, we come again to two consenting adults, not asking for heroin and a needle, or a case of bourbon, or a sheep with which to mate, but rather asking that the protection of marriage be afforded them under the seal of the state. May two consenting drug addicts marry? Alcoholics? Ah, but the state says, "But they are male and female. And God says marriage is only for male and female."

I just cannot concur that marriage should be denied two consenting adults by the civil authority. No one is positing what that union is in God's eyes, but for the purposes of the State, and equal protection under its laws, the seal is granted.

So you make this post about how you go to Church and are in your small group and all of that....

And then say our views are "colored" because of attempting to put God first - as The Bible says.

If you want to say that my vision is clouded, you're the one trying to say that a man sticking his genitalia inside another man's buttocks, or the behaviors such as below, are normal.

[Image: https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t...e=5829E86D]

[The Urban Sombrero]

So you make this post about how you go to Church and are in your small group and all of that....

And then say our views are "colored" because of attempting to put God first - as The Bible says.

If you want to say that my vision is clouded, you're the one trying to say that a man sticking his genitalia inside another man's buttocks, or the behaviors such as below, are normal.

[Image: https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t...e=5829E86D]

I did not mean the "God first" aspect negatively. In other places, I have referenced that I see this as sincere. I just disagree that the fundamentalist Christian worldview was the lens through which the Constitution should be interpreted.