computer games and church?

[JPaul]

Then the same goes for any group. Anti-gun lobbies must not be allowed, as that infringes upon the rights of chaps who wish to have a gun.

My only point here is that Churches should be treated equally, no better or worse than any other organisation. If every group is allowed to lobby, almost certainly infringing on the opinions / rights of others, then why should Churches be precluded from doing the same.

Churches should not be treated as a special case, either positively or negatively. They should be treated the same as any other group.

Freedom of speech ensures that everyone has the right to express an opinion (lobby). Our Constitution allows this right, but it specifically prevents infringement of the rights of others because of a specific Religions' opinion.

To me, being forced to "rest" on Sunday is an arbitrary law. It is just pulled from a book of mythology, IMO.

And that is the entire point about separation of church and state. No man should be prevented from acting as he see fit because a specific religion does not approve.

Gun lobbies are based in something entirely logical. It has become a situation in which our society has a problem and we must decide the best course of action. It is really a risk/benefit ratio, not an imperative from some book. A book some believe is the word of God and to others nothing but mythology.

Gun laws are like speed limits, drug laws and innummerable other compromises of the right of expression of the individual.

Why stop at guns, why can't I have dynamite, nitroglycerin or even my own nuclear weapon. Is that not a right.

We all understand the need to compromise and evaluate the overall societal risk/benefit ratio. We don't need some immutable and rather arbitrary decree from a book.

Which book are you speaking about here.

[Busyman]

Can anyone here see that I was using one example to illustrate a point.

It was not intended as being analogous.

Agreed. A church is compromised of a group of people just like any other group. That church may have an opinion just like anyone else.

hobbes doohicky about not being able to sell vacuum cleaner bags on Sunday is valid also. A majority of any group in politics can make law that may infringe on the rights of those outside the group. Sometimes this is good, sometimes bad.

There is a lot many can learn from atheists as far as being fair minded.

[JPaul]

I can understand your constitution precluding any Church having real power, unlike in the UK where the Church of England has automatic seats in the House of Lords. The Monarch is also the head of state as well as the head of the church of England

However it is surely unfair to preclude any group from expressing it's opinion. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about, whether you agree with the opinion or not.

[hobbes]

Which book are you speaking about here.

Can anyone here see that I was using one book as an example to prove a point?

The book could be any book, which any group of people decide is divine.

The point is that ALL divine books and ALL their arbitrary rules should be completely irrelevant in determining societal law in America, as per the Constituition.

[hobbes]

I can understand your constitution precluding any Church having real power, unlike in the UK where the Church of England has automatic seats in the House of Lords. The Monarch is also the head of state as well as the head of the church of England

However it is surely unfair to preclude any group from expressing it's opinion. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about, whether you agree with the opinion or not.

Freedom of speech ensures that everyone has the right to express an opinion (lobby). Our Constitution allows this right, but it specifically prevents infringement of the rights of others because of a specific Religions' opinion.

As already stated

[JPaul]

Freedom of speech ensures that everyone has the right to express an opinion (lobby). Our Constitution allows this right, but it specifically prevents infringement of the rights of others because of a specific Religions' opinion.

As already stated

That's not the way it was explained to me (here). Your constitution specifically precludes any religion from having any actual power, being an integral part of the governmental process. Unlike my own country, as I explained earlier.

However it also protects everyone's right to express their opinion, which is my sole objection to your good self and vidcc telling Churches to STFU.

Oh and "specific Religions' opinion" doesn't really work. The "specific" implies one, whilst the "Religions'" implies a greater number. It's an apostrophe thing.

[vidcc]

who explained it to you?

[Busyman]

As already stated

That's not the way it was explained to me (here). Your constitution specifically precludes any religion from having any actual power, being an integral part of the governmental process. Unlike my own country, as I explained earlier.

However it also protects everyone's right to express their opinion, which is my sole objection to your good self and vidcc telling Churches to STFU.

Oh and "specific Religions' opinion" doesn't really work. The "specific" implies one, whilst the "Religions'" implies a greater number. It's an apostrophe thing.

Churches can have power but it's in the form of influence on parishoners and thus politics.

[hobbes]

As already stated

That's not the way it was explained to me (here). Your constitution specifically precludes any religion from having any actual power, being an integral part of the governmental process. Unlike my own country, as I explained earlier.

However it also protects everyone's right to express their opinion, which is my sole objection to your good self and vidcc telling Churches to STFU.

Oh and "specific Religions' opinion" doesn't really work. The "specific" implies one, whilst the "Religions'" implies a greater number. It's an apostrophe thing.

My good self has never told Churches to STFU, that is simply untrue. Also known as a lie.

I have specifically stated that their opinions should not be translated into law because any mythical Book states it so.

The point is that there are many opinions about what God wants us to do. None of these opinions should be acknowledged when determining our laws.

Please provide a concrete example in which I told churches to STFU. That would be unlikely given :

Freedom of speech ensures that everyone has the right to express an opinion (lobby). Our Constitution allows this right, but it specifically prevents infringement of the rights of others because of a specific Religions' opinion.

[JPaul]

So we are agreed, Churches should not have any prescribed legislative power. However they should be allowed to express their opinion, in the same way that every other group is.

That seems fair enough to me, we are in accord.