Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Trump condemned as treasonous after press conference with Putin
Source:
The Guardian
URL Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news ... -of-election-meddling-powerful
Published: Jul 16, 2018
Author: David Smith
Post Date: 2018-07-16 14:04:07 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 13746
Comments: 54
Donald Trump was condemned as “treasonous” for siding with the Kremlin over his own government agencies on Monday after a stunning joint appearance with Vladimir Putin in which he seemingly accepted the Russian leader’s denial of election meddling. At a joint press conference after one-on-one talks lasting more than two hours in the Finnish capital, the US president offered no criticism of Putin or the cyber-attacks that the US intelligence community says he coordinated to help Trump’s 2016 election campaign. “They said they think it’s Russia; I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia,” he told reporters. “I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be. I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.” The comments set off a new firestorm in Washington and with critics suggesting that it was a historically weak performance by a US president against a foreign adversary. It also fuelled the intrigue of why Trump’s refusal to speak ill of Putin remains one of the few constants of his White House tenure. He then veered off into a rambling discussion of the Democratic National Committee’s server and Hillary Clinton’s missing emails – a move a seen by critics as a crude attempt to deflect and distract. “Where is the server? I want to know. Where is the server and what is the server saying?” And bridling at the suggestion that his election victory might be discredited, Trump added: “I beat Hillary Clinton easily... We won that race. And it’s a shame that there can even be a little bit of a cloud over it... We ran a brilliant campaign and that’s why I’m president.” There was swift condemnation from some of Trump’s opponents in Washington. John Brennan, a former director of the CIA, tweeted: “Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin.” Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, said: “In the entire history of our country, Americans have never seen a president of the United States support an American adversary the way President Trump has supported President Putin. “For the president of the United States to side with President Putin against American law enforcement, American defense officials, and American intelligence agencies is thoughtless, dangerous, and weak. The president is putting himself over our country.” Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leader in the House, added: “President Trump’s weakness in front of Putin was embarrassing, and proves that the Russians have something on the President, personally, financially or politically. This is a sad day for America, and for all western democracies that Putin continues to target.” Adam Schiff, top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, tweeted: “President Trump just attacked our intelligence agencies and law enforcement for doing their jobs while standing next to a dictator who intervened in our election to help elect Trump. Putin will take this as a green light to interfere in 2018, and it is. Cowardly and shameful.” And Jeff Flake, a Republican senator from Arizona, tweeted: “I never thought I would see the day when our American President would stand on the stage with the Russian President and place blame on the United States for Russian aggression. This is shameful.” For his part, Putin acknowledged that he wanted Trump to win the 2016 election but reiterated his denial of meddling. Speaking through an interpreter, he said: “We should be guided by facts. Can you name a single fact that would definitively prove collusion? This is utter nonsense. Just like the President recently mentioned.” In the wake of last week’s indictment of 12 Russian military officers for hacking and leaking Democratic emails, Putin offered to allow the special counsel Robert Mueller’s team to visit Russia and witness the accused being questioned – but only if the US made a reciprocal arrangement concerning individuals charged with crimes on Russian territory. The 45-minute news conference followed a dialogue between Trump and Putin, with only interpreters present, at the Finnish presidential palace, followed by a working lunch - the first such event between a US and Russian president since 2010. Journalists gathered in a baroque ballroom decorated with columns, gold leaf and crystal chandeliers and, behind the podium, five American and five Russian flags. Before the press conference started, a man, said to be holding a sign protesting against nuclear weapons, was bundled out of the room by three security guards. The two leaders were an unlikely match at the podium. Trump, bigger and taller, had held political office for just 18 months; Putin has been at the top of government for 18 years. Trump shook his counterpart’s hand and whispered, “Thank you very much”, before congratulating him on the successful hosting of the World Cup. Eager to take credit, he claimed: “Our relationship has never been worse than it is now. However, that changed as of about four hours ago.” Later, questioned why relations had deteriorated so badly, he said: “I hold both countries responsible. I think the United States has been foolish... I think we’ve all been foolish. We’re all to blame. We should have had this dialogue a long time ago... We have both made some mistakes. I think the probe is a disaster for our country.” The comments prompted consternation in Washington. Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska said: “This is bizarre and flat-out wrong. The United States is not to blame. America wants a good relationship with the Russian people but Vladimir Putin and his thugs are responsible for Soviet-style aggression. When the President plays these moral equivalence games, he gives Putin a propaganda win he desperately needs.” There was some relief for western diplomats in that the press conference offered few clues as to whether Trump had made major concessions that would undermine Nato or Ukrainian sovereignty. Asked about Crimea, Putin said Trump “continues to maintain that it was illegal to annex it. Our viewpoint is different.” The Russian leader was also asked about claims that he holds compromising material on Trump; there have long been rumours of a video tape in which Trump was caught in a Russian hotel with sex workers. He quipped: “I was an intelligence officer and I know how dossiers are made up.” Putin added: “Now to the compromising material, I did hear this rumour. When Trump visited Moscow back then, I didn’t even know he was in Moscow.” Trump interjected: “If they had it, it would have been out long ago.” But once again Trump seemed utterly resistant to saying anything negative about the Russian president. Having branded the European Union a “foe” over the weekend, he said of Putin: “I called him a competitor, and a good competitor he is. The word competitor is a compliment.” Putin, basking in the afterglow of Russia’s hosting of the World Cup, presented Trump with a football and said: “Now the ball is in your court.” Trump, smiling, replied: “That will go to my son Barron, no question.” He passed it to his wife, Melania, sitting on the front row along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other senior officials. Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, tweeted: “... if it were me, I’d check the soccer ball for listening devices and never allow it in the White House.”
Poster Comment: Putin's sockpuppet Blames America First...
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-13) not displayed.
.
.
.
#14. To: Willie Green (#0)
He was condemned by the neoclowns and Commies! LOL That's a badge of honor! So that means he is an all American! Trump vying for best president ever!
Rand was one of the few (R)’s that didn’t cave to libtard pressure and criticize Trumps meeting. Rand is a step above the RINO’s who walk in fear of what the snowflake machine propagates.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I agree.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Does this mean that espousing laws respecting the payment of taxes and revenues is giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution? No, this means that those who advocate blind obedience to 'authorities', --- are enemies of our Constitution...
I agree. ----- GrandIsland Me too!
Does this mean that espousing laws respecting the payment of taxes and revenues is giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution? No, this means that those who advocate blind obedience to 'authorities', --- are enemies of our Constitution... Romans 13:7 does NOT mean what you say it means....Roman 13-7 means exactly what Romans 13-7 says. Here is a much needed lesson for you on: The Government and You (Romans 13:1-7) Or, you’re living in Germany in the 1930’s when Adolph Hitler came to power. You watch with growing horror as he begins systematically exterminating the Jews. Some of your Jewish neighbors, who were good friends, are herded off to the death camps, never to be seen alive again. Then you hear about a plot to assassinate Hitler and you’re invited to join the conspiracy. If Hitler could be killed, it could conceivably save the lives of millions of Jews. But you’re aware of Romans 13, which commands you to be subject to the governing authorities. What should you do? How should Christians relate to their government? If you think that I’m going to be able to give easy answers to these issues, thank you for your confidence in my wisdom, but I’m afraid that you’re too optimistic! Hopefully, none of us will ever face dilemmas as difficult as the ones I’ve described. But Romans 13:1-7 raises these and other important issues concerning our relationship as Christians with the government. When (if ever) is civil disobedience justifiable? What about armed rebellion or revolution against a corrupt government? What about capital punishment? Should Christians withhold part of their taxes to protest government misuse of our tax dollars? At first glance, Romans 13:1-7 may seem to be out of context. Paul shifts subjects with no transition or introduction. But in the context, Paul is speaking about how believers are to live in love and to get along peaceably with all people. He has just forbidden taking vengeance and advocated treating with kindness those who mistreat us. This raises the questions, “Is it wrong to report those who mistreat us to civil authorities for prosecution? Is it wrong to use force to resist an aggressor?” So Paul shows that it is proper for the government to protect law-abiding citizens and to punish evildoers. Also, Paul was writing to Christians, some of whom were Jews, in the capital of the Roman Empire. Claudius, the previous emperor, had expelled the Jews from Rome a few years before because he viewed them as dangerous (Acts 18:2). The Jews hated being under Roman rule. The Romans often viewed Christians as a Jewish sect, so that suspicion of revolution was always a concern in the minds of the rulers. Also, Christians easily could have taken Jesus’ teaching about the coming kingdom of God to mean that they should work for the overthrow of the secular, morally corrupt government in order to help bring in Christ’s kingdom. In fact, when Paul wrote Romans, Nero, one of the most evil rulers of all time, was on the throne. What a time for a revolution! So Paul wanted the Roman Christians to be clear on how they should relate to the civil government. In Paul’s day, there was no Christian consensus or Christian-based constitutional law. There was no Jewish theocracy, as in the Old Testament. But these principles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, apply to believers down through the ages, living under various forms of government. Contrary to what many Americans may think, the Bible never mandates one type of government over another. While arguably a constitutional democracy with a balance of powers is the best form of government, the Bible does not ordain it or forbid monarchy or other forms of government. We can sum up Romans 13:1-7: Because God has ordained government authority for our good, we must be subject to our government. This week, I’m going to work through these verses. Next week I hope to give an overview from all of Scripture on to what extent Christians and the church should be involved in politics. First, I’ll give a brief overview of Paul’s flow of thought and then we’ll explore four principles stemming from the text. First (13:1) Paul states that every person is to be subject to the governing authorities, because God is the sovereign who ordains all human governments. Then (13:2) he draws the implication: If you resist government authority, which God has established, you are opposing God Himself and you’ll come under judgment. Then (13:3-4) Paul explains that the purpose of civil government is to protect law-abiding citizens and punish law-breakers. As such, the government is acting as a minister of God in avenging wrong. Thus (13:5) there are two reasons to be in subjection to the government: Fear of punishment and conscience before God, who has ordained the government. Finally (13:6-7), Paul applies it by showing why we should pay taxes, namely, because government officials are servants of God. Thus they deserve our taxes as well as our respect. Paul first lays down a general principle (13:1a), “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities.” Then (13:1b) he explains the reason behind this principle: “For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” He follows this (13:2) with a logical conclusion: “Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.” God has ordained various spheres of authority for the blessing and protection of those under authority: the government, the local church, the family, and employment. Due to sin, those in authority are often prone to misuse their authority for their own benefit, not for the benefit of those under their authority. But Paul, writing under wicked Nero, does not allow for exceptions. He states categorically (13:1b), “For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” Therefore every person is to be subject to their civil government. Some do not want to go so far as to say that God established or ordained wicked tyrants like Nero. So they say that God ordained the institution of government, not the individual ru lers. But that is a weak attempt to dodge a problem that Scripture repeatedly affirms. For example, Jeroboam, who rebelled against Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, subsequently set up false gods and a false worship center so that his people would not go to Jerusalem. Yet his rebellion and kingdom was “a turn of events from the Lord,” to establish His prophecy through Ahijah (1 Kings 12:15). Nebuchadnezzar’s army destroyed Jerusalem, including the temple, slaughtered many Jewish people, and carried most of the survivors to Babylon. But God calls him His “servant” and says that He gave all of the land he conquered into his hand (Jer. 27:6). Pilate was a pagan Roman governor who allowed Jesus to be crucified. Note this interesting exchange between Pilate and Jesus (John 19:10-11): “So Pilate said to Him, ‘You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?’ Jesus answered, ‘You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.’” Even the wicked dragon (Satan) and the beast (Antichrist) do not thwart God’s purpose for the ages. They are under His sovereign authority, even when they persecute the saints (Rev. 13). Daniel’s testimony to both Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar was consistent and clear: “The Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes” (Dan. 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21). When Paul says (13:2) that those who disobey government authority “will receive condemnation upon themselves,” I understand him primarily to be referring to the judgment that the government brings on law-breakers. In verse 4 he says that the government “bears the sword,” which refers to the authority to punish law-breakers. He also calls it “an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” These expressions do not refer to God’s eternal wrath, but to His temporal wrath inflicted by the government on evildoers so that it can uphold law and order. Thus, because the government is God’s minister to inflict punishment on those who do evil, Christians must be in subjection to the government. But this raises the questions, “What about civil disobedience against corrupt governments or bad laws? What about armed rebellion against evil, tyrannical governments?” Regarding civil disobedience, when the government commands us to do something that is disobedient to God’s Word, we must resist the government and obey God. When the Sanhedrin commanded Peter and John to stop speaking in the name of Jesus, they replied (Acts 4:19-20), “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Later, when the command was repeated, Peter answered (Acts 5:29), “We must obey God rather than men.” Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed- nego refused to bow before Nebuchadnezzar’s idol (Dan. 3). In defiance of the king’s edict, Daniel continued to pray (Dan. 6). If the government forced us to abort babies to maintain population control, we should resist. If the government forbad us to gather as believers, we should gather anyway. If the government banned the Bible, we should own and distribute Bibles anyway. If the government commanded us not to say anything against homosexual behavior, we should teach what the Bible says anyway. Should Christians ever take up arms against the government or attempt to assassinate a wicked ruler, such as Hitler? Were the thirteen colonies right to declare independence from Britain? These are difficult questions that must be prayerfully thought through in each situation. Godly believers differ in their conclusions. While I would agree that it is wrong to murder an abortionist, which would be overcoming evil by evil (Rom. 12:21), I must admit that if I had lived in Nazi Germany and had had an opportunity to take out Hitler, it would have been very tempting. As you know, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was arrested and subsequently hanged because he was part of a plot to assassinate Hitler. Killing Hitler would have saved the lives of millions of Jews. I realize that by the same logic it could be argued that killing an abortionist saves hundreds of babies. So I’m being a bit inconsistent. But Hitler was so horrifically evil that, as I said, it would have been tempting to kill him. Regarding revolution against the government, I agree with Sam Storms, who writes (on EnjoyingGodMinistries.com), “Armed revolution is justified … only if the state has become totally opposed to the purpose for which God ordained it, and if there is no other recourse available to prevent massive evil.” Obviously, this involves a judgment call. Some justify the American Revolution on the principle “that it is morally right for a lower government official to protect the citizens in his care from a higher official who is committing crimes against these citizens” (cited by Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible [Zondervan], p. 89, italics his). This view goes back to Calvin’s Institutes (ibid.). But in my judgment, I cannot justify the American Revolution on biblical grounds, although I am thankful for our nation and our freedoms. While King George was corrupt and repressive, I don’t think he was so bad as to justify rebellion. Again, I realize that godly thinkers disagree on this. It’s not an easy issue! But the general principle is clear and exceptions to it must be weighed very carefully: Since God has ordained government authority, we must be in subjection to it or we are in rebellion against God Himself. Romans 13:3-4: “For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” Paul is presenting the general purpose and practice of government: to protect those who do right and to punish those who do wrong. Granted, there have been many exceptions throughout history. Corrupt governments punish law-abiding citizens who speak out against the corruption and they reward scoundrels who help keep them in power. John Calvin argues (Calvin’s Commentaries [Baker], p. 480) that God uses wicked rulers as His scourge to punish the sins of the people. In other words, we get the rulers that we deserve! But when governments function as they are supposed to, they protect law-abiding citizens and punish law-breakers. To do this, the government must legislate morality. You often hear that we should not legislate morality, but that is absurd. I had an exchange in the local newspaper earlier this year with an opinion piece where the author argued that imposing “personal, moralistic beliefs” challenges our freedom by disregarding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I pointed out in my response that we impose personal, moralistic beliefs all the time. We have laws against rape, wife-beating, honor killings, stealing, assault, murder, pedophilia, and many other immoral behaviors, and rightly so. We forcefully impose these “moralistic” beliefs on all in our society, even though they go against the personal beliefs of a minority. The responses to my article were unbelievable. One man argued that “murder, rape, pedophilia, and assault are crimes, not bad morals.” Hello? Another lamented, “It is true that our laws are informed by our collective beliefs. Unfortunately, those beliefs are often derived from a jumble of ancient religious texts.” But he is hopeful, as he continues, “Fortunately, more and more people are discarding those antiquated religious beliefs in favor of a morality based on science and reason.” He goes on to state proudly that he is in favor of women being allowed to kill their babies (he calls it “pro-choice”) and that he chooses “science, reason and freedom.” What delusion! Sadly, that man used to attend this church! If God’s purpose for civil governments is to protect law-abiding citizens and punish law-breakers, then it follows that we should use civil authorities for protection and due process. Paul himself did this in Philippi, where he was unjustly beaten and imprisoned without a trial, although he was a Roman citizen. When the authorities realized their error and wanted to quietly usher him out of town, Paul wouldn’t stand for it (Acts 16:35-40). He also invoked his Roman citizenship to avoid a scouring and to appeal to Caesar rather than face a kangaroo court (Acts 22:25; 25:11). This means that if someone is physically or sexually abusing you, you should report it to the proper authorities. If your husband is physically abusive, call the police. If he is a church member, let the elders know so that we can implement church discipline. If you are being defrauded by a church member, first attempt to resolve the matter in the church (1 Cor. 6:1-8). If it can’t be resolved, you may have to take your case to secular courts. The purpose of government is to protect law-abiding people and punish evildoers. What about capital punishment? Paul mentions the government “bearing the sword.” As far back as the covenant with Noah, God ordained that if someone deliberately takes another person’s life, his life should be taken (Gen. 9:6). Under the Mosaic covenant, there were many other crimes punishable by death. But those laws applied specifically to Israel under the law. My understanding is that capital punishment is still fitting for first degree murder. It upholds the sanctity of human life to impose the penalty of life for life. But the way that our government practices capital punishment is inept. Murderers are allowed to live on death row for decades while they file appeal after appeal, often on technicalities. My view is that if a criminal is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, he should be executed immediately after his trial. Ecclesiastes 8:11 states, “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.” To argue that a criminal should not be executed because he is insane is insane. To insist that we must execute him as painlessly as possible is insane. The issue is that he ruthlessly murdered innocent people. The punishment for that crime should be quick, painful death. Anything else cheapens the lives that he slaughtered. The general principle is that since God has ordained government authority, we must be subject to it. The purpose for government is to protect law- abiding citizens and punish law-breakers. Romans 13:5: “Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.” Paul means that we should be subject to our government not only because we fear punishment if we break the law, but also because we fear God, who knows our hearts. This makes keeping the laws of our land not just a matter of outward compliance, but also of inward obedience to God. With outward compliance, you are honest on your income tax forms because you’re afraid that if you aren’t, you might get caught. With inward obedience, you are honest because you want to have a clear conscience before God, who reads your tax forms before you send them in! Romans 13:6-7: “For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.” For the third time Paul mentions that government officials are servants of God, but this time he uses a different word that is sometimes used for those who serve in the temple and also of angels (Heb. 1:7). This may hint that these officials are performing a sacred function, although that may be reading too much into the use of the word here (Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [Eerdmans], p. 804). But by saying that they are “servants of God,” Paul wants us to see the importance of submitting to them, paying taxes, and giving them proper honor. Paul uses two words for taxes. The first refers to direct taxes paid by subject nations, such as property tax and income tax. The second word refers to more indirect tax, such as sales tax and customs (Thomas Schreiner, Romans [Baker], p. 686). The point is, although we often disagree with how our government spends our tax dollars, we should pay our taxes conscientiously before the Lord. We can protest our taxes through proper channels and we can vote for those who might lower our taxes, but we aren’t free to opt out of paying our taxes. “Fear” should probably be translated “respect” here. In the context, Paul is not speaking about fearing God, but about the proper respect given to government leaders. We should confront the evil behavior of rulers. John the Baptist confronted Herod’s taking his brother’s wife (Matt. 14:4). Jesus called Herod “that fox” (Luke 13:32), which referred either to his deceptiveness or his destructiveness (Darrell Bock, Luke [Baker], 2:1247). Our current President promotes evil views on abortion and homosexuality. It is right to confront him on this. My understanding is that all civil authorities are worthy of respect because of their office. But honor is only due to those who deserve it because they are honorable in their personal integrity, morals, and in the way that they serve. Our text rests on the assumption that you are in subjection to God and want to please Him. Paul is not promoting moralism, but rather submission to the lordship of Jesus Christ. He is showing us how that submission plays out in our relationship to our government. So before you get right with the government, you’ve got to get right with God by repenting of your sins and trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Your relationship with Christ provides the basis for proper submission toward the government. https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-88-government-and-you- romans-131-7
So, Romans 13:7 does NOT mean what you say it means. Duh, it makes no difference if there was a Constitution when Paul was preaching. There is a bible today, it forms part of Christian belief today, and it says what it says. [...] Paul uses two words for taxes. The first refers to direct taxes paid by subject nations, such as property tax and income tax. The second word refers to more indirect tax, such as sales tax and customs (Thomas Schreiner, Romans [Baker], p. 686). The point is, although we often disagree with how our government spends our tax dollars, we should pay our taxes conscientiously before the Lord. We can protest our taxes through proper channels and we can vote for those who might lower our taxes, but we aren’t free to opt out of paying our taxes. I didn't say that, your "lesson" did. And that is the sacred function of collecting direct taxes, such as property tax and income tax, and more indirect taxes, such as sales tax and customs? According to the claim that I responded to, The Constitution explicitly enshrined into law the power of the Congress with to lay and collect taxes. The bible today reflects current religious views of many Christians. If someone advocates enshrining one of those views into law, such as paying taxes, is that giving aid and comfort to the enemies of our Constitution? [Authorized KJV Romans 13:7] "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." [NAS Romans 13:7] "Render to all what is due them: 'tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." [The Living Bible Romans 13:7] "Pay everyone what he ought to have: pay your taxes and import duties gladly, obey those over you, and give honor and respect to all those to whom it is due." Regardless of what version I read, it says to pay your taxes. But there is another clear biblical teaching that forms a part of Christian religious views: [NAS Leviticus 18:22] "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." [NAS Leviticus 20:10-13] "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who liie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." [NAS Matthew 19:4-5] "[5]And He answered and said, 'Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, [6] and said 'FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?" If one adheres to the religious belief that homosexual sex is an abomination, detestable, and wrong, and advocates to enshrine his religious belief into law, is that giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution? If one adheres to the religious belief that same sex marriage is against the will of God, and advocate to enshrine that religious belief into law, is that giving air and comfort to enemies of our Constitution? If so, I would note that the enemies of our Constitution prevailed for over two centuries until the Supreme Court recently discovered the right to same sex marriage. In 2015, the Court held that DOMA was unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. That would be the liberty emanation from the penumbra of the Fifth Amendment. If one sought to reverse Obergefell, would that be giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution? Atheists as well as Christians can hold the belief that homosexual sex or homosexual marriage is bad, and atheists may advocate for their obviously non-religious belief to be enshrined into law. Is Christian advocacy somehow giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution, but atheist advocacy for the same thing not a problem because have no religious beliefs?
Obviously, I did not make that clear. I will try to do better next time. I did not do a good job in my effort to simply show I could not agree with tpaine’s statement. He expects obedience to the Constitution but he does not expect obedience to the Bible.
You were clear enough. I overlooked that it had two addressees and I was second. I should have gone to bed. Sorry. Ready, fire, aim. I was pointing out the huge logic gap in the claim where a Christian and an atheist could share a belief, one for religious reasons and the other not, and only the Christian would be giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the Constitution.
I took no exceptions and we are on the same page. Thank you for your consideration ...
Utter bullshit.
He expects obedience to his own cranky personal opinions. He mistakes his own cranky personal opinions for "The Constitution". He's not alone in this - a lot of people do that: cranky ones.
The Kremlin is now less of a danger to America freedoms than either the alleged GOP or the DNC,neither of which give a damn about anything other than their personal power and the ability to sell favors.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Because he has a problem believing the findings of an agency investigation headed by Peter Strzok? And they're calling Trump treasonous? It is not often I agree with you on anything,but you nailed this one.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
HorseHillary! We have freedom FROM religion in this country as a Constitutional RIGHT. If you don't like it,move to Vatican City or join some other cult.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Rand is a step above the RINO’s who walk in fear of what the snowflake machine propagates. Yup,and I will admit to being a little surprised about it.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Neither one of them can articulate the fundamental ideological principles that made America Great to begin with.
... that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. " "I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY TO EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN" --The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom --Thomas Jefferson, 1786 https://www.google.com /search?q=truth+is+great+and+will+prevail+if+left+to+herself Are you trying to claim that came from the 2nd Amendment? Does your Gawd approve of lying?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
[NAS Leviticus 18:22] "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." [NAS Leviticus 20:10-13] "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who liie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." [NAS Matthew 19:4-5] "[5]And He answered and said, 'Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, [6] and said 'FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?" If a Christian adheres to the religious belief that homosexual sex is an abomination, detestable, and wrong, and advocates to enshrine his religious belief into law, is that giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution? If an atheist adheres to the belief that same sex marriage is against the will of God, and advocates to enshrine that belief into law, is that giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution? In 2015, the Court held that DOMA was unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. That would be the liberty emanation from the penumbra of the Fifth Amendment. If one sought to reverse Obergefell, would that be giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution? Atheists as well as Christians can hold the belief that homosexual sex or homosexual marriage is bad, and atheists may advocate for their obviously non-religious belief to be enshrined into law. Is Christian advocacy somehow giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution, but atheist advocacy for the same thing not a problem because have no religious beliefs?
No mythical creature "made America great". In FACT,many of the first settlers to America were people FLEEING from religious persecution in Europe. You have every right as an American to believe in any kind of hocus pocus/Voo Doo you want,but you do NOT have the right to make your superstitions a part of the law that governs us all.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No. That's what the 2nd Amendment protects. The Virginia Act reflects the thinking constituted in the 1st amendment.
Nonsense, the right is freedom of religion. The Constitution only states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. You could not get away from it in the Army where they had government employees in uniform acting as sky pilots. The official national motto is "In God We Trust." That is by Federal law, 70 Stat 732, PL 850. https://www.scribd.com/document/383819804/70-Stat-732-PL-850-National-Motto-In-God-We-Trust Crap inscribed on monuments, and the Declaration of Independence, may make fine statements of ideals, but they are not law and create no cognizable rights. Hodes v. Schmidt, S. Ct. KS 15-114143-A (18 Oct 2016) Response of Appellants to Brief Amici Curoae of the Constitutional Accountability Center and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Kansas
We agree about Trump.. -------------------- There was NO way that any of his words approached being treasonous. -------------------- The fact remains that those who advocate making laws respecting religious views, ---- are giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution... --- tpaine Nolu --- Atheists as well as Christians can hold the belief that homosexual sex or homosexual marriage is bad, and atheists may advocate for their obviously non-religious belief to be enshrined into law. Is Christian advocacy somehow giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution, but atheist advocacy for the same thing not a problem because have no religious beliefs? From my agnostic pov, -- trying to legislate harmless aspects of sexual morality is ,BAD, --- regardless of the beliefs of the advocates.. If harm is done, laws can be written, -- within constitutional guidelines, -- to protect those harmed by the activity...
Folks can have a "belief" that contradicts the self-evident effects of gravity as they accelerate towards the massive Earth after stepping off a cliff too. Got Due Penalties? RTFM or ESAD / FOAD!
Beliefs can be bad or stupid and not be unconstitutional or make an adherent treasonous or constitute giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution. As Justice Stewart wrote in Griswold, Since 1879 Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone. I think this is an uncommonly silly law. As a practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable, except in the oblique context of the present case. As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individual's moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that each individual's choice can be meaningfully made. But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do.
You evidence such thoughts all the time. Advocating for your religious belief in bullshit is not repugnant to the Constitution.
Rands a good shit. I’d still vote for him all day long. I don’t agree with everything he does... but he contains the right amount of conservatism and libertarianism to be politically INTELLIGENT. He’s no kook, like his dad.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
No. That's what the 2nd Amendment protects. The Second Amendment is also a part of the protection package that allows me to tell you that organized religions are cults.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Freedom OF religion is the same as Freedom FROM religion. No one can force any of us to join their religious cult in America.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
From my agnostic pov, -- trying to legislate harmless aspects of sexual morality is ,BAD, --- regardless of the beliefs of the advocates.. ----- If harm is done, laws can be written, -- within constitutional guidelines, -- to protect those harmed by the activity... ----- tpaine Nolu ---- Beliefs can be bad or stupid and not be unconstitutional or make an adherent treasonous or constitute giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution. You asked the initial question above, -- and I gave you my opinion, --- now, you're trying to make advocating for bad, unconstitutional law, --- which you admit is stupid, --- what? -- Just a difference of.political opinion? Looks to me you're giving aid and comfort to our enemies...
The First Amendment forbids laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It does not state any right to be from religion. Trinity v. Comer, S. Ct, 15-577, 582 US ___ (26 Jun 2017) Free Exercise Clause Syllabus TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC. v. COMER, DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 15–577. Argued April 19, 2017—Decided June 26, 2017 The Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center is a Missouri preschool and daycare center. Originally established as a nonprofit organization, the Center later merged with Trinity Lutheran Church and now operates under its auspices on church property. Among thefacilities at the Center is a playground, which has a coarse pea gravelsurface beneath much of the play equipment. In 2012, the Center sought to replace a large portion of the pea gravel with a pour-in-place rubber surface by participating in Missouri’s Scrap Tire Program. The program, run by the State’s Department of Natural Resources, offers reimbursement grants to qualifying nonprofit organizations that install playground surfaces made from recycled tires. The Department had a strict and express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious entity. Pursuant to that policy, the Department denied the Center’s application. In a letter rejecting that application, the Department explained that under Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution,the Department could not provide financial assistance directly to a church. The Department ultimately awarded 14 grants as part of the 2012 program. Although the Center ranked fifth out of the 44 applicants, it did not receive a grant because it is a church. Trinity Lutheran sued in Federal District Court, alleging that the Department’s failure to approve its application violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The District Court dismissed the suit. The Free Exercise Clause, the court stated, prohibits the government from outlawing or restricting the exercise of a religious practice, but it generally does not prohibit withholding an affirmative benefit on account of religion. The District Court likened the case before it to Locke v. Davey, 540 U. S. 712, where this Court upheld against a free exercise challenge a State’s decision not to fund degrees in devotional theology as part of a scholarship program. The District Court held that the Free Exercise Clause did not require the State to make funds available under the Scrap Tire Program to Trinity Lutheran. A divided panel of the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The fact that the State could award a scrap tire grant to Trinity Lutheran without running afoul of the Establishment Clause of the Federal Constitution, the court ruled, did not mean that the Free Exercise Clause compelled the State to disregard the broader antiestablishment principle reflected in its own Constitution. Held: The Department’s policy violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by denying the Church an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status. Pp. 6–15. [...] 788 F. 3d 779, reversed and remanded. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to footnote 3. KENNEDY, ALITO, and KAGAN, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined except as to footnote 3. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which THOMAS, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. At 15: The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remandedfor further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
[tpaine #11] The fact remains that those who advocate making laws respecting religious views, ---- are giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution... [nolu chan #33] [NAS Leviticus 20:10-13] "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who liie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." [NAS Matthew 19:4-5] "[5]And He answered and said, 'Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, [6] and said 'FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?" If a Christian adheres to the religious belief that homosexual sex is an abomination, detestable, and wrong, and advocates to enshrine his religious belief into law, is that giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution? If an atheist adheres to the belief that same sex marriage is against the will of God, and advocates to enshrine that belief into law, is that giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution? In 2015, the Court held that DOMA was unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. That would be the liberty emanation from the penumbra of the Fifth Amendment. If one sought to reverse Obergefell, would that be giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution? Atheists as well as Christians can hold the belief that homosexual sex or homosexual marriage is bad, and atheists may advocate for their obviously non-religious belief to be enshrined into law. Is Christian advocacy somehow giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution, but atheist advocacy for the same thing not a problem because have no religious beliefs? - - - - - - - - - - tpaine #38 to nolu chan #33 From my agnostic pov, -- trying to legislate harmless aspects of sexual morality is ,BAD, --- regardless of the beliefs of the advocates.. ----- If harm is done, laws can be written, -- within constitutional guidelines, -- to protect those harmed by the activity... ----- tpaine You asked the initial question above, -- and I gave you my opinion, --- now, you're trying to make advocating for bad, unconstitutional law, --- which you admit is stupid, --- what? -- Just a difference of.political opinion? Looks to me you're giving aid and comfort to our enemies... I accept as your representation that anyone, including yourself, who advocates for a belief that homosexual sex is wrong gives aid and comfort to the enemies of our Constitution. I accept as your representation that anyone, including yourself, who advocates for overturning Obergefell, thereby gives aid and comfort to the enemies of our Constitution. On the other hand, I support the constitutional right of anyone to advocate for the overturning (or sustaining) of Obergefell.
From my agnostic pov, -- trying to legislate harmless aspects of sexual morality is BAD practice, -- in a constitutional sense, --- regardless of the beliefs of the advocates. But hey, feel free to give aid and comfort to our enemies...
Advocating for overturning Obergefell is not advocating any form of legislation. Whether legislation is good or bad or just plain asinine or asiten is not a constitutional issue. Do feel free to claim there is a constitutional bar to advocating for the overturn of Obergefell or other court opinions. There is no constitutional bar to silly opinions.
Millions of your peers are making exactly that point, as we write, --- and the Republic suffers..
The First Amendment forbids laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It does not state any right to be from religion. Unbelievable! Nor does it state you have a right to sunshine,water,or even the oxygen to speak. You take anal to a whole new dimension. Then again,lawyers get paid to argue.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Those being: (1) Might makes right, and (2) The only good Indian is a dead Indian. That's what made American great (as in big and strong) "to begin with".
:-) I saw what you did there. LOL!
You take anal to a whole new dimension. You state good reasons not to claim a constitutional right to sunshine, water, or oxygen. But if the sun does not rise tomorrow, you can go ahead and sue whoever you think is responsible for that dastardly violation of your imaginary constitutional right to sunshine. As for anal, ain't no sunshine up there. So sue for violation of your imaginary constitutional right to have rays of sunshine coming out of your arse.
That's the problem with lawyers. Just like with little kids and hammers seeing everything in sight as a nail,lawyers see everything in sight as a lawsuit.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
#15. To: Tooconservative (#9)
#16. To: Justified (#14)
Trump vying for best president ever!
#17. To: nolu chan (#13)
Romans 13:7 “Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, -----
#18. To: GrandIsland, justified, Y'ALL! (#16)
Justified (#14) ---- Trump vying for best president ever!
#19. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#17)
(Edited)
Romans 13:7 “Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, -----
Imagine that you are a Christian farmer, living peacefully in colonial America, when word comes that a bunch of politicians in Philadelphia have declared independence from Great Britain. You are aware of what Paul teaches in Romans 13 about being in submission to the governing authorities. What should you do? Which side should you take? What if General Washington later conscripts you to join his revolutionary army? 1. The general principle: Since God has ordained government authority, we must be subject to it (13:1-2).
2. The purpose for government is to protect law-abiding citizens and punish law-breakers (13:3-4).
3. We should be subject to government not only because it is for our good, but also because it is right (13:5).
4. Paying taxes and giving proper respect to government officials is part of submission (13:6-7).
Conclusion
#20. To: Gatlin (#19)
Duh! There was no Constituion when Paul was preaching in Romans 13.
Because God has ordained government authority for our good, we must be subject to our government.
This may hint that these officials are performing a sacred function
The fact remains that those who advocate making laws respecting religious views, ---- are giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution...
#21. To: nolu chan (#20)
(Edited)
I apologize for not making myself clear. The comment was meant for tpaine. If you check now, you will find I deleted the reference to the constitution so my post would not be confused with your statement and be directed to tpaine’s statement.
#22. To: Gatlin (#21)
I apologize for not making myself clear. The comment was meant for tpaine.
#23. To: nolu chan (#22)
I read your last post twice.
#24. To: tpaine (#11)
The fact remains that those who advocate making laws respecting religious views, ---- are giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution...
#25. To: Gatlin (#21)
He expects obedience to the Constitution but he does not expect
#26. To: Willie Green (#0)
Donald Trump was condemned as “treasonous” for siding with the Kremlin
#27. To: misterwhite (#6)
Donald Trump was condemned as “treasonous”
#28. To: hondo68 (#12)
Russia & the USA are Christian nations, get used to it or move to Somalia.
#29. To: GrandIsland (#15)
Rand was one of the few (R)’s that didn’t cave to libtard pressure and criticize Trumps meeting.
#30. To: sneakypete (#28)
(Edited)
We have freedom FROM religion in this country as a Constitutional RIGHT.
"...who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men , have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786
#31. To: Pinguinite (#1)
Trump and Putin would hit it off pretty well.
#32. To: VxH (#30)
"...who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men , have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;
#33. To: tpaine (#17)
#34. To: VxH (#31)
#35. To: sneakypete (#32)
(Edited)
Are you trying to claim that came from the 2nd Amendment?
#36. To: sneakypete (#28)
We have freedom FROM religion in this country as a Constitutional RIGHT.
Courts across the country have recognized that “[t]he Declaration of Independence is a statement of ideals, not law.” Schifanelli v. U.S. Gov’t, 1988 WL 138496, at *1 (4th Cir. Dec. 22, 1988). See also Swepi, LP v. Mora Cty., N.M., 81 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1172 (D.N.M. 2015) (same); Minyard v. Walsh, 2014 WL 1029835, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (“Claim 4’s assertion of a violation of Plaintiff’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not cognizable. Those principles, described in the Declaration of Independence, do not guarantee enforceable rights.”); Black v. Simpson, 2008 WL 544458, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 27, 2008) (“There is no private right of action to enforce the Declaration of Independence.”); Borzych v. Frank, 2006 WL 3254497, at *8 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 9, 2006) (“the Declaration of Independence is not binding law”); Coffey v. United States, 939 F. Supp. 185, 191 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (“While the Declaration of Independence states that all men are endowed certain unalienable rights including ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,’ it does not grant rights that may be pursued through the judicial system.”). See also Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407 (1856) (describing the Declaration’s description of unalienable rights as merely “general words used in that memorable instrument” and holding that the Declaration did not have a legally binding effect).
#37. To: nolu chan (#33)
Vicomte13 (#5) ----- There's that word "treasonous" again. ---- I thought Trump did great. THIS was what I elected him to do, ----
#38. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#33)
Atheists as well as Christians can hold the belief that homosexual sex or homosexual marriage is bad
#39. To: tpaine (#37)
From my agnostic pov, -- trying to legislate harmless aspects of sexual morality is ,BAD, --- regardless of the beliefs of the advocates..
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK joins, dissenting.
#40. To: VxH (#38)
Folks can have a "belief" that contradicts the self-evident effects of gravity as they accelerate towards the massive Earth after stepping off a cliff too.
#41. To: sneakypete (#29)
Yup,and I will admit to being a little surprised about it.
#42. To: VxH (#35)
Are you trying to claim that came from the 2nd Amendment?
#43. To: nolu chan (#36)
Nonsense, the right is freedom of religion.
#44. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#39)
Nolu --- Atheists as well as Christians can hold the belief that homosexual sex or homosexual marriage is bad, and atheists may advocate for their obviously non-religious belief to be enshrined into law. Is Christian advocacy somehow giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution, but atheist advocacy for the same thing not a problem because have no religious beliefs?
#45. To: sneakypete (#43)
Freedom OF religion is the same as Freedom FROM religion. No one can force any of us to join their religious cult in America.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has not subjected anyone to chains or torture on account of religion. And the result of the State’s policy is nothing sodramatic as the denial of political office. The consequenceis, in all likelihood, a few extra scraped knees. But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.
#46. To: tpaine (#44)
[NAS Leviticus 18:22] "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Nolu --- Atheists as well as Christians can hold the belief that homosexual sex or homosexual marriage is bad, and atheists may advocate for their obviously non-religious belief to be enshrined into law. Is Christian advocacy somehow giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution, but atheist advocacy for the same thing not a problem because have no religious beliefs?
Nolu ---- Beliefs can be bad or stupid and not be unconstitutional or make an adherent treasonous or constitute giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution.
#47. To: nolu chan (#46)
I support the constitutional right of anyone to advocate for the overturning (or sustaining) of Obergefell.
#48. To: tpaine (#47)
trying to legislate harmless aspects of sexual morality is BAD practice, -- in a constitutional sense, --- regardless of the beliefs of the advocates.
But hey, feel free to give aid and comfort to our enemies...
#49. To: nolu chan (#48)
There is no constitutional bar to silly opinions.
#50. To: nolu chan (#45)
Freedom OF religion is the same as Freedom FROM religion. No one can force any of us to join their religious cult in America.
#51. To: VxH (#31)
Neither one of them can articulate the fundamental ideological principles that made America Great to begin with.
#52. To: nolu chan (#48)
(Edited)
just plain asinine or asiten
#53. To: sneakypete (#50)
Nor does it state you have a right to sunshine,water,or even the oxygen to speak.
#54. To: nolu chan (#53)
But if the sun does not rise tomorrow, you can go ahead and sue whoever you think is responsible for that dastardly violation of your imaginary constitutional right to sunshine.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]