As outlined by Benjamin Franklin in the Constitution for Pennsylvania, perhaps we can find similar wording in our American Constitution as a basis for not having our children exposed to the homosexual agenda as being normal by taking issue with the assault on our “rights of conscience” as he related them. And further, that we can stand up for and act upon our consciences without interference from anyone and that the right to do so should be upheld by the Supreme Court, and not withdrawn by abjudication from them. This is how Franklin worded it and I don’t see why it wouldn’t apply to any area of life, such as schools, and in public service and not just within a religious institution:
“no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience”
The following is taken from the same website of R. B. Vincent:
“Religious Tests While the framers of the Constitution were absolutely opposed to a national, established Church, they understood that in order for people’s words to be believed in court, they had to believe in God and future rewards and punishments in the world to come. At the time of the ratification of the federal constitution, most states had constitutionally defined, basic sets of beliefs that were necessary to be held by those who took oaths or held office. These were not seen to be in violation of the national constitution. As but one example, a person may note Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, written in its original form by Benjamin Franklin and others:
““Religious Freedom “Section 3. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.”
Don’t we have a right to speak our faith and act according to our consciences? We’ve separated and compartmentalized our faith and religious convictions to the point where we are, more often than not, silenced into keeping them to ourselves rather than accept being maligned when we speak and act on those same convictions.
In all of these issues discussed today, this is the sum. Our battle is more with the Supreme Court than with any other institution in these United States. The President takes an oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” It’s that simple. How is the constitution interpreted to defend and uphold the consciences of Christians? How is it defending the right to “life” liberty and the pursuit of happiness while upholding the right of someone to terminate the life of another? In any other instance you would be on trial for murder. What is the basis of their determination? Let’s define what life means. According to the Bible, “and the two shall become one”, we have a separate and distinct being (a “one” human being) produced in the union of man and woman. It is not an indefinable abstract in the mind of God. So, our Supreme Court has become a Godless entity ruling on abstracts that have no basis in reality. So, you find a few physicians and lawyers who can argue that we don’t know when life begins, therefore…. This is absurd!! How about this—life has already begun by the time you know you are pregnant!! The two have already become “one”.
I’m just speculating that one might say that Governor Robert Bentley’s remarks, in the context that he said it, could possibly fall in the same category as the word ‘fool’ in the Bible. We are admonished not to call anyone a fool…
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22
But at the same time, Christians are to be perceptive enough to recognize when a individual is a fool and act accordingly…
Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. Proverbs 14:7
If I had always followed that Biblical principle that the Governor had stated in my younger years, I could have saved myself from a few unfavorable situations when I discovered that that wonderful person, whom I thought was OK, didn’t possess any of those good old fashion Christian values.
I give the Gov. credit for not being ashamed of being a follower of Jesus. But what he said was kind of dumb.
As outlined by Benjamin Franklin in the Constitution for Pennsylvania, perhaps we can find similar wording in our American Constitution as a basis for not having our children exposed to the homosexual agenda as being normal by taking issue with the assault on our “rights of conscience” as he related them. And further, that we can stand up for and act upon our consciences without interference from anyone and that the right to do so should be upheld by the Supreme Court, and not withdrawn by abjudication from them. This is how Franklin worded it and I don’t see why it wouldn’t apply to any area of life, such as schools, and in public service and not just within a religious institution:
“no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience”
The following is taken from the same website of R. B. Vincent:
“Religious Tests
While the framers of the Constitution were absolutely opposed to a national, established Church, they understood that in order for people’s words to be believed in court, they had to believe in God and future rewards and punishments in the world to come. At the time of the ratification of the federal constitution, most states had constitutionally defined, basic sets of beliefs that were necessary to be held by those who took oaths or held office. These were not seen to be in violation of the national constitution. As but one example, a person may note Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, written in its original form by Benjamin Franklin and others:
““Religious Freedom
“Section 3. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.”
Don’t we have a right to speak our faith and act according to our consciences? We’ve separated and compartmentalized our faith and religious convictions to the point where we are, more often than not, silenced into keeping them to ourselves rather than accept being maligned when we speak and act on those same convictions.
In all of these issues discussed today, this is the sum. Our battle is more with the Supreme Court than with any other institution in these United States. The President takes an oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” It’s that simple. How is the constitution interpreted to defend and uphold the consciences of Christians? How is it defending the right to “life” liberty and the pursuit of happiness while upholding the right of someone to terminate the life of another? In any other instance you would be on trial for murder. What is the basis of their determination? Let’s define what life means. According to the Bible, “and the two shall become one”, we have a separate and distinct being (a “one” human being) produced in the union of man and woman. It is not an indefinable abstract in the mind of God. So, our Supreme Court has become a Godless entity ruling on abstracts that have no basis in reality. So, you find a few physicians and lawyers who can argue that we don’t know when life begins, therefore…. This is absurd!! How about this—life has already begun by the time you know you are pregnant!! The two have already become “one”.
I’m just speculating that one might say that Governor Robert Bentley’s remarks, in the context that he said it, could possibly fall in the same category as the word ‘fool’ in the Bible. We are admonished not to call anyone a fool…
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22
But at the same time, Christians are to be perceptive enough to recognize when a individual is a fool and act accordingly…
Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. Proverbs 14:7
If I had always followed that Biblical principle that the Governor had stated in my younger years, I could have saved myself from a few unfavorable situations when I discovered that that wonderful person, whom I thought was OK, didn’t possess any of those good old fashion Christian values.
I give the Gov. credit for not being ashamed of being a follower of Jesus. But what he said was kind of dumb.