How much control should your community church have in your town?

Too Conservative. The church should stay out of it. If their member's do not want to take part in gambling, going to a movie, drink, etc., then that's their choice but to restrict the rest of us that see nothing wrong with it, that should be our choice, not the church to make for us.

How dare those crazy christians exercise their right to vote.

quote:

Originally posted by PBA:
How much control should your community church have in your town?

What I mean is when it comes to legalizing gambling, the churches ban together, writing their senators, congressmen, and getting out the "vote no". This also is true in controlling what is shown in theaters to alcohol sales. Anyway, you get the point. Do you feel that Florence, or should I say the Shoals area or maybe Alabama, is too conservative? This should be interesting. Thank you for your input.

I've yet to see any church group get on here and post message after message in an attempt to shove their agenda down someones throat....The Liberals on the other hand..?

quote:

Originally posted by Taciturn:
Too Conservative. The church should stay out of it. If their member's do not want to take part in gambling, going to a movie, drink, etc., then that's their choice but to restrict the rest of us that see nothing wrong with it, that should be our choice, not the church to make for us.

I've always been under the impression that in a democracy, the majority rules. I guess they could rewrite the constitution or have some liberal judge legislate from the bench to change this. Of course then we would have to rename the country. Maybe when Hillary is elected, in addition to free health care, she can get something passed that allows a liberal's vote to count 2 to 1.

Interesting query PBA. Is my read that you are asking do the churches have too much influence in the community via their doctrines' teaching to the members? Or is this another flame about conserveratives? I will respond to the former.

Church and state issues are as old as the Republic and are answered by the original congress in the Constitution. I personally favor that take. On the other hand, church attendance is by choice of the individuals.

Another thought. Why are there so many of them all teaching the same message? I think we know the answer to that question.

Quarrles...
It has been my bit of learning over the years, that too many singing the same tune...never produces a harmony...
The Catholic Church loves to practice mind control...and so do little protestant ministers.. regardless of denomination...they have probably done more to hold back a community in economic advancement than any crooked politician....
A good example is Sheffield...it is struggling to survive economically...attempting to change the law so their businesses can compete with the ones across the river...and the little hitlers of the protestant movement.. ask their own sheffield citizens to say "NO" to that effort...knowing that it would keep their own community and govenment in a disadvantaged position...
There is something wrong...when you keep your boot on a dying mans neck...as the blood slowly leaks out...and you justify it with "ITS THE LORD'S WILL"..What a crock!!
It is that style of mindless thinking that keeps Tuscumbia from advancing and THANK GOD the leaders of Sheffield are casting the cloak away and saying...no more to this foul cloak of religious intolerance and ignorance..it has weighted us down to long...!

whats the difference in church members taking their money and fighting something they are against compare to a tobacco lobbyist taking the money from the tobacco industries to fight against anti-tobacco laws, or a group of concerned citizens fighting to get a red-light installed at a dangerous intersection?

NONE. All members of each group is exercising their right of free speech and to vote.

quote:

whats the difference in church members taking their money and fighting something they are against compare to a tobacco lobbyist taking the money from the tobacco industries to fight against anti-tobacco laws, or a group of concerned citizens fighting to get a red-light installed at a dangerous intersection?

NONE. All members of each group is exercising their right of free speech and to vote.

The difference is 'seperation of church and state'.


You are wanting to do the constitution just like you do the bible...pick and choose which parts you want to abide by.

quote:

Originally posted by USA1:

quote:

Originally posted by PBA:
How much control should your community church have in your town?

What I mean is when it comes to legalizing gambling, the churches ban together, writing their senators, congressmen, and getting out the "vote no". This also is true in controlling what is shown in theaters to alcohol sales. Anyway, you get the point. Do you feel that Florence, or should I say the Shoals area or maybe Alabama, is too conservative? This should be interesting. Thank you for your input.

I've yet to see any church group get on here and post message after message in an attempt to shove their agenda down someones throat....The Liberals on the other hand..?

Today’s church is full of deception; it will perish. However, there are well-known Bible teachers who think that more than fifty percent of Americans are born-again.

quote:

Originally posted by PBA:
How much control should your community church have in your town?

NONE!

quote:

The Catholic Church loves to practice mind control..

Well, that explains why I pick and choose what I want to believe "Cafeteria Catholic". I don't have a mind for them to control! Must be frustrating for 'em.

85% of the christian world takes the Bible and changes it to fit their lifestyle instead of changing their life to suit what God wants from them.

quote:

Originally posted by Invex:

quote:

whats the difference in church members taking their money and fighting something they are against compare to a tobacco lobbyist taking the money from the tobacco industries to fight against anti-tobacco laws, or a group of concerned citizens fighting to get a red-light installed at a dangerous intersection?

NONE. All members of each group is exercising their right of free speech and to vote.

The difference is 'seperation of church and state'.


You are wanting to do the constitution just like you do the bible...pick and choose which parts you want to abide by.

Show me where in the constitution it states "separation of church and state"? That concept is not in there. If you want true separation of church and state then you need to only elect atheist because they are the only ones that don't have any religious beliefs and they are the only ones that will not let any religious beliefs influence their decisions.

I believe what the separation of church and state means is that the state cannot interfere with ANY religion being Christian or other. But to take the influence of religion out of government then you must get rid of all the people that are religious.

Just because you don't agree with what church members have to say doesn't mean they have to be quiet. They have as much right to peaceful protest, petition the Gov., and voice their opinions as you do.

quote:

Originally posted by Schnauzer:

quote:

Originally posted by Invex:

quote:

whats the difference in church members taking their money and fighting something they are against compare to a tobacco lobbyist taking the money from the tobacco industries to fight against anti-tobacco laws, or a group of concerned citizens fighting to get a red-light installed at a dangerous intersection?

NONE. All members of each group is exercising their right of free speech and to vote.

The difference is 'seperation of church and state'.


You are wanting to do the constitution just like you do the bible...pick and choose which parts you want to abide by.

Show me where in the constitution it states "separation of church and state"? That concept is not in there. If you want true separation of church and state then you need to only elect atheist because they are the only ones that don't have any religious beliefs and they are the only ones that will not let any religious beliefs influence their decisions.

I believe what the separation of church and state means is that the state cannot interfere with ANY religion being Christian or other. But to take the influence of religion out of government then you must get rid of all the people that are religious.

Just because you don't agree with what church members have to say doesn't mean they have to be quiet. They have as much right to peaceful protest, petition the Gov., and voice their opinions as you do.

Schnauzer, Would you like a church that you did not agree with to rule goverment?

PBA,

I would even vote for a Atheist if they are standing true to their convictions.

Not one church or religion is ever going to take control of this country because the constitution has too many checks and balances. There are too may people with power that gets their power from the people to allow once extreme group to control everything. Just look what happened in this last election, the Republicans went too far right and the PEOPLE of this great nation said "too far, out you go" and elected a more liberal congress. As long as our voting rights are intact and we have a freedom of speech there is nothing to worry about.

Would I agree with everything that a president, or a congress does? nope, but I do have hope that the next election I can vote for someone that is more inline with my beliefs and political views...if not, then there is the next election after that.

Vick13:
When they gOt into my brain...they found it should have been placed in the category called..."SLIM PICKINGS"

quote:

I've always been under the impression that in a democracy, the majority rules.

Where did you got to school USA1? I'd get your money back, we don't have a majority rule government here we have a Republic with government institutions with elected officials that run based on rules of plurality and safeguards to protect against abuse of majority rule. I would recommend reading some Tocqueville. We have never had mob rule that I know of except in some western frontier towns from time to time.

quote:

Originally posted by Invex:

quote:

whats the difference in church members taking their money and fighting something they are against compare to a tobacco lobbyist taking the money from the tobacco industries to fight against anti-tobacco laws, or a group of concerned citizens fighting to get a red-light installed at a dangerous intersection?

NONE. All members of each group is exercising their right of free speech and to vote.

The difference is 'seperation of church and state'.


You are wanting to do the constitution just like you do the bible...pick and choose which parts you want to abide by.

Here Here my friend!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by USA1:

quote:

Originally posted by Taciturn:
Too Conservative. The church should stay out of it. If their member's do not want to take part in gambling, going to a movie, drink, etc., then that's their choice but to restrict the rest of us that see nothing wrong with it, that should be our choice, not the church to make for us.

I've always been under the impression that in a democracy, the majority rules. I guess they could rewrite the constitution or have some liberal judge legislate from the bench to change this. Of course then we would have to rename the country. Maybe when Hillary is elected, in addition to free health care, she can get something passed that allows a liberal's vote to count 2 to 1.

I should have made my point a little clearer. For the church to drive by my house in their church van yelling over a loudspeaker or come to my door, telling me how I am supposed to vote, in my opinion is pushing their religion on myself & my neighbor's. I know some "Christian's" that do not think it is wrong to gamble or to have wine with dinner. That's what I meant by the church staying out of it. Nothing wrong for them to preach it behind the pulpit if that's their choice, but don't bring their belief to my door.

quote:

Originally posted by USA1:

quote:

Originally posted by Taciturn:
Too Conservative. The church should stay out of it. If their member's do not want to take part in gambling, going to a movie, drink, etc., then that's their choice but to restrict the rest of us that see nothing wrong with it, that should be our choice, not the church to make for us.

I've always been under the impression that in a democracy, the majority rules. I guess they could rewrite the constitution or have some liberal judge legislate from the bench to change this. Of course then we would have to rename the country. Maybe when Hillary is elected, in addition to free health care, she can get something passed that allows a liberal's vote to count 2 to 1.

Today's civics lesson: we live in a representative republic, not a democracy.

I don't think this topic reflects true events at all. Churches in America are not trying to control anybody. They are trying to be an influence on the community, just like any other organization that has a cause. The church is comprised of citizens who have every right to free speech, just as the ACLU.

If you want an example of a religion trying to control a society, then go to Iran or Syria and you will see the difference.

quote:

I would even vote for a Atheist if they are standing true to their convictions.

Mighty liberal of you.

DF

quote:

Mr. Hooberbloob
Familiar Face
Posted 07 October 2007 05:10 PM Hide Post
I don't think this topic reflects true events at all. Churches in America are not trying to control anybody. They are trying to be an influence on the community, just like any other organization that has a cause. The church is comprised of citizens who have every right to free speech, just as the ACLU.

If you want an example of a religion trying to control a society, then go to Iran or Syria and you will see the difference

Well Stated!

Some are trying to influence their community, others are trying to control.
For example,:

A church that is trying to influence it's members may preach against something they consider a sin, and try to influence members of their congregation on that subject.
If , on the other hand, some church decides that whatever that particular sin is, should not even be avaliable to the community at large, that is control.
A recent example is the alcohol sales on Sunday.
1st, there is no probition in scripture against drinking alcohol, so alcohol consumption is a made up sin.
Now, instead of just trying to convince just their congregation that they should not consume alcohol on Sunday, (which would be ok by me) they try to control the rest of us by trying to have proabition . That is an attempt to control, and that is just wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
I don't think this topic reflects true events at all. Churches in America are not trying to control anybody. They are trying to be an influence on the community, just like any other organization that has a cause. The church is comprised of citizens who have every right to free speech, just as the ACLU.

If you want an example of a religion trying to control a society, then go to Iran or Syria and you will see the difference.

Or Utah.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
I don't think this topic reflects true events at all. Churches in America are not trying to control anybody. They are trying to be an influence on the community, just like any other organization that has a cause. The church is comprised of citizens who have every right to free speech, just as the ACLU.

If you want an example of a religion trying to control a society, then go to Iran or Syria and you will see the difference.

Yep, When a church needs someone to defend them the ACLU is the first organization they call only to cut them down later when they don't need them.

quote:

Originally posted by excelman:
Some are trying to influence their community, others are trying to control.
For example,:

A church that is trying to influence it's members may preach against something they consider a sin, and try to influence members of their congregation on that subject.
If , on the other hand, some church decides that whatever that particular sin is, should not even be avaliable to the community at large, that is control.
A recent example is the alcohol sales on Sunday.
1st, there is no probition in scripture against drinking alcohol, so alcohol consumption is a made up sin.
Now, instead of just trying to convince just their congregation that they should not consume alcohol on Sunday, (which would be ok by me) they try to control the rest of us by trying to have proabition . That is an attempt to control, and that is just wrong.

Well Stated!

I totally agree with Excelman.

~Amanda

quote:

Originally posted by excelman:
Some are trying to influence their community, others are trying to control.
For example,:
A church that is trying to influence it's members may preach against something they consider a sin, and try to influence members of their congregation on that subject.
If , on the other hand, some church decides that whatever that particular sin is, should not even be avaliable to the community at large, that is control.
A recent example is the alcohol sales on Sunday.
1st, there is no probition in scripture against drinking alcohol, so alcohol consumption is a made up sin.
Now, instead of just trying to convince just their congregation that they should not consume alcohol on Sunday, (which would be ok by me) they try to control the rest of us by trying to have proabition . That is an attempt to control, and that is just wrong.

Well said! & very true.

quote:

Originally posted by Taciturn:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by excelman:
Some are trying to influence their community, others are trying to control.
For example,:
A church that is trying to influence it's members may preach against something they consider a sin, and try to influence members of their congregation on that subject.
If , on the other hand, some church decides that whatever that particular sin is, should not even be avaliable to the community at large, that is control.
A recent example is the alcohol sales on Sunday.
1st, there is no probition in scripture against drinking alcohol, so alcohol consumption is a made up sin.
Now, instead of just trying to convince just their congregation that they should not consume alcohol on Sunday, (which would be ok by me) they try to control the rest of us by trying to have proabition . That is an attempt to control, and that is just wrong.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Not even close to the real definition of control. You just don't like it because their OPINION was different than yours. If they were trying to control anybody they would have used blackmail, kiddnapping, murder, extortion, or any other tatic to make sure they got what they wanted. You are saying anybody who votes against what YOU think is right is trying to control you. It's a public vote people, nobody is trying to control you. I saw more vote YES signs than No signs when I drove through Sheffield. By your definition I guess somebody on your side was trying to control the other side? I personnally don't care about the recent vote because I didn't have a horse in that race. What irritates me is that you are trying to control how other citizens, tax paying and law abiding people, express themselves. To me that is the definition of control.

PBA - Please elaborate on which churches in this area have used the ACLU.

Taciturn argues:

[QUOTE] If , on the other hand, some church decides that whatever that particular sin is, should not even be avaliable to the community at large, that is control.
A recent example is the alcohol sales on Sunday.[QUOTE]

Your problem, Taciturn, is that you do not understand the meaning of "decides" and the meaning of "control," as these terms apply to the recent Sunday sales referendum. In that referendum, the VOTERS of Sheffield DECIDED the matter of whether Sunday sales would be permitted. They did this within the framework of a referendum election that provided every registered voter in the city an opportunity to INFLUENCE the decision. That decision, as you should know, was in favor of Sunday sales. If it had been against Sunday sales, it still would have been a DECISION of the VOTERS of Sheffield, not of the churches.

The anti-church posts on this string are consistently ludicrous. To argue that churches and their members should simply keep mum on the issue while the beverage distributors and other pro-Sunday sales interests and their allies (such as the Times Daily, which was unabashidly and avidly pro-Sunday sales) use every available means to promote a Yes vote reflects a total misunderstanding about what civil government is about in the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

Taciturn says that "a recent example" of his/her characterization of church "control" is "the alcohol sales on Sunday." Tell me, Taciturn, just HOW is THAT an example of control of anything by the churches? Or have you not kept in touch with the news? Here is a breaking news item for you. Tancitun: Sunday sales WON! Surely you do not attribute that victory to church control. Methinks you have managed somehow to get things entirly backwards.

And for you guardhouse constitutional lawyers out there, yes, we do have a republican form of government, not a pure democracy, but in a referendum vote, the majority indeed wins; ofherwise why have the referendum at all? Thus, the matter of which general form of government we have is hardly germane to the Sunday sales issue.

I don't think it's the fact that other citizens voted against alcohol sales that has the Yes crowd upset. I believe they think it's a constitutionally given right to drink whenever they want to. Unfortunately that's not the way it is, hence the public vote. I guess the church is just an easy target due to the fact that the authors of the Constitution are not around now to be blamed.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
PBA - Please elaborate on which churches in this area have used the ACLU.

I don't Think I said any church in this area!! It don't have be in any one area the fact is the churches have used the Aclu many times to defend their rights. Churches are known to use double standards when needed.

Ok then, please elaborate on any church that has used to ACLU for it's defense.

The DOUBLE STANDARDS OF THE CHURCH.

I guess that the same people so happy about eliminating alcohol sales will be most upset when the next step is to shut down gambling such as lottery sales in other nearby states, church bingos and raffles, etc. Don't these vices theoretically contribute to the criminal element too? Our church people go out of town to drink,gamble,buy lottery tickets so they will not be seen.

PBA - I go to church and will not be greatly saddened to see the lottery eliminated. There are much better investment vehicles to put your money in. If you really get a kick out of throwing your money away, send me your dollars and guess which number I am thinking about between 0 and 1,000,000,000,000. I'll be happy to make you a millionaire if you guess right. In this instance and only this instance am I for the lottery, because I can't lose.

I promise my preacher did not make me think this way. Every dollar I earn has a name and my family's future is more secure because of that.

Unless you consider me 1 in a million, stop stereotyping church people.

You still have not given me the name of a church who has used the services of the ACLU. The church of Al and Jesse do NOT count.

well, the church shouldn't have any "control" per say. however, just any group of people they should have every right to voice their opinions.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

quote:

Originally posted by Taciturn:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by excelman:
Some are trying to influence their community, others are trying to control.
For example,:
A church that is trying to influence it's members may preach against something they consider a sin, and try to influence members of their congregation on that subject.
If , on the other hand, some church decides that whatever that particular sin is, should not even be avaliable to the community at large, that is control.
A recent example is the alcohol sales on Sunday.
1st, there is no probition in scripture against drinking alcohol, so alcohol consumption is a made up sin.
Now, instead of just trying to convince just their congregation that they should not consume alcohol on Sunday, (which would be ok by me) they try to control the rest of us by trying to have proabition . That is an attempt to control, and that is just wrong.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Not even close to the real definition of control. You just don't like it because their OPINION was different than yours. If they were trying to control anybody they would have used blackmail, kiddnapping, murder, extortion, or any other tatic to make sure they got what they wanted. You are saying anybody who votes against what YOU think is right is trying to control you. It's a public vote people, nobody is trying to control you. I saw more vote YES signs than No signs when I drove through Sheffield. By your definition I guess somebody on your side was trying to control the other side? I personnally don't care about the recent vote because I didn't have a horse in that race. What irritates me is that you are trying to control how other citizens, tax paying and law abiding people, express themselves. To me that is the definition of control.

ACLU works to ensure that this essential freedom is protected by keeping the government out of religion.The right to practice religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The ACLU works to ensure that this essential freedom is protected by keeping the government out of religion. Learn more about how the ACLU works to preserve Freedom of Religion and Belief and take action to protect the rights guaranteed to all Americans.