Arizona Republican Lawmaker: Church Attendance Should Be Mandatory

[jonhowe]

I didn't say she was. Why the hell should I wait for actual proposed legislation before being concerned? As I recall you're pro gay rights. If she said "Maybe we need a law where we can execute people for open homosexual acts" would you say "Oh it's no big deal. There's no actual proposed legislation." Every piece of legislation good or bad started off as some "hypothetical" remark.

Not saying don't be concerned; just saying don't be a hypocrite by calling out someone ELSE for taking things out of context. Trust me, I'm the last person to be in favor of mandatory religious indoctrination.
I'm pro individual rights regardless of sexual orientation, for the record.

Then those people would be stupid just like you are. Let's put your stupidity in context. Let's say one Muslim legislator made an offhand "hypothetical" remark that all professed Christians should be beheaded. Then another Muslim poster made a post from the Koran explaining that Christians should be tolerated inside Islamic states. You would defend the first Muslim and attack the second? If so then you are indeed an idiot.

Both would be fools for referencing a work of centuries old fiction to predict the future and/or create legislation, just like you did.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No. S_F is pretty consistent against state enforced morality.

Well, that is what he says. I really would never trust him.

 

[jmdrake]

Not saying don't be concerned; just saying don't be a hypocrite by calling out someone ELSE for taking things out of context. Trust me, I'm the last person to be in favor of mandatory religious indoctrination.

If a pigeon took a dump on a wedding cake and one person said "There's pigeon crap on the cake" and someone else said "Why focus on the pigeon crap? There is a perfectly good cake." and a third person said "But don't you see the pigeon crap?" The third person isn't being a hypocrite. He's being honest.

I'm pro individual rights regardless of sexual orientation, for the record.

I know. I already pointed that out.

Both would be fools for referencing a work of centuries old fiction to predict the future and/or create legislation, just like you did.

I'm not trying to create legislation moron. And it would be foolish not to look at a religious document to try to predict how a religious legislator might try to craft legislation. Someone trying to understand the mind of an Islamic legislator should read the Koran regardless of whether or not he believes it. Anyone who thinks that's foolish really isn't bright enough to engage in political discussion.

 

[jmdrake]

Well, that is what he says. I really would never trust him.

Someone who attacks theonomy as unbiblical is most likely not a theonomist. Believing that S_F is one just because you don't trust him makes about as much sense as believing he's Catholic.

 

[donnay]

Probably on the payroll for Clergy Response Teams.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Pfff.... not gonna happen.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Someone who attacks theonomy as unbiblical is most likely not a theonomist. Believing that S_F is one just because you don't trust him makes about as much sense as believing he's Catholic.

The interesting is, I haven't even heard of a theonomist who supports mandatory church. It never fails that atheists will get up in arms about the far out prospect of mandatory church, which not even the most nutty "Christians" out there support, but they are blind to all the ways that mandatory state worship has been firmly entrenched in our society for decades. Atheists do this because, deep down, they take it as a given that the state should be worshipped.

 

[jmdrake]

The interesting is, I haven't even heard of a theonomist who supports mandatory church. It never fails that atheists will get up in arms about the far out prospect of mandatory church, which not even the most nutty "Christians" out there support, but they are blind to all the ways that mandatory state worship has been firmly entrenched in our society for decades. Atheists do this because, deep down, they take it as a given that the state should be worshipped.

I firmly believe that ultimately some watered down form of "Christianity" that even atheists can sign on to will be mandatory.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Someone who attacks theonomy as unbiblical is most likely not a theonomist. Believing that S_F is one just because you don't trust him makes about as much sense as believing he's Catholic.

Eh, I don't care what he says. Anybody can say anything on an internet forum. His real self comes out when he's emotional. His neg rep comments of me tell me to "Go to hell" and says I must be made of shit. His sends me pictures of baby shit and dog shit. I don't even really care, but the kicker is that he has the gall to tell me that he says these things "in love." That is actually what he said in his neg comments.

Somebody like that is unstable. What they say is not what they actually do. When push comes to shove, people like him will enforce his brand of morality in a heartbeat.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Atheists do this because, deep down, they take it as a given that the state should be worshipped.

The same state worship could be said for evangelical Baptists and similar. They'll never acknowledge it, of course. Being religious versus a state lackey is often not an either/or proposition. It often has no correlation with the commitment of one's faith.

I'm not an atheist, but the atheists I see on this board don't seem to have a worship for the state.

 

[scottditzen]

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2015/03/27/arizona-lawmaker-church-attendance-should-be-mandatory/

this is who is winning primaries. pitiful.

Man, every freaking day I find myself asking why i'm still a Republican.

 

[Christian Liberty]

No. S_F is pretty consistent against state enforced morality.

The interesting is, I haven't even heard of a theonomist who supports mandatory church. It never fails that atheists will get up in arms about the far out prospect of mandatory church, which not even the most nutty "Christians" out there support, but they are blind to all the ways that mandatory state worship has been firmly entrenched in our society for decades. Atheists do this because, deep down, they take it as a given that the state should be worshipped.

Someone who attacks theonomy as unbiblical is most likely not a theonomist. Believing that S_F is one just because you don't trust him makes about as much sense as believing he's Catholic.

Yeah, theonomy doesn't support making people go to church. Although there are some people in the Covenenter theonomists group who support that. They're nutty even to me

 

[fr33]

Although there are some people in the Covenenter theonomists group who support that. They're nutty even to me

They are nutty but not more so than you. I mean... forcing people to enter a building vs executions. You win the crazy violent person award.

 

[Sola_Fide]

They are nutty but not more so than you. I mean... forcing people to enter a building vs executions. You win the crazy violent person award.

Where is your condemnation of the over 100 years of forced state worship in the mandatory public school system? That is force that ACTUALLY EXISTS right now.

 

[Carlybee]

Man, every freaking day I find myself asking why i'm still a Republican.

This type of thing is one reason I'm not. I also do not give a flying monkey butt about Theonomy or whatever the hell it is that CL is blathering on and on about. Just going on record.

 

[DamianTV]

What does going to church have to do with morality?

??



Seriously..

Some of the most notably immoral folks are avid church goers,, and often Church Leaders.

Key here is that people think that their Morality comes from Churches and Institutions of Men. The extension of that idea is that "people need to be told how to behave because they are inheritly evil", which is just an extension of "you need us to rule you". Remember, this is not a Church of God, but a Church of State Worship. That is the REAL Church that this tool wants to force people to attend. It doenst have ANYTHING to do with a Cross or Jesus because Schools are just as much a Church of State Worship as a Corporation is of Corporate Worship. Results are all the same, you can not and should not have your authority to self govern ever be recognized because that is the mindset that allows people who want Power to gain that power.

 

[fr33]

Where is your condemnation of the over 100 years of forced state worship in the mandatory public school system? That is force that ACTUALLY EXISTS right now.

You can find it in most of my posts on this forum.

 

[JK/SEA]

Man, every freaking day I find myself asking why i'm still a Republican.

i used to say that when i was a democrat..

 

[Christian Liberty]

They are nutty but not more so than you. I mean... forcing people to enter a building vs executions. You win the crazy violent person award.

I guarantee you, the average covenanter supports executing a lot more people than I would

I actually limit it to the (non-ceremonial) things that are in the Bible. Covenanters want to do that and (usually) add some of their own.

Even I don't support making a particular [Presbyterian specifically] denomination the national church of the US.

That said, I still think they're less wrong than secular libertarians, because they get the most important thing right. My point was simply to say that there are people who call themselves theonomists who would support a policy like this.

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah, theonomy doesn't support making people go to church. Although there are some people in the Covenenter theonomists group who support that. They're nutty even to me

LOL