When God revealed His Law, that revelation took away my liberty to do what the law forbade. As you pointed out, His law takes away the liberty of divorce, etc. The US gives its citizens the liberty to have it. That is the liberty of the devil and refusal of submission to GOd. We must choose which liberty we will have. Some have chosen that liberty from God and going full circle and getting back to your playing devil's advocate.

While I was raised catholic, this is the one thing that probably has me avoiding any religion in particular. I can't stand it when just because I don't follow someones religious belief that I am somehow following the devil's path. That to me is not respecting other peoples beliefs. Sorry but couldn't help it the moment I saw the word devil in there. It's just how I feel about people who use the word devil to make it as it their way or the highway, at least that's how I see it.

About the question:

What comes first - God or your country?

Well, I do believe in God, maybe not in the same way as others do, I have had an experience or 2 that keeps me in line. I tend to be more vigilant over what God thinks of me than pwhat people think of me, so I guess it would be God first then country. I guess since we, the people, don't really have any control over any piece of land (at any time an act of God can simply take it all away, earthquake, typhoon, volcano, etc.) we call country where ever we feel at home at that moment but God is always everywhere and always make me feel at home. So even though I love my country and I am very patriotic, one never really knows what can happen and who will be in control in the future and where we might be living next. Though I guess I will always call myself American.

This is an interesting topic. I remember Brad saying not too long back that Christians, unlike Muslims, would put their country first. I guess he was wrong if you guys are anything to go by.

It's called 'conversation.' But if you want to call it 'judging' thats fine too, but it seems to me that you yourself have indulged in quite a bit of it yourself lately.

I don't think it was conversation to criticize for saying his family was patriotic when his sons were missionaries instead of joining the miliatry. The writer of the letter was obviously "judging" Mitt Romney's family's patriotism. I don't think that was a stretch at all.

I don't think I've judged anything. I just presented my point of view which happens to be the minority on this site so everybody decided it was okay to beat up on me. I really don't care. I think what I think and that's that. Are you going to keep bringing it up on every thread that has nothing to do with immigration?

The author of this particular piece was specifically talking about Mitt Romney, criticizing him for saying that he and his family are patriotic when his sons, rather than serve in the military (which I guess, according to the author, is the only true way to be a patriot), served as missionaries for the LDS church for two years.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say country first.

It is only due to our ability to separate religious belief from public law that those of you who DO worship are able to do so in relative peace, so in these circumstances I think we put country first, and always have, no matter how much lip service we pay to the notion of putting God first.

You sure are the "Devil's" advocate .

It sounds simple, clear, logical and apparently convincing. only one catch. Misleading.

Why? because as you pointed out that loyalty to "country" is conditional, not absolute. If that country did not hold its promise (which could happen) your loyalty is no longer there. On the other hand, God's promise is absolute and unchanging and so is the loyalty to Him. If someone changes the loyalty to God, it is not because HE changed, it is because they have changed.

Accordingly, unconditional loyalty comes ahead, i.e First, to a conditional one.