SkepticalOne

The society that is 'being pushed for' is one where everyone has religious freedom...the same religious freedom (including Christians).

China has religious freedom to. But it has to fall under strict government control. The humanists aren't a whole lot different except they are not in power fortunately.

First off, it was not servants that were bought from the heathen nations, but slaves. Secondly, the Israelites acting within their own laws without accounting for laws of the neighboring nations doesn't mean it was acceptable in a universal sense. It would most certainly depend on which nation was telling the story as to whether it was proper and legitimate.

In rare cases (only the wealthy could have purchased a slave), the foreign slave was to be treated as a servant. Semantics are not really necessary here.

I may not be sure what your argument. Is it that since the foreigners have an opportunity to become a part of the nation of Israel, they are not really foreigners?

You're forgetting that a foreign slave (servant) can leave their master if there were any abuse. And not only that, someone else would be required to put them up.

Favored race is a false view of related scripture. So is your reference to "God's chosen people"

Many people, for instance, much prefer being a slave to Jesus than a slave to drugs. It baffles me how people can't make the slavery-servant connection. The term slavery was not politically incorrect back then.

A king is simply a leader. They didn't have presidents and prime ministers back then. Having a king didn't necessitate an oppressive government.

Well, at least you let him know that there is a citation..

Now you can show me how, or why you think this only applies to Israelites

And, do you think this verse is one of those wink wink, nudge nudge scenarios? They wrote it, but don't really mean it?

 Exodus 23:9 

New International Version

"Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.

These Christians understand it as I do: LINK

I'm well acquainted with Tony Campolo. 

Simply put, rather than this being a conspiracy, many Christians feel that anything that was once accepted and thus removed, like Christian slogans should not have been removed because all they do is display a cultural heritage. I don't personally think the slogan should be mandatory. I don't think the slogan was even original. Something eventually added on. So yeah, I don't agree with everything they propose. But, they are hardly conspiracy theorymaterial.

I'm glad to hear that, Rod. "In God We Trust" is not original (and not representative of a culture which existed before the 1950's or all Americans in any time period) and is something that doesn't belong when it comes to government empowered by a pluralistic society.

I encourage you to look over the additional sources (absent any demonstrable bias against Christianity). I agree, there is no conspiracy as that would require it to be a secret...

The constitution is used merely as a tool to try and adjust it to fit the society that they're pushing for.

The society that is 'being pushed for' is one where everyone has religious freedom...the same religious freedom (including Christians).

Were the Hebrews breaking the law when they purchased foreign servants?

First off, it was not servants that were bought from the heathen nations, but slaves. Secondly, the Israelites acting within their own laws without accounting for laws of the neighboring nations doesn't mean it was acceptable in a universal sense. It would most certainly depend on which nation was telling the story as to whether it was proper and legitimate.

More than two dozen doctors, counselors, activists, and other Christian leaders signed a letter condemning the resolution, which they said violates religious freedom. “Religious leaders have the constitutionally protected right to teach religious doctrine in accordance with their faith, and politicians have no right to tell clergy what is moral, dictate the content of their sermons, or instruct them in religious counseling,” they wrote.

I most definitely need to review other sources. These sources that use such terminology are deceptive. The tendency is for them seems to be to accuse Christians attempting to influence society as being those who want to force Christianity into society.

Here is an article from Religious News Service. The terms (with the exception of "Christian Nationalists") is softer, but the message is the same. Here is another from Baptist News Global: LINK

What are religiously copy-pasta laws?

My problem is that CN seems to be pushing not so much a Christian agenda as a deeply conservative one.

I won't disagree with that. The issue I have is that,  instead of making a case for their political views/social views/ignorance, an appeal to a common religious view is being exploited.The credulity of *some* believers is being used against them. 

I'm certain you condemn kidnapping, rape, and sexual slavery.

I don't think Christian Nationalists are in favour of them either!  

Christian Nationalists is an invalid term.

These Christians understand it as I do: LINK

But, I would need a more neutral source to fnd out just how aggressive these bills really are. I don't trust sites that use terms like the Christian far-right, conservative watch, religious watch, religious far-right, etc.  

Christian Nationalists is an invalid term.

But that's not what I'm asking. Are these people in the right? Are they acting within constitutional boundaries?

No, collecting virgins for the purpose of sex (and child bearing) wouldn't be mitigated by calling them wives. But that's not what they were given permission to do. Kidnapping, rape, sexual slavery, are serious crimes in Biblical law, mostly punishable by death.

The problem is you're trying to make a claim about an event you probably don't even think happened, and then base it on man's animalistic behavior as a law allowing for sexual slavery. Kind of the wink, wink, nudge, nudge thing.

The virgins weren't taken as slaves. They were taken to become wives.

Is collecting virgins for the purpose of sex (and childbearing) mitigated by calling them "wives"? Quite plainly - this is sexual slavery. There is no context where this is acceptable.

Where is attempting to inject Christianity into government happening?

Link

And what is your opinion on this?

It is a fact the stigmatization of homosexuals and transsexuals contributes to suicide and depression in these groups. 

Most moral problems are not choices between good and evil but choosing the lesser evil.  

It appears to be ineffective for changing the world. 

It has changed me and the way that I deal with other people. If that's not 'changing the world' nothing is.

Becoming vocal, even political. Look at Richard Dawkins. He writes books, has debates and discussions publically. 

I would argue this is an action. This is beside my point though.  Beliefs inform actions, so it makes sense to evaluate beliefs for validity. That happens here. 

I don't really believe that.changing the world takes action.

That's something I wasn't implying if that's what you are trying to get at.  I guess I'm off on a tangent from the forum topic.

Arguing with theists on a forum no one goes to or knows about is hardly a place to start to change the world.

I observe that socio-political discussion of "evangelicals in the United States" is one topic, and "What is Pentecostal about" is another.

I don't believe that's why you guys are here. You are full of shit.

This opinion (unlike religious beliefs in government, legislation, education, medicine, etc) harms me none. In this case, you're free to believe whatever you like.

As it is now, there's a ridiculous amount of energy in the religious forum that can be divested, and would generally be more appropriate.

Isn't it a case of 'bentham's principle applies'?   The aztec's sacrifices suffered; an early-stage foetus (we suppose) does not.   As soon as a foetus will suffer I think abortion becomes wrong - very wrong

There's no gods being sacrificed in these clinics, but other than that, what's the difference between the quicky abortion in the clinic, and the Aztec human sacrifice? 

Completely false. The Bible does not endorse slavery.

Of the three objections (no liberty, no democracy, no equality), only the example against liberty gets a defense. The others are left on the table. 

only you and the nsa will ever read it.

My theory is that most (as in 'nearly all') Christians are nice people - in fact most people are nice!  However Christians are taught that they are naturally sinful and evil and it is only their faith in God that prevents them from being murderous thieving rapists.

Of course that's nonsense.  People are not naturally evil and only held back their faith - people are naturally nice (not totally so, but we're not actually evil by default).   But it doesnt suit a church's interest to say that!  Churches want people to believe they need religion and that civilsation will collapse without it.

I see this thread has moved on since I started this post!