U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Quran vs. Constitution: Why they're incompatible
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 22, 2015
Author: William J. Federer
Post Date: 2015-09-22 12:41:15 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 1799
Comments: 24
Quran vs. Constitution: Why they're incompatible Published: 09/26/2009 at 12:00 AM Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/111055/#OrxL51xmOl9dJTHh.99 President Barack Obama stated in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009: "When the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the ... Holy Quran." The dilemma is: How can one swear to defend something upon a book that promotes the opposite? The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet the Quran states in Sura 4:89, "Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them." In Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57), Muhammad said: "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to "dhimmi" status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or a Star of David. The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge "the freedom of speech," yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells. The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away "the right of the people to peaceably assemble," yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot build any new places of worship or repair any old places Muslims have destroyed; they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly. The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," yet Islamic law states non- Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government. The Second Amendment states, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind. The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to "quarter" someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill - and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship. The Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures," yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away. The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime ... without due process of law," yet Muhammad said, "No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel)" (Hadith Sahih al- Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50). The Sixth Amendment guarantees a "public trial by an impartial jury" and the Seventh Amendment states "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting a non-Muslim from testifying in court against a Muslim. The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no "cruel and unusual punishments inflicted," yet the Quran states: "Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done - a deterrent from Allah" (Sura 5:38). A raped woman is punished: "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication - flog each of them with a hundred stripes" (Sura 24:2). Women can be beaten: "If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them" (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations. The 13th Amendment states there shall be no "slavery or involuntary servitude," yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Muhammad owned slaves. The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens "equal protection of the laws," yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as "the People of the Book," Muhammad said: "They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine" (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65). The 15th Amendment guarantees "the right of the citizens ... to vote shall not be denied ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," yet the fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making their own laws. The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived." Muhammad said, "Fight those who believe not in Allah ... until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). The 18th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors ... for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited." The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote. The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law prohibits non- Muslims from selling or drinking wine and liquor openly. One would assume that to swear upon a book implies believing what is in that book. As Muhammad was not just a religious leader, but also a political and military leader, Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political and military system. Since no one has the authority to demand Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political/military example of Muhammad, when Muslims bow in prayer they are also pledging political/military allegiance to Mecca. Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values is a dilemma worthy of a presidential explanation. William J. Federer is the author of the best-selling book What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur'an-A History of Islam and the United States http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/111055/#zGV5yp2BpxCPgojr.99http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/1 11055/
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tpaine, redleghunter (#0)
(Edited)
The dilemma for Christians is: how can they swear upon a Bible in which their Savior commands them to never swear at all, that oaths such as they are swearing are from Satan? Why do Christians always perform an act from Satan (according to Jesus) when they take office in America, or testify in court?
Yes, the US Constitution knows not 'Allah'.
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.---Revelation 1:5b-6
There is such an easy way to solve this. The services did go to the alternative 'affirm' which means I give my word as 'yes'. One could go in court and say "I affirm to tell the truth and let my yes be yes and my no be no." To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.---Revelation 1:5b-6
Yes, that is the easy, practical way to solve it. And that is what Christians should be doing, to be subtle as serpents. Unless they have power. Christians in power should instead change the laws so that men do not swear oaths. An oath is meaningless. That men think it DOES have superstitious meaning is idolatry, and Christians have a duty to instruct people against idolatry. No oaths of office at all is the correct stance for men who have the power to set rules. No oaths. No pretence at oaths. No vain mumblings that mean nothing but that men think means something, because that is in itself a form of deception - then the mouthing of the oath, even as an affirmation, because a vain repetition, like a spell. And there are no such things. The correct position is that we are going to stop all pretence of any sort of oath or affirmation, that men are always to tell the truth, and that the tradition of making men speak special incantations is going to end and not be done at all. It is very important to make the formal break and visible STOP doing what is wrong. Paul was write that eating meat sacrificed to idols did NOT in fact taint anybody soul because the idols were meaningless. However, Jesus STILL reproached the Churches of Asia Minor for allowing people to eat meat sacrificed to idols, because of the symbolism, and perhaps because some of the idols are to demons, and demons can come in if you let them. If Jesus said don't do it, the answer is not - well, ok, we'll do it THIS way instead, to preserve our tradition. The answer is to rip the tradition up by the roots and STOP DOING IT COMPLETELY. There used to be an oath of office and an oath before testimony, and now we don't do that anymore, and if you lie at all, you're liable for perjury, because yes is yes and no is no. Taking an oath is not what makes you have to obey military orders. It's a meaningless talisman. Taking the pay is what does it. And the contract. Of course, men shouldn't take the contract. But to declare one's self an "Oathkeeper!" is to declare one's self a "Belligerent Defier of Christ", because he commanded TAKE NO OATHS. It is not good to be an Oathkeeper. It's a declaration of having sinned by taking an oath.
Yes, service, any service not just military, but even ministry service a yes should be a yes and a no, a no. You are affirming you will be honest and if not will suffer the consequences of your failures. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.---Revelation 1:5b-6
No affirmation should be required at all. God holds everybody to a standard of perjury all the time. What you say is true, or you're bearing false witness. To make a ritual is to establish the illusion that there is a solemn moment when the importance of truthtelling becomes really, really serious. And that's not the case. Honesty all the time, without any sort of formal "Yes, I'm promising to REALLY be honest" affirmation is the right rule. To have the ritual at all is to retain a superstition that there is, after all, a difference, and that it is important to acknowledge it. But there is not, however, ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL, between truthtelling in an official capacity and truthtelling to your friends. God's standard is that you're under oath all the time. To retain a ritual, teaches that there is a difference. To strip away the ritual makes it clear that there is not. The standard of truth is the standard that one has when the police or federal investigators are "talking to you". You're not arrested, you're not under oath, they don't have to give you any warnings, AND THEY DON'T, but if you lie, not under oath, when you're just giving them information, that's "false official statement", or it's "interfering with an investigation". Because when you are talking to the police, you are in fact criminally liable and can be prosecuted for every word you say, if it is untrue, whether or not you are arrested, whether or not you are given any warnings, whether or not they say anything to you at all. They can lie to you too - which is utterly wrong - but oppressive government is evil, we already know that. It is important not to maintain the dignity of the tradition and to pretend that it means something. It is important to teach the lesson that there is no such thing as different standards of truth by completely stripping out even the slightest "affirmative affirmation". That ritual teaches people that one can be held to a greater standard of truth, and that is a lie. There is one standard of truth, and anything that insinuates that there is a slightly elevated one for ministers or officials, is a lie. Allow a ritual, and you give heft to the lie. Strip the ritual out, that everybody is accustomed to, and it's a BIG DEAL. What? NO OATH? Ok, an affirmation. NO. No affirmation. No anything. No recognition that there is any other standard of truth. You are always talking to the police and always part of an investigation. If you ever lie, about anything, you are liable to God. There is only one standard of truth, and it is important not to allow the slightest apparent deviation to slip into our practices. Here, let me give you a comparison. I want to put a statue of Mary in all Christian churches, just to remind everybody of the Mother of God. Nothing more. There's nothing wrong with that, surely? It's just art. It's just a reminder about a woman. What could possibly go wrong with a piece of decorative artwork about the most important woman ever? It's not idolatry, right? Nobody is praying to the statue! That would be ridiculous! It's just like the other artwork, right? If we put a candle in front of that is just for light, right? There's no harm here. If we stop and pray in front of the statue it's only because it's there, with its candle, as a focus of attention. Our prayers are to God, right? If we put a wreath of flowers around the head of the statue on the first day of spring, that's just decoration, right? Sure, it looks like a crown, but it's like the crown of flowers any girl might wear in her hair. We're not serving or worshiping or adoring the statue, with the candle that somebody has to remember to faithfully always keep burning, right? And if people, because the statue with its carefully tended candle (that somebody has put on a service list of things that MUST be done always), and its crown of flowers, which serves to focus people's prayers, has people kneeling in prayer in front of it, they're still praying to God, and they're just doing it there because the statue focuses the attention there, so that's as good a place to pray to God as any, right (and she WAS, after all, God's mother, right)? And when we remember that the saints are all still alive, and that surely God's own mother is among them, then it's ok to ask living people to pray for us, right? So, if we stop before the well-tended statue with the crown of flowers and the service candle in front of her, and the other people kneeling in their prayers to God, and we ask the woman symbolized by the statue, who is alive in Paradise with God and all the other saints, to pray for us, that's like asking anybody else to pray for us to God, except that she is really special, right? And if we want to remember how special she is by remembering what the Bible says the angel said to her long ago, we can formulate our prayer in just that way too, out of reverence, right? And since we're all kneeling here before this well-served statue with its crown of flowers and its perpetual candle burning brightly, as a beacon for us to stop and pray to God right here, and we're praying to God together with the living we see, and with the living woman - living with God elsewhere - whom we also ask to pray with us, because she was the mother of God and is already in Heaven and much closer to God than any of us, it makes sense to ask her directly to pray for us, right? So, let's get down on our knees before a statue on which we have placed a crown, and which we serve by assigning somebody to always keep a candle burning, and we all say aloud - Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee!" We're just saying the truth, after all. And if we end by "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death", we've just asked this Holy woman, the mother of God himself, to pray for us to God, right? And if we decide to pray that same prayer ten times in succession, in four sets of ten, separated by a "Glory Be to the Father" prayer, on our knees, before the statue of the Virgin Mother of God, wearing the crown of beauty and glory in her hair, with her candle faithfully tended every day and night, all we've done is meditate about God in that very spot, right? Not one aspect of that is idolatry. It just LOOKS LIKE serving a statue, and serving a candle, and asking for things from another person. But it isn't REALLY any of those things, of course, we know. Therefore, I should be able to put up a simple statue of Mary in your church. Right? Same thing with an affirmation. None is needed. Having one leads to error.
I hope you are not a contract lawyer:) What I meant by an affirmation which would be sound doctrine would be an affirmation that what Christ lays out in Matthew 5 is all that is required of God and should be good as well for mankind. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.---Revelation 1:5b-6
I am. Before God, a contract is merely a detailed list of WHAT we agreed, so that we can remember that, and so that we talk it through to actually AGREE to it, and not just THINK we agree when we don't. The signature tells third parties (namely, the judge) that we actually DID come to an agreement, eventually. Of course, Christians are never to take other Christians to court, so the only purpose a contract serves is as a reminder of details, and a way to ensure that people really do agree on things.
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.---Revelation 1:5b-6
My real point is this: Jesus said don't swear oaths. He said that swearing oaths is satanic. It's not just messy, it is EVIL, from the Devil! SO THEREFORE, trying to mouth the magical formula of oaths, to still have an oath that "isn't really an oath", to try to wiggle and finagle in something that Jesus explicitly told us was SATANIC EVIL, is to have precisely the wrong attitude. It is also indicative of a superstitious mind. And the fact that Christians proudly call themselves OATHkeepers, and PROUDLY take OATHS, shows that most Christians are utterly ignorant of the commandments of their own God, and just do whatever they think is right, unguided by Scripture. At least the Catholics have their Church falsely teaching them that oaths are OK because the Church SAYS so, and the Church has "the Power of the Keys", given by Jesus, to make such laws. The rest don't even have THAT, and say that the only revelation is from the Bible Alone. Then they don't know what's in the Bible, and when shown it, they try to squirm out of it. That's why the Christian world is so screwed up. That's why Islam conquered half of Christendom and erased it. Because Christians did not follow the Law of God, when Islam came and DID present them more of the law of God than Christianity did, they went over en masse to Islam, 90% of them, and never came back. Practice MATTERS. Beliefs don't matter a damn if you're not DOING them. God judges men by their WORKS, not their beliefs. Read the letters to the Churches in Revelation again. What does Jesus say he judges Christians by? Their WORKS. He says it every time. Christianity is ASSUMED - these are Churches. They already have faith. And that does not save them at all. Jesus warns them of doom because of their works. So, you have to have faith to be a Christian at all. And then you're doomed if you don't actually do the works Jesus commanded. That is what Jesus SAYS, SIX TIMES in Revelation (the Church at Philadelphia was doing it right, which MEANS that it IS possible to DO EVERYTHING THAT JESUS SAID TO DO, and to be COMPLETELY satisfying to him, who is the judge. The "Oh we're all imperfect..." TRADITION is false. The Church at Philadelphia WAS perfect. It was men who were walking perfectly after Christ, good enough for Christ to have NOTHING with which to reproach them. So, men CAN, in fact, be PERFECT, Just like Jesus commanded. The whole Church, of Philadelphia, was, and got nothing but praise and glory from Jesus. So it IS possible. In fact, it's been DONE. That's the standard. "What GOOD does it do you to say you follow me if you don't keep my commandments?" - Jesus. Christians spend too much time and energy trying to excuse themselves for their sins and reassuring themselves they are forgiven, and not enough time actually DOING what they are commanded to do. The Church of Philadelphia proves that real flesh and blood men CAN please God fully. So that's what we need to be doing, not expending energy trying to get by and maintain all sorts of crap. The East was lost forever to Islam because the Roman Christians built churches and prayed a lot, but kept half the population in slavery. Islam gave every convert freedom from slavery. Christians SHOULD have done that three centuries before Islam was born. They did not. And so when Islam swept into the East, even though its theology is the Aryan heresy, it was morally superior to Christianity and annhilated it forever. The Christian slaves renounced their faith en masse for Islam, and most gained their freedom thereby. And then they took up arms with their liberating conquerors and fought the Nazi-ish Christians who tried to reconquer them and force them back into Christian chains. The real world evils were, and are, far more important than obscure points of theology. God gave the victory to the more righteous side. Organized Christianity SHOULD have been the more righteous side, but it was not. Islam was. So God gave the Muslims their victory and the Christian slaves their freedom - from the oppression of other Christians. Christianity destroyed Christianity in the East, because Christians were evil, and in the end, God favored the side that DID good, not the side whose beliefs were more technically correct. Whose WORKS were better, the Christians whose conception of the godhead was correct but who kept half the population in chains, or the Muslims who insisted that Jesus was a prophet, not the actual Son of God, but who freed the slaves who converted from their chains? The Muslims. And God gave THEM the victory too. Christians SHOULD have learned the lesson from that. But they do not seem to have even ABSORBED the lesson, or understood it. That is why today the WEST is dying, even though it is Christian. Christianity cannot survive when Christians are hypocritical. It can't survive because it is a religion of a God who demands perfection, and who demonstrated with the Jews that he would RATHER allow his own people to be wiped out and crushed than concede ANYTHING from the perfection of his law. If there were no Book of Revelation, we could say "God's law is too hard. We can't do it perfectly. We can never please God." However, there is the Book of Revelation, and in the Book of Revelation, Jesus Christ himself, from the throne room of Heaven, had no reproach at all, nothing but praise and promise of greater things, for the flesh and blood Church of Philadelphia, with its real people. And therefore, to say that it is impossible for Christians to obey the law of Jesus and please God is a lie - and we have the proof of that IN Scripture, from Jesus' own lips, in dictation - the most authoritative writing in the Bible: the LAST book, dictated by God from Heaven. So, Christians should immediately concede every single thing that opposes God. Oaths are evil. Admit it without any further resistance. It is very important to admit it. Completely. Without mental reservation. Because that is the perfect revealed truth from the lips of Jesus. Why, then try to preserve the echo of a practice from Satan, this swearing of oaths? Why sidle up to satan? Because the tradition is too ingrained. Piss on the tradition and cook it over human excrement: it is Ezekiel bread, adulterated with evil. No oaths. No affirmations. Nothing but the truth. All the time. Be PERFECT, as your Father in Heaven is perfect, and as your fellow men and women in the Church of Philadelphia were perfect, without any reproach before God. And if there are carnal things you cannot resist, at least admit to the perfect STANDARD. Not mouthing a shibboleth is not carnal. We have no urge to swear oaths or affirmations. It's a tradition. The fact that it's an oath demanded by the US Constitution makes it especially delicious, for to remove that artifact of Satan from the Constitution, we have to tear it right out of it: NO OATHS, demonstrating thereby the submission of this mere human thing, this US Constitution, to the Supreme Law of God. Doing that is good, because it reminds everybody of what is superior to what, and breaks and idol. Now watch the idolators come and defend their idol! Shall I name some of them beforehand?
(1) The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. That is an error. A lie. If insisted upon, it is blasphemy. God's Law is the Supreme Law of EVERY land. The United States Constitution is subordinate in EVERY RESPECT to the Law of God, and every believer in God MUST TREAT IT AS SO, or he blasphemes God and serves an idol. That's just a fact. "I am the Lord your God, you shall place no other powers before me." - YHWH "You cannot serve both God and mammon." - Jesus
Context, context, context; Jesus is saying that oaths were used at all emphasized the wickedness of man’s heart. Furthermore, swearing “by heaven,” “by the earth,” or “by Jerusalem” is binding, since they are God’s throne … footstool, and city, respectively. Even the color of the hair on their heads was determined by God (Matt. 5:36). However, Jesus later in His life responded to an oath (26:63–64), as did Paul (2 Cor. 1:23). The Lord was saying one’s life should be sufficient to back up one’s words. A yes always ought to mean yes, and a no should mean no. James seems to have picked up these words of the Lord in his epistle (James 5:12). Christians are to conduct their lives as if every word spoken or thought is an oath to the Lord. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. That is exactly the issue here in the USA. -- Anyone that believes that cannot in good faith vow to support and defend our Constitution, and cannot serve in any official capacity at any level of government. It's not a fact, and you should be disbarred.
Your picture is a perfect post, redleghunter. It sums up the essence of the topic.
And the proper context is: every time a man opens his mouth. And also: a man should not swear oaths. BECAUSE swearing an oath is affirming that there are different levels of truth, but there are not.
This is true of many people in today's society. There is to much talk and pursuit of freedom and not enough attention paid to adult responsibility and integrity. As a result society has fallen under control of perpetual delinquent teenagers.
I'm sure I would be, if you had the power to do it. But you don't. So I'll just take it as another "I really don't like you because you don't agree with me, and if I could wield power to crush you for your opinions, I would." Because that's what you mean. The Constitution is fine, as long as it stays within the lines that God has set. It's not really the Supreme Law of the Land, God's Law is, but if it makes you feel better we can pretend the Constitution is, unless it goes over its boundaries, such as it has with abortion. Then we have to remember that the Constitution cannot overrule God's Law. Of course, you've got a more serious problem from a different front than mine. I'm merely stating a truth: God's Law is Supreme to the US Constitution. But God is very slow to move and quite hands off, so he's not likely to intervene swiftly to remind everybody who's boss. Rather, he'll just let us wallow in our degradation arising from ignoring his laws, and then our whole civilization, with the Constitution, will go sliding off the table onto the garbage heap of history. The much bigger threat to you (and to me) is the more immediate and aggressive people who assert that their petty political hobbyhorses supersede the Constitution, or some secular political ideal from elsewhere does. They're much more threatening because they are aggressive, and human, so short lived, meaning they have a drive to enforce their will right here, right now, in the short term, before they die. God watches the downward slide over centuries, but your secular adversaries do things immediately with whatever power they have. You should loathe them more, but they don't even bother to talk to you or reason with you, the way that I have as a spokesman for my God. I try to make you see. The seculars don't care if you see or not. In fact, they enjoy making you bend the knee, and they enjoy "making examples" of people who resist them. They like using power and fear. And while I understand your desire to wield power to suppress me (by stripping me of my licenses because I don't worship your idol), I just shrug my shoulders. They'll come after your Social Security check.
And the thing is, by listening to him and knuckling down to the hard work of WORK, and brotherly cooperation on very mundane levels (such as lending each other money at zero interest to free each other from debt), Christians actually have at their fingertips the keys to slip away from the iron grip of society itself, and to be less affected by the madness, because more securely reliant directly upon God. So spending time debating doctrinal nonsense or diluting their holiness in vain political pursuits Christians weaken themselves and deliver themselves over to the very forces they could avoid if they were to stop trying to play "the game" and just tend to the garden and the plow and the family, as they ought to.
It's not a fact, and you should be disbarred, because you refuse to support and defend our Constitution, as you said you would, --- when you became an officer of the court. I have no religious idol. I support and defend our Constitution because it is obviously the best form of government in the world, - and have NO desire to suppress you.. And obviously, you're showing your dementia, with the social security remark. Seek help.
Blah blah blah
I have no religious idol. I support and defend our Constitution because it is obviously the best form of government in the world, - and I have NO desire to suppress you.. -- You're showing your dementia. -- Seek help. Whatever.
Exactly. We agree.
You wish. IMHO, you're batshit crazy.
Very kind of you to say so.
The dilemma is: How can one swear to defend something upon a book that promotes the opposite?
#2. To: tpaine (#0)
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Why do Christians always perform an act from Satan (according to Jesus) when they take office in America, or testify in court?
33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
#4. To: redleghunter (#3)
There is such an easy way to solve this.
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Christians in power should instead change the laws so that men do not swear oaths. An oath is meaningless. That men think it DOES have superstitious meaning is idolatry, and Christians have a duty to instruct people against idolatry. No oaths of office at all is the correct stance for men who have the power to set rules. No oaths. No pretence at oaths. No vain mumblings that mean nothing but that men think means something, because that is in itself a form of deception - then the mouthing of the oath, even as an affirmation, because a vain repetition, like a spell. And there are no such things.
#6. To: redleghunter (#5)
(Edited)
Yes, service, any service not just military, but even ministry service a yes should be a yes and a no, a no. You are affirming you will be honest and if not will suffer the consequences of your failures.
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
No affirmation should be required at all.
#8. To: redleghunter (#7)
I hope you are not a contract lawyer:)
#9. To: tpaine (#0)
#10. To: redleghunter (#7)
#11. To: redleghunter (#9)
(Edited)
#12. To: Vicomte13, Redleghunter (#4)
It is not good to be an Oathkeeper. It's a declaration of having sinned by taking an oath.
#13. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#11)
That is an error. A lie. If insisted upon, it is blasphemy.-- God's Law is the Supreme Law of EVERY land.
The United States Constitution is subordinate in EVERY RESPECT to the Law of God, and every believer in God MUST TREAT IT AS SO, or he blasphemes God and serves an idol. -- That's just a fact.
#14. To: redleghunter (#9)
(Edited)
#15. To: GarySpFC (#12)
Context, context, context; Jesus is saying that oaths were used at all emphasized the wickedness of man’s heart.
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
Christians spend too much time and energy trying to excuse themselves for their sins and reassuring themselves they are forgiven, and not enough time actually DOING what they are commanded to do.
#17. To: tpaine (#13)
It's not a fact, and you should be disbarred.
#18. To: rlk (#16)
his is true of many people in today's society. There is to much talk and pursuit of freedom and not enough attention paid to adult responsibility and integrity. As a result society has fallen under control of perpetual delinquent teenagers.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
The United States Constitution is subordinate in EVERY RESPECT to the Law of God, and every believer in God MUST TREAT IT AS SO, or he blasphemes God and serves an idol. -- That's just a fact.
--- while I understand your desire to wield power to suppress me (by stripping me of my licenses because I don't worship your idol), --
I just shrug my shoulders. They'll come after your Social Security check.
#20. To: tpaine (#19)
It's not a fact, and you should be disbarred, because you refuse to support and defend our Constitution, as you said you would, --- when you became an officer of the court.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
-- while I understand your desire to wield power to suppress me (by stripping me of my licenses because I don't worship your idol), --
Blah blah blah..
#22. To: tpaine (#21)
Whatever.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
We agree...
#24. To: tpaine (#23)
IMHO, you're batshit crazy.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]