Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He defends the freedom of ALL religions, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Radical terrorists are followers of a small and deeply disturbed cult of Islam. Not all Muslims follow their creed, the majority don't. I think Obama might be overly worried that we can't figure that out for ourselves, but from what some people post here, maybe he's right.
Spoken like a true brain-dead Liberal1
Gold star on the way.
Now...for the facts:
"Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem. The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year. If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today. That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad."
Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
OK....you may now bury your head back in the sand.
And 57% of Republicans want to be governed by Christian laws. There are a lot of dumf***s in the world. Get over it.
What are "Christian laws"???
You mean the Bible.?
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You must be a product of government school, huh?
Every person with a functional brain knows that the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort.
He defends the freedom of ALL religions, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Radical terrorists are followers of a small and deeply disturbed cult of Islam. Not all Muslims follow their creed, the majority don't. I think Obama might be overly worried that we can't figure that out for ourselves, but from what some people post here, maybe he's right.
Spoken like a true brain-dead Liberal1
Gold star on the way.
Now...for the facts:
"Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem. The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year. If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today. That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad."
Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
OK....you may now bury your head back in the sand.
And 57% of Republicans want to be governed by Christian laws. There are a lot of dumf***s in the world. Get over it.
What are "Christian laws"???
You mean the Bible.?
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You must be a product of government school, huh?
Every person with a functional brain knows that the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort.
He defends the freedom of ALL religions, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Radical terrorists are followers of a small and deeply disturbed cult of Islam. Not all Muslims follow their creed, the majority don't. I think Obama might be overly worried that we can't figure that out for ourselves, but from what some people post here, maybe he's right.
Spoken like a true brain-dead Liberal1
Gold star on the way.
Now...for the facts:
"Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem. The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year. If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today. That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad."
Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
OK....you may now bury your head back in the sand.
And 57% of Republicans want to be governed by Christian laws. There are a lot of dumf***s in the world. Get over it.
What are "Christian laws"???
You mean the Bible.?
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You must be a product of government school, huh?
Every person with a functional brain knows that the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort.He defends the freedom of ALL religions, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Radical terrorists are followers of a small and deeply disturbed cult of Islam. Not all Muslims follow their creed, the majority don't. I think Obama might be overly worried that we can't figure that out for ourselves, but from what some people post here, maybe he's right.
Spoken like a true brain-dead Liberal1
Gold star on the way.
Now...for the facts:
"Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem. The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year. If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today. That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad."
Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
OK....you may now bury your head back in the sand.
And 57% of Republicans want to be governed by Christian laws. There are a lot of dumf***s in the world. Get over it.
What are "Christian laws"???
You mean the Bible.?
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You must be a product of government school, huh?
Every person with a functional brain knows that the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort.
This is what I wrote:
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You proved you are a fool by writing
'the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion'
Pleeeeeeeeezzzzze challenge me to prove it.
Spoken like a true brain-dead Liberal1
Gold star on the way.
Now...for the facts:
"Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem. The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year. If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today. That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad."
Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
OK....you may now bury your head back in the sand.
And 57% of Republicans want to be governed by Christian laws. There are a lot of dumf***s in the world. Get over it.
What are "Christian laws"???
You mean the Bible.?
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You must be a product of government school, huh?
Every person with a functional brain knows that the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort.Spoken like a true brain-dead Liberal1
Gold star on the way.
Now...for the facts:
"Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem. The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year. If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today. That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad."
Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
OK....you may now bury your head back in the sand.
And 57% of Republicans want to be governed by Christian laws. There are a lot of dumf***s in the world. Get over it.
What are "Christian laws"???
You mean the Bible.?
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You must be a product of government school, huh?
Every person with a functional brain knows that the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort.
This is what I wrote:
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You proved you are a fool by writing
'the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion'
Pleeeeeeeeezzzzze challenge me to prove it.
You do realize that cut and pasting some bullshit from David Barton or Ann Coulter does not constitute proof, right.
Like I said, every person who has a functional brain. That automatically excludes every person who has ever believed anything that Ann Coulter or David Barton has ever said.
“Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women.
And 57% of Republicans want to be governed by Christian laws. There are a lot of dumf***s in the world. Get over it.
What are "Christian laws"???
You mean the Bible.?
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You must be a product of government school, huh?
Every person with a functional brain knows that the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort.And 57% of Republicans want to be governed by Christian laws. There are a lot of dumf***s in the world. Get over it.
What are "Christian laws"???
You mean the Bible.?
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You must be a product of government school, huh?
Every person with a functional brain knows that the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort.
This is what I wrote:
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You proved you are a fool by writing
'the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion'
Pleeeeeeeeezzzzze challenge me to prove it.
You do realize that cut and pasting some bullshit from David Barton or Ann Coulter does not constitute proof, right.
Like I said, every person who has a functional brain. That automatically excludes every person who has ever believed anything that Ann Coulter or David Barton has ever said.
1. Only a fool....(read 'Liberal') attempts to dispute a fact by pointing to the source ("Ann Coulter or David Barton") because they are unable to deny the truth of a statement.
You, of course, are a case in point.
2. It is my pleasure to prove what imbeciles you Liberals are......but you make it soooooo simple that it takes a lot of the fun out of it.
3. Now....to prove exactly what I posted:
a. "The most quoted source was the Bible.
Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches.
In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18
Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died."
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
b. "This question was asked by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.
The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.
The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.
Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.
So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”
This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.
Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders."
Sources:
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review
You must feel like an absolute moron, huh?
Wish I could feel sorry for you.
Wanna try to dispute any of this post?
Any?????
What are "Christian laws"???
You mean the Bible.?
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You must be a product of government school, huh?
Every person with a functional brain knows that the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort.What are "Christian laws"???
You mean the Bible.?
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You must be a product of government school, huh?
Every person with a functional brain knows that the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort.
This is what I wrote:
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You proved you are a fool by writing
'the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion'
Pleeeeeeeeezzzzze challenge me to prove it.
You do realize that cut and pasting some bullshit from David Barton or Ann Coulter does not constitute proof, right.
Like I said, every person who has a functional brain. That automatically excludes every person who has ever believed anything that Ann Coulter or David Barton has ever said.
1. Only a fool....(read 'Liberal') attempts to dispute a fact by pointing to the source ("Ann Coulter or David Barton") because they are unable to deny the truth of a statement.
You, of course, are a case in point.
2. It is my pleasure to prove what imbeciles you Liberals are......but you make it soooooo simple that it takes a lot of the fun out of it.
3. Now....to prove exactly what I posted:
a. "The most quoted source was the Bible.
Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches.
In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18
Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died."
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
b. "This question was asked by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.
The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.
The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.
Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.
So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”
This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.
Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders."
Sources:
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review
You must feel like an absolute moron, huh?
Wish I could feel sorry for you.
Wanna try to dispute any of this post?
Any?????
Yes. The whole post. There is no KING in our government. There is no tax exemption from churches in the constitution. There was never a republican form of government mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
If you were intelligent enough to read the Federalist Papers, you would see that Lycurgus of Sparta is mentioned, but characters from the Bible are not. There's a reason for that! The federalist papers drew upon examples of republics.
Every person with a functional brain knows that the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort.Every person with a functional brain knows that the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort.
This is what I wrote:
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You proved you are a fool by writing
'the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion'
Pleeeeeeeeezzzzze challenge me to prove it.
You do realize that cut and pasting some bullshit from David Barton or Ann Coulter does not constitute proof, right.
Like I said, every person who has a functional brain. That automatically excludes every person who has ever believed anything that Ann Coulter or David Barton has ever said.
1. Only a fool....(read 'Liberal') attempts to dispute a fact by pointing to the source ("Ann Coulter or David Barton") because they are unable to deny the truth of a statement.
You, of course, are a case in point.
2. It is my pleasure to prove what imbeciles you Liberals are......but you make it soooooo simple that it takes a lot of the fun out of it.
3. Now....to prove exactly what I posted:
a. "The most quoted source was the Bible.
Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches.
In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18
Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died."
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
b. "This question was asked by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.
The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.
The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.
Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.
So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”
This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.
Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders."
Sources:
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review
You must feel like an absolute moron, huh?
Wish I could feel sorry for you.
Wanna try to dispute any of this post?
Any?????
Yes. The whole post. There is no KING in our government. There is no tax exemption from churches in the constitution. There was never a republican form of government mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
If you were intelligent enough to read the Federalist Papers, you would see that Lycurgus of Sparta is mentioned, but characters from the Bible are not. There's a reason for that! The federalist papers drew upon examples of republics.
1. "the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort."
Why didn't you quote any such thing?
There is even an explicit mention of Jesus Christ in the Constitution.
Try reading it.
2. Let's plumb the depth of your knowledge of the Constitution....
"There is no tax exemption from churches in the constitution. "
Really?
Have you ever heard of the first amendment?
"Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it." Why don't churches pay taxes?
This is what I wrote:
Didn't you know that our Constitution, the 'law of the land,' is based on the Bible?
You proved you are a fool by writing
'the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion'
Pleeeeeeeeezzzzze challenge me to prove it.
You do realize that cut and pasting some bullshit from David Barton or Ann Coulter does not constitute proof, right.
Like I said, every person who has a functional brain. That automatically excludes every person who has ever believed anything that Ann Coulter or David Barton has ever said.
1. Only a fool....(read 'Liberal') attempts to dispute a fact by pointing to the source ("Ann Coulter or David Barton") because they are unable to deny the truth of a statement.
You, of course, are a case in point.
2. It is my pleasure to prove what imbeciles you Liberals are......but you make it soooooo simple that it takes a lot of the fun out of it.
3. Now....to prove exactly what I posted:
a. "The most quoted source was the Bible.
Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches.
In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18
Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died."
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
b. "This question was asked by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.
The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.
The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.
Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.
So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”
This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.
Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders."
Sources:
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review
You must feel like an absolute moron, huh?
Wish I could feel sorry for you.
Wanna try to dispute any of this post?
Any?????
Yes. The whole post. There is no KING in our government. There is no tax exemption from churches in the constitution. There was never a republican form of government mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
If you were intelligent enough to read the Federalist Papers, you would see that Lycurgus of Sparta is mentioned, but characters from the Bible are not. There's a reason for that! The federalist papers drew upon examples of republics.
1. "the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort."
Why didn't you quote any such thing?
There is even an explicit mention of Jesus Christ in the Constitution.
Try reading it.
2. Let's plumb the depth of your knowledge of the Constitution....
"There is no tax exemption from churches in the constitution. "
Really?
Have you ever heard of the first amendment?
"Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it." Why don't churches pay taxes?
Nope. No mention of not taxing churches in there. Why would there be?
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history... in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."
-- James Madison; from 'Detached Memoranda'
"When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Richard Price (October 9, 1780)
I agree with that last sentence. That perfectly aligns with the Democrat party's belief that the Government's role is to be the wiser and more mature parent to the populace (children) who aren't capable of making informed decisions on their own. I don't know why mature intelligent adults would prefer to be governed in such a way.He defends the freedom of ALL religions, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Radical terrorists are followers of a small and deeply disturbed cult of Islam. Not all Muslims follow their creed, the majority don't. I think Obama might be overly worried that we can't figure that out for ourselves, but from what some people post here, maybe he's right.
I agree with that last sentence. That perfectly aligns with the Democrat party's belief that the Government's role is to be the wiser and more mature parent to the populace (children) who aren't capable of making informed decisions on their own. I don't know why mature intelligent adults would prefer to be governed in such a way.He defends the freedom of ALL religions, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Radical terrorists are followers of a small and deeply disturbed cult of Islam. Not all Muslims follow their creed, the majority don't. I think Obama might be overly worried that we can't figure that out for ourselves, but from what some people post here, maybe he's right.
You do realize that cut and pasting some bullshit from David Barton or Ann Coulter does not constitute proof, right.
Like I said, every person who has a functional brain. That automatically excludes every person who has ever believed anything that Ann Coulter or David Barton has ever said.
1. Only a fool....(read 'Liberal') attempts to dispute a fact by pointing to the source ("Ann Coulter or David Barton") because they are unable to deny the truth of a statement.
You, of course, are a case in point.
2. It is my pleasure to prove what imbeciles you Liberals are......but you make it soooooo simple that it takes a lot of the fun out of it.
3. Now....to prove exactly what I posted:
a. "The most quoted source was the Bible.
Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches.
In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18
Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died."
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
b. "This question was asked by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.
The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.
The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.
Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.
So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”
This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.
Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders."
Sources:
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review
You must feel like an absolute moron, huh?
Wish I could feel sorry for you.
Wanna try to dispute any of this post?
Any?????
Yes. The whole post. There is no KING in our government. There is no tax exemption from churches in the constitution. There was never a republican form of government mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
If you were intelligent enough to read the Federalist Papers, you would see that Lycurgus of Sparta is mentioned, but characters from the Bible are not. There's a reason for that! The federalist papers drew upon examples of republics.
1. "the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, other than it's explicit bans on theocracy of any sort."
Why didn't you quote any such thing?
There is even an explicit mention of Jesus Christ in the Constitution.
Try reading it.
2. Let's plumb the depth of your knowledge of the Constitution....
"There is no tax exemption from churches in the constitution. "
Really?
Have you ever heard of the first amendment?
"Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it." Why don't churches pay taxes?
Nope. No mention of not taxing churches in there. Why would there be?
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history... in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."
-- James Madison; from 'Detached Memoranda'
"When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Richard Price (October 9, 1780)
For context, you should explain to all that, as a totalitarian, you are required to hate religion.
That explains your pretend-ignorance of the provenance of the Constitution and of America.
The Democratic political platform BELIEFS in the right to health care, right to marriage, and right to impose LGBT beliefs on others by law.So.....when one researches 'the number of religions,' this is the sort of thing one finds.....
"According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world. The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system", but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect."
List of religions and spiritual traditions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of lists of lists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediareligions_and_spiritual_traditions
Wikipedia
Now.....name all of the religions that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced.
I told you it would be the shortest thread.
I think it's the other way PoliticalChic They have Mommy issues and don't trust churches and charities to take care of community and social programs by voluntary efforts and donations.I agree with that last sentence. That perfectly aligns with the Democrat party's belief that the Government's role is to be the wiser and more mature parent to the populace (children) who aren't capable of making informed decisions on their own. I don't know why mature intelligent adults would prefer to be governed in such a way.He defends the freedom of ALL religions, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Radical terrorists are followers of a small and deeply disturbed cult of Islam. Not all Muslims follow their creed, the majority don't. I think Obama might be overly worried that we can't figure that out for ourselves, but from what some people post here, maybe he's right.
What?????
Are you suggesting that Democrat voters are whiny little simpering, puerile, crybabies needing big daddy government to tell them how to think and how to live????????
How....
....how....
.....how correct of you.
The Democratic political platform BELIEFS in the right to health care, right to marriage, and right to impose LGBT beliefs on others by law.So.....when one researches 'the number of religions,' this is the sort of thing one finds.....
"According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world. The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system", but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect."
List of religions and spiritual traditions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of lists of lists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediareligions_and_spiritual_traditions
Wikipedia
Now.....name all of the religions that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced.
I told you it would be the shortest thread.
Apparently this includes the BELIEF that these beliefs are truth, are not optional or free choice, but ppl who "believe otherwise" are mistaken and deserve to lose rights without duce process. Same with gun laws and rights.
I think it's the other way PoliticalChic They have Mommy issues and don't trust churches and charities to take care of community and social programs by voluntary efforts and donations.I agree with that last sentence. That perfectly aligns with the Democrat party's belief that the Government's role is to be the wiser and more mature parent to the populace (children) who aren't capable of making informed decisions on their own. I don't know why mature intelligent adults would prefer to be governed in such a way.He defends the freedom of ALL religions, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Radical terrorists are followers of a small and deeply disturbed cult of Islam. Not all Muslims follow their creed, the majority don't. I think Obama might be overly worried that we can't figure that out for ourselves, but from what some people post here, maybe he's right.
What?????
Are you suggesting that Democrat voters are whiny little simpering, puerile, crybabies needing big daddy government to tell them how to think and how to live????????
How....
....how....
.....how correct of you.
So they turn to govt. to act as a substitute mommy for all their hurts, fears and needs. Let mommy kiss that boo boo and make it all better. Come to mommy!
The religious right have their church authority to turn to. And the secular left used political govt for that. However they forget that govt is public and should represent all taxpayers paying in.
Since people orgainze parties around shared beIiefs, we'd be smarter to use the political parties themselves to mandate policies their members vote on and agree to pay for, similar to religious organizations, instead of abusing govt for that. Why should political beliefs be treated preferentially over religious beliefs . If one is kept out of govt, so should the other type of beliefs or else have a consensus to ensure ppl of all views are included and represented by free choice and consent, not coercion where beliefs are involved that govt should not be abused to penalize while favoring other beliefs.
Do you NOT GET that the right to health care is a BELIEF.The Democratic political platform BELIEFS in the right to health care, right to marriage, and right to impose LGBT beliefs on others by law.So.....when one researches 'the number of religions,' this is the sort of thing one finds.....
"According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world. The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system", but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect."
List of religions and spiritual traditions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of lists of lists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediareligions_and_spiritual_traditions
Wikipedia
Now.....name all of the religions that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced.
I told you it would be the shortest thread.
Apparently this includes the BELIEF that these beliefs are truth, are not optional or free choice, but ppl who "believe otherwise" are mistaken and deserve to lose rights without duce process. Same with gun laws and rights.
What the heck are you talking about???
Your post has nothing...not a thing....to do with the post you linked it to.
Let me make it simple for you....and assure you that no response is necessary:
Question:
Now.....name all of the religions that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced.
Answer: There is only one- Islam.
It goes to pieces and gives rise to Hitlers or other leaders like Putin, who can bully their way to the top then tell everyone else what to do by dictating as head of their own religion through govt. You hope and pray you get the govt you want and not the kick in the pants you deserve. Pick your poison, whatever you wish on others tends to come back around and bite you later.I think it's the other way PoliticalChic They have Mommy issues and don't trust churches and charities to take care of community and social programs by voluntary efforts and donations.I agree with that last sentence. That perfectly aligns with the Democrat party's belief that the Government's role is to be the wiser and more mature parent to the populace (children) who aren't capable of making informed decisions on their own. I don't know why mature intelligent adults would prefer to be governed in such a way.He defends the freedom of ALL religions, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Radical terrorists are followers of a small and deeply disturbed cult of Islam. Not all Muslims follow their creed, the majority don't. I think Obama might be overly worried that we can't figure that out for ourselves, but from what some people post here, maybe he's right.
What?????
Are you suggesting that Democrat voters are whiny little simpering, puerile, crybabies needing big daddy government to tell them how to think and how to live????????
How....
....how....
.....how correct of you.
So they turn to govt. to act as a substitute mommy for all their hurts, fears and needs. Let mommy kiss that boo boo and make it all better. Come to mommy!
The religious right have their church authority to turn to. And the secular left used political govt for that. However they forget that govt is public and should represent all taxpayers paying in.
Since people orgainze parties around shared beIiefs, we'd be smarter to use the political parties themselves to mandate policies their members vote on and agree to pay for, similar to religious organizations, instead of abusing govt for that. Why should political beliefs be treated preferentially over religious beliefs . If one is kept out of govt, so should the other type of beliefs or else have a consensus to ensure ppl of all views are included and represented by free choice and consent, not coercion where beliefs are involved that govt should not be abused to penalize while favoring other beliefs.
"I think it's the other way PoliticalChic They have Mommy issues and don't trust churches and charities to take care of community and social programs by voluntary efforts and donations.
So they turn to govt. to act as a substitute mommy for all their hurts, fears and needs. Let mommy kiss that boo boo and make it all better. Come to mommy!"
How'd that work out in the Soviet Union?
It goes to pieces and gives rise to Hitlers or other leaders like Putin, who can bully their way to the top then tell everyone else what to do by dictating as head of their own religion through govt. You hope and pray you get the govt you want and not the kick in the pants you deserve. Pick your poison, whatever you wish on others tends to come back around and bite you later.I think it's the other way PoliticalChic They have Mommy issues and don't trust churches and charities to take care of community and social programs by voluntary efforts and donations.I agree with that last sentence. That perfectly aligns with the Democrat party's belief that the Government's role is to be the wiser and more mature parent to the populace (children) who aren't capable of making informed decisions on their own. I don't know why mature intelligent adults would prefer to be governed in such a way.He defends the freedom of ALL religions, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Radical terrorists are followers of a small and deeply disturbed cult of Islam. Not all Muslims follow their creed, the majority don't. I think Obama might be overly worried that we can't figure that out for ourselves, but from what some people post here, maybe he's right.
What?????
Are you suggesting that Democrat voters are whiny little simpering, puerile, crybabies needing big daddy government to tell them how to think and how to live????????
How....
....how....
.....how correct of you.
So they turn to govt. to act as a substitute mommy for all their hurts, fears and needs. Let mommy kiss that boo boo and make it all better. Come to mommy!
The religious right have their church authority to turn to. And the secular left used political govt for that. However they forget that govt is public and should represent all taxpayers paying in.
Since people orgainze parties around shared beIiefs, we'd be smarter to use the political parties themselves to mandate policies their members vote on and agree to pay for, similar to religious organizations, instead of abusing govt for that. Why should political beliefs be treated preferentially over religious beliefs . If one is kept out of govt, so should the other type of beliefs or else have a consensus to ensure ppl of all views are included and represented by free choice and consent, not coercion where beliefs are involved that govt should not be abused to penalize while favoring other beliefs.
"I think it's the other way PoliticalChic They have Mommy issues and don't trust churches and charities to take care of community and social programs by voluntary efforts and donations.
So they turn to govt. to act as a substitute mommy for all their hurts, fears and needs. Let mommy kiss that boo boo and make it all better. Come to mommy!"
How'd that work out in the Soviet Union?
It goes to pieces and gives rise to Hitlers or other leaders like Putin, who can bully their way to the top then tell everyone else what to do by dictating as head of their own religion through govt. You hope and pray you get the govt you want and not the kick in the pants you deserve. Pick your poison, whatever you wish on others tends to come back around and bite you later.I think it's the other way PoliticalChic They have Mommy issues and don't trust churches and charities to take care of community and social programs by voluntary efforts and donations.I agree with that last sentence. That perfectly aligns with the Democrat party's belief that the Government's role is to be the wiser and more mature parent to the populace (children) who aren't capable of making informed decisions on their own. I don't know why mature intelligent adults would prefer to be governed in such a way.
What?????
Are you suggesting that Democrat voters are whiny little simpering, puerile, crybabies needing big daddy government to tell them how to think and how to live????????
How....
....how....
.....how correct of you.
So they turn to govt. to act as a substitute mommy for all their hurts, fears and needs. Let mommy kiss that boo boo and make it all better. Come to mommy!
The religious right have their church authority to turn to. And the secular left used political govt for that. However they forget that govt is public and should represent all taxpayers paying in.
Since people orgainze parties around shared beIiefs, we'd be smarter to use the political parties themselves to mandate policies their members vote on and agree to pay for, similar to religious organizations, instead of abusing govt for that. Why should political beliefs be treated preferentially over religious beliefs . If one is kept out of govt, so should the other type of beliefs or else have a consensus to ensure ppl of all views are included and represented by free choice and consent, not coercion where beliefs are involved that govt should not be abused to penalize while favoring other beliefs.
"I think it's the other way PoliticalChic They have Mommy issues and don't trust churches and charities to take care of community and social programs by voluntary efforts and donations.
So they turn to govt. to act as a substitute mommy for all their hurts, fears and needs. Let mommy kiss that boo boo and make it all better. Come to mommy!"
How'd that work out in the Soviet Union?
"You hope and pray you get the govt you want and not the kick in the pants you deserve. Pick your poison, whatever you wish on others tends to come back around and bite you later."
WHAT????
This is what I want:
Individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
You have a beef with that????
