Tizzy over religious test clause (and laws in 7-8 states against atheists holding public office)

[emilynghiem]

A friend of mine is in a tizzy about atheists being banned by law in seven states from holding public office.

I looked it up and also looked up religious test for office.

===============
No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia

Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God". In some cases, these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required also of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. In the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education and linking this to Torcaso v. Watkins Justice Hugo Black stated for the Court:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

The Supreme Court however did not rule on the applicability of Article VI, stating that "Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices."

In the 1997 case of Silverman v. Campbell[5] the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector violated Article VI of the federal constitution, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore could not be enforced.[6] The other seven states still have similar provisions in their constitutions, but they are not enforced in modern times because it is taken for granted they would be held to be unconstitutional if challenged.
=============================================

Basically because the Constitution already guarantees that no religious test will be required for federal office (and subsequent laws and interpretations expanded civil rights and protections to states and to public institutions) it is ASSUMED that nobody will enforce the state laws (still on the books) because these would not survive court challenges that would clearly find such discrimination to be unconstitutional.

Should states go through the process to amend or remove these laws if they are unconstitutional?

My friend is championing this issue as PROOF that atheists are discriminated against.
And "no other group" not even "Christians" are barred by any similar law by their label.

I said no that Christians may not be banned by name, but INDIRECTLY with the laws on abortion and now forcing people to recognizing LGBT practices against their beliefs, there is discrimination against Christians in practice, even if it isn't written literally into the laws. Where they are threatened with penalties by govt if they don't comply with laws that force them to violate their beliefs. This does happen even if not by name, but in PRACTICE.

Aren't Christians persecuted and discriminated for their beliefs, and not just atheists?
If you are going to say that's okay, why suddenly get so upset when atheists get their share of bashing for their beliefs. If you are going to say NOBODY should suffer discrimination,
then why push policies that penalize Christians for not believing in gay marriage for example?

I don't agree with this "victimization" mentality of one group claiming more suffering and persecution than another. If it's wrong for your group, then don't tolerate it for ANY group.

I find it hypocritical to only complain when it's YOUR beliefs being infringed upon,
but then preach and celebrate bashing another group when it's their turn to be the target?
NO.

All beliefs should be respected, and none imposed or treated with bias by govt.
If it's wrong when done to you, THEN DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE. LIKE DUH!!!!

 

[Lumpy 1]

Well, you pretty well covered the topic to my liking.

The rise of the, "I'm a victim and deserve special rights" mentality is sure a waste of time, needless effort and taxpayers money mostly ... bottom line.

 

[Pogo]

A friend of mine is in a tizzy about atheists being banned by law in seven states from holding public office.

I looked it up and also looked up religious test for office.

===============
No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia

Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God". In some cases, these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required also of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. In the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education and linking this to Torcaso v. Watkins Justice Hugo Black stated for the Court:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

The Supreme Court however did not rule on the applicability of Article VI, stating that "Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices."

In the 1997 case of Silverman v. Campbell[5] the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector violated Article VI of the federal constitution, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore could not be enforced.[6] The other seven states still have similar provisions in their constitutions, but they are not enforced in modern times because it is taken for granted they would be held to be unconstitutional if challenged.
=============================================

Basically because the Constitution already guarantees that no religious test will be required for federal office (and subsequent laws and interpretations expanded civil rights and protections to states and to public institutions) it is ASSUMED that nobody will enforce the state laws (still on the books) because these would not survive court challenges that would clearly find such discrimination to be unconstitutional.

Should states go through the process to amend or remove these laws if they are unconstitutional?

My friend is championing this issue as PROOF that atheists are discriminated against.
And "no other group" not even "Christians" are barred by any similar law by their label.

I said no that Christians may not be banned by name, but INDIRECTLY with the laws on abortion and now forcing people to recognizing LGBT practices against their beliefs, there is discrimination against Christians in practice, even if it isn't written literally into the laws. Where they are threatened with penalties by govt if they don't comply with laws that force them to violate their beliefs. This does happen even if not by name, but in PRACTICE.

Aren't Christians persecuted and discriminated for their beliefs, and not just atheists?
If you are going to say that's okay, why suddenly get so upset when atheists get their share of bashing for their beliefs. If you are going to say NOBODY should suffer discrimination,
then why push policies that penalize Christians for not believing in gay marriage for example?

I don't agree with this "victimization" mentality of one group claiming more suffering and persecution than another. If it's wrong for your group, then don't tolerate it for ANY group.

I find it hypocritical to only complain when it's YOUR beliefs being infringed upon,
but then preach and celebrate bashing another group when it's their turn to be the target?
NO.

All beliefs should be respected, and none imposed or treated with bias by govt.
If it's wrong when done to you, THEN DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE. LIKE DUH!!!!

An individual belief about -- whatever -- is not a "religion" though. One may believe in abstaining from meat, or in wearing white after Labor Day, or in recycling; none of those are religions.

How exactly, to pick one from above, are Christians --- or anyone -- "penalized for not believing in gay marriage"?

 

[Pogo]

Check the year on this law --- it's not a year the law was "still hanging around" but the year the law was enacted:

>> Pennsylvania enacted a law against blasphemy in 1977. In the fall of 2007, George Kalman sent the completed forms for incorporating a company to the Pennsylvania Department of State. Kalman wanted to incorporate a movie-production company which he called I Choose Hell Productions, LLC. A week later, Kalman received a notice from the Pennsylvania Department of State which informed him that his forms could not be accepted because a business name “may not contain words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name.” In February 2009, Kalman filed suit to have the provision against blasphemy struck down as unconstitutional.[1] On June 30, 2010, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Bayslon of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a 68-page Opinion, ruled in favor of Kalman, finding that the Pennsylvania's blasphemy statute violated both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. << -- Wiki: Blasphemy Laws in the US

 

[Pogo]

Then there's this....

>> On February 3, 1863, eleven Protestant denominations (including United Presbyterians and the Methodist Episcopalian General Conference) organized the National Reform Association. Their aim was to "reform" the Constitution and one of its principle purposes was to amend that document to "indicate that this is a Christian nation." The association formally petitioned Congress to amend the preamble of the Constitution so as to read:

We, the people of the United States, HUMBLY ACKNOWLEDGING ALMIGHTY GOD AS THE SOURCE OF ALL AUTHORITY AND POWER IN CIVIL GOVERNMENT, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS THE RULER AMONG THE NATIONS, HIS REVEALED WILL AS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE A CHRISTIAN GOVERNMENT, AND in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS and the blessings of LIFE, liberty, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS to ourselves, our posterity, AND ALL THE PEOPLE, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

--- More history on the imprinting of "In God We Trust" on coinage in the narrative at the link here.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well, you pretty well covered the topic to my liking.

The rise of the, "I'm a victim and deserve special rights" mentality is sure a waste of time, needless effort and taxpayers money mostly ... bottom line.

Thanks @Lumpy1
That's EXACTLY what my bf and friends have been saying about liberal or LGBT activists "looking to be offended" as the next excuse to launch a protest or agenda campaign.
This fuels the whole "victimhood" mentality that makes people reject liberalism as a mental disorder or disease obsessed with projecting blame for problems on an "external locus"

To be fair, I recognize this stage of grief of projecting anger at a safe target as ONE STEP in the process of change and development over time.
But for Goodness sake, shouldn't we have spiritual and political counselors to walk people openly through this process, so we know the point is NOT to stay stuck in victimhood mode but to heal the wounds and cure the cause of injury to move PAST this stage and get to empowerment and independence .

Blaming people for blaming people doesnt help.
Reacting in anger to anger and bashing the bashing makes it worse.

So the solution is NOT to kick victims when they are down , but help them up the right way. In feminism there are terms for victim feminism vs power feminism. We need to recognise the same with all activism and quit enabling the victimism which get exploited. I'd like to focus on empowerment, and hope that's where the D party is going next since the other path has come to an end.

 

[Pogo]

Well, you pretty well covered the topic to my liking.

The rise of the, "I'm a victim and deserve special rights" mentality is sure a waste of time, needless effort and taxpayers money mostly ... bottom line.

Thanks @Lumpy1
That's EXACTLY what my bf and friends have been saying about liberal or LGBT activists "looking to be offended" as the next excuse to launch a protest or agenda campaign.
This fuels the whole "victimhood" mentality that makes people reject liberalism as a mental disorder or disease obsessed with projecting blame for problems on an "external locus"

To be fair, I recognize this stage of grief of projecting anger at a safe target as ONE STEP in the process of change and development over time.
But for Goodness sake, shouldn't we have spiritual and political counselors to walk people openly through this process, so we know the point is NOT to stay stuck in victimhood mode but to heal the wounds and cure the cause of injury to move PAST this stage and get to empowerment and independence .

Blaming people for blaming people doesnt help.
Reacting in anger to anger and bashing the bashing makes it worse.

So the solution is NOT to kick victims when they are down , but help them up the right way. In feminism there are terms for victim feminism vs power feminism. We need to recognise the same with all activism and quit enabling the victimism which get exploited. I'd like to focus on empowerment, and hope that's where the D party is going next since the other path has come to an end.

"Victim feminism vs power feminism". Interesting.

Like a yin/yang? Care to expound on this?

 

[emilynghiem]

A friend of mine is in a tizzy about atheists being banned by law in seven states from holding public office.

I looked it up and also looked up religious test for office.

===============
No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia

Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God". In some cases, these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required also of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. In the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education and linking this to Torcaso v. Watkins Justice Hugo Black stated for the Court:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

The Supreme Court however did not rule on the applicability of Article VI, stating that "Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices."

In the 1997 case of Silverman v. Campbell[5] the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector violated Article VI of the federal constitution, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore could not be enforced.[6] The other seven states still have similar provisions in their constitutions, but they are not enforced in modern times because it is taken for granted they would be held to be unconstitutional if challenged.
=============================================

Basically because the Constitution already guarantees that no religious test will be required for federal office (and subsequent laws and interpretations expanded civil rights and protections to states and to public institutions) it is ASSUMED that nobody will enforce the state laws (still on the books) because these would not survive court challenges that would clearly find such discrimination to be unconstitutional.

Should states go through the process to amend or remove these laws if they are unconstitutional?

My friend is championing this issue as PROOF that atheists are discriminated against.
And "no other group" not even "Christians" are barred by any similar law by their label.

I said no that Christians may not be banned by name, but INDIRECTLY with the laws on abortion and now forcing people to recognizing LGBT practices against their beliefs, there is discrimination against Christians in practice, even if it isn't written literally into the laws. Where they are threatened with penalties by govt if they don't comply with laws that force them to violate their beliefs. This does happen even if not by name, but in PRACTICE.

Aren't Christians persecuted and discriminated for their beliefs, and not just atheists?
If you are going to say that's okay, why suddenly get so upset when atheists get their share of bashing for their beliefs. If you are going to say NOBODY should suffer discrimination,
then why push policies that penalize Christians for not believing in gay marriage for example?

I don't agree with this "victimization" mentality of one group claiming more suffering and persecution than another. If it's wrong for your group, then don't tolerate it for ANY group.

I find it hypocritical to only complain when it's YOUR beliefs being infringed upon,
but then preach and celebrate bashing another group when it's their turn to be the target?
NO.

All beliefs should be respected, and none imposed or treated with bias by govt.
If it's wrong when done to you, THEN DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE. LIKE DUH!!!!

An individual belief about -- whatever -- is not a "religion" though. One may believe in abstaining from meat, or in wearing white after Labor Day, or in recycling; none of those are religions.

How exactly, to pick one from above, are Christians --- or anyone -- "penalized for not believing in gay marriage"?

Hi Pogo I understand that by Traditional interpreataions of religion, this has referred to Christianity and other recognized world religions.

However, this would be unequal and unfair by only protecting members of large established groups and not citizens of other beliefs. If we are to practice 14th amendment equal protections of ALL people regardless of creed, then it just makes sense that religion must apply to ALL beliefs that are within civil laws and not just certain religious groups or else people aren't equal.

The REAL issue is whether people are imposing their beliefs on others through govt against the will beliefs and consent of the public affected. Does it matter if its a Christian pushing right to life beliefs or a liberal pushing right to health care or LGBT beliefs? To the people infrigned upon, their religious freedom is at stake where govt seeks to impose or penalize them.

(Also if a religious belief violates civil or criminal laws, such as underage marriage or sex with minors who can't give legal consent, that religious practice can still be barred as illegal because it violates other laws. I'm talking about religious practice that is relative such as whether you believe in creation or evolution or both which are faith based, cannot be imposed by govt, and doesn't violate other laws.)

As for the penalties I cited Pogo I mean going beyond just accommodation laws and Requiring people to do things like attend a gay wedding to photograph it or to bake cakes especially for gay weddings that are against someone's beliefs. That is going too far. Its not like those couples can't hire a different service or staff that doesn't have issues participating in same sex weddings. Totally unnecessary to fine or force them.

Another case recently ended with the court deciding to force the business to comply . I feel so strongly this is unconstitutional I'd rather raise the money to pay the fine and set up free mediation and alternative business referrals to a network of gay friendly subcontractors rather than see anyone else suffer legal abuse and harrassment for their beliefs. If LGBT people were sued and forced against their beliefs I defend those beliefs the same way. Govt should not be abused one way or the other. Both sides beliefs should be equally protected from infringement by the other.

Equal accommodations is one thing.
But forcing practices on ppl is another .
In these court cases, venues and photographers are being fined in rulings upheld by courts. That's gone too far!

 

[Pogo]

Hi Pogo I understand that by Traditional interpreataions of religion, this has referred to Christianity and other recognized world religions.

However, this would be unequal and unfair by only protecting members of large established groups and not citizens of other beliefs. If we are to practice 14th amendment equal protections of ALL people regardless of creed, then it just makes sense that religion must apply to ALL beliefs that are within civil laws and not just certain religious groups or else people aren't equal.

The REAL issue is whether people are imposing their beliefs on others through govt against the will beliefs and consent of the public affected. Does it matter if its a Christian pushing right to life beliefs or a liberal pushing right to health care or LGBT beliefs? To the people infrigned upon, their religious freedom is at stake where govt seeks to impose or penalize them.

I was with you for the first two paragraphs. In the third your train of thought goes a bit off the rails as you're comparing "Christian" with "Liberal". One's a religion, the other a political philosophy. But your greater point still works.

As for the penalties I cited Pogo I mean going beyond just accommodation laws and Requiring people to do things like attend a gay wedding to photograph it or to bake cakes especially for gay weddings that are against someone's beliefs. That is going too far. Its not like those couples can't hire a different service or staff that doesn't have issues participating in same sex weddings. Totally unnecessary to fine or force them.

Sure, agreed.

Another case recently ended with the court deciding to force the business to comply . I feel so strongly this is unconstitutional I'd rather raise the money to pay the fine and set up free mediation and alternative business referrals to a network of gay friendly subcontractors rather than see anyone else suffer legal abuse and harrassment for their beliefs. If LGBT people were sued and forced against their beliefs I defend those beliefs the same way. Govt should not be abused one way or the other. Both sides beliefs should be equally protected from infringement by the other.

Equal accommodations is one thing.
But forcing practices on ppl is another .
In these court cases, venues and photographers are being fined in rulings upheld by courts. That's gone too far!

Well said.
Emily, you're one of the few here who understand the difference between Liberalism and leftism.

That's also why I'm interested in the "victim/power" dynamic.

 

[1stRambo]

A friend of mine is in a tizzy about atheists being banned by law in seven states from holding public office.

I looked it up and also looked up religious test for office.

===============
No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia

Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God". In some cases, these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required also of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. In the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education and linking this to Torcaso v. Watkins Justice Hugo Black stated for the Court:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

The Supreme Court however did not rule on the applicability of Article VI, stating that "Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices."

In the 1997 case of Silverman v. Campbell[5] the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector violated Article VI of the federal constitution, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore could not be enforced.[6] The other seven states still have similar provisions in their constitutions, but they are not enforced in modern times because it is taken for granted they would be held to be unconstitutional if challenged.
=============================================

Basically because the Constitution already guarantees that no religious test will be required for federal office (and subsequent laws and interpretations expanded civil rights and protections to states and to public institutions) it is ASSUMED that nobody will enforce the state laws (still on the books) because these would not survive court challenges that would clearly find such discrimination to be unconstitutional.

Should states go through the process to amend or remove these laws if they are unconstitutional?

My friend is championing this issue as PROOF that atheists are discriminated against.
And "no other group" not even "Christians" are barred by any similar law by their label.

I said no that Christians may not be banned by name, but INDIRECTLY with the laws on abortion and now forcing people to recognizing LGBT practices against their beliefs, there is discrimination against Christians in practice, even if it isn't written literally into the laws. Where they are threatened with penalties by govt if they don't comply with laws that force them to violate their beliefs. This does happen even if not by name, but in PRACTICE.

Aren't Christians persecuted and discriminated for their beliefs, and not just atheists?
If you are going to say that's okay, why suddenly get so upset when atheists get their share of bashing for their beliefs. If you are going to say NOBODY should suffer discrimination,
then why push policies that penalize Christians for not believing in gay marriage for example?

I don't agree with this "victimization" mentality of one group claiming more suffering and persecution than another. If it's wrong for your group, then don't tolerate it for ANY group.

I find it hypocritical to only complain when it's YOUR beliefs being infringed upon,
but then preach and celebrate bashing another group when it's their turn to be the target?
NO.

All beliefs should be respected, and none imposed or treated with bias by govt.
If it's wrong when done to you, THEN DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE. LIKE DUH!!!!

Yo, FRIEND? I would never Vote for a Non-Believer, guess that`s why Hillary Clinton lost!!!

"GTP"

 

[emilynghiem]

A friend of mine is in a tizzy about atheists being banned by law in seven states from holding public office.

I looked it up and also looked up religious test for office.

===============
No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia

Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God". In some cases, these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required also of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. In the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education and linking this to Torcaso v. Watkins Justice Hugo Black stated for the Court:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

The Supreme Court however did not rule on the applicability of Article VI, stating that "Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices."

In the 1997 case of Silverman v. Campbell[5] the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector violated Article VI of the federal constitution, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore could not be enforced.[6] The other seven states still have similar provisions in their constitutions, but they are not enforced in modern times because it is taken for granted they would be held to be unconstitutional if challenged.
=============================================

Basically because the Constitution already guarantees that no religious test will be required for federal office (and subsequent laws and interpretations expanded civil rights and protections to states and to public institutions) it is ASSUMED that nobody will enforce the state laws (still on the books) because these would not survive court challenges that would clearly find such discrimination to be unconstitutional.

Should states go through the process to amend or remove these laws if they are unconstitutional?

My friend is championing this issue as PROOF that atheists are discriminated against.
And "no other group" not even "Christians" are barred by any similar law by their label.

I said no that Christians may not be banned by name, but INDIRECTLY with the laws on abortion and now forcing people to recognizing LGBT practices against their beliefs, there is discrimination against Christians in practice, even if it isn't written literally into the laws. Where they are threatened with penalties by govt if they don't comply with laws that force them to violate their beliefs. This does happen even if not by name, but in PRACTICE.

Aren't Christians persecuted and discriminated for their beliefs, and not just atheists?
If you are going to say that's okay, why suddenly get so upset when atheists get their share of bashing for their beliefs. If you are going to say NOBODY should suffer discrimination,
then why push policies that penalize Christians for not believing in gay marriage for example?

I don't agree with this "victimization" mentality of one group claiming more suffering and persecution than another. If it's wrong for your group, then don't tolerate it for ANY group.

I find it hypocritical to only complain when it's YOUR beliefs being infringed upon,
but then preach and celebrate bashing another group when it's their turn to be the target?
NO.

All beliefs should be respected, and none imposed or treated with bias by govt.
If it's wrong when done to you, THEN DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE. LIKE DUH!!!!

Yo, FRIEND? I would never Vote for a Non-Believer, guess that`s why Hillary Clinton lost!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 113265

The Clintons obviously believe in forgiveness and grace, which they've been granted amply. Whether they believe in it for other people, or play politics or Mammon before God is another matter.

1stRambo do you believe in divine forgiveness for all people including the Clintons, or only people you respect? Do you believe in James 5:16 and Matthew 5:44 to pray for one another that we may be healed, and especially praying for those who persecute us? Isn't that what separates the true Christian believers from heathens wgi only reward those who are good to us?

 

[1stRambo]

A friend of mine is in a tizzy about atheists being banned by law in seven states from holding public office.

I looked it up and also looked up religious test for office.

===============
No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia

Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God". In some cases, these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required also of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. In the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education and linking this to Torcaso v. Watkins Justice Hugo Black stated for the Court:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

The Supreme Court however did not rule on the applicability of Article VI, stating that "Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices."

In the 1997 case of Silverman v. Campbell[5] the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector violated Article VI of the federal constitution, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore could not be enforced.[6] The other seven states still have similar provisions in their constitutions, but they are not enforced in modern times because it is taken for granted they would be held to be unconstitutional if challenged.
=============================================

Basically because the Constitution already guarantees that no religious test will be required for federal office (and subsequent laws and interpretations expanded civil rights and protections to states and to public institutions) it is ASSUMED that nobody will enforce the state laws (still on the books) because these would not survive court challenges that would clearly find such discrimination to be unconstitutional.

Should states go through the process to amend or remove these laws if they are unconstitutional?

My friend is championing this issue as PROOF that atheists are discriminated against.
And "no other group" not even "Christians" are barred by any similar law by their label.

I said no that Christians may not be banned by name, but INDIRECTLY with the laws on abortion and now forcing people to recognizing LGBT practices against their beliefs, there is discrimination against Christians in practice, even if it isn't written literally into the laws. Where they are threatened with penalties by govt if they don't comply with laws that force them to violate their beliefs. This does happen even if not by name, but in PRACTICE.

Aren't Christians persecuted and discriminated for their beliefs, and not just atheists?
If you are going to say that's okay, why suddenly get so upset when atheists get their share of bashing for their beliefs. If you are going to say NOBODY should suffer discrimination,
then why push policies that penalize Christians for not believing in gay marriage for example?

I don't agree with this "victimization" mentality of one group claiming more suffering and persecution than another. If it's wrong for your group, then don't tolerate it for ANY group.

I find it hypocritical to only complain when it's YOUR beliefs being infringed upon,
but then preach and celebrate bashing another group when it's their turn to be the target?
NO.

All beliefs should be respected, and none imposed or treated with bias by govt.
If it's wrong when done to you, THEN DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE. LIKE DUH!!!!

Yo, FRIEND? I would never Vote for a Non-Believer, guess that`s why Hillary Clinton lost!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 113265

The Clintons obviously believe in forgiveness and grace, which they've been granted amply. Whether they believe in it for other people, or play politics or Mammon before God is another matter.

1stRambo do you believe in divine forgiveness for all people including the Clintons, or only people you respect? Do you believe in James 5:16 and Matthew 5:44 to pray for one another that we may be healed, and especially praying for those who persecute us? Isn't that what separates the true Christian believers from heathens wgi only reward those who are good to us?

Yo, are you including ISIS? They and the Clintons are in the same boat, ANIMALS!!!

"GTP"

 

[emilynghiem]

Well, you pretty well covered the topic to my liking.

The rise of the, "I'm a victim and deserve special rights" mentality is sure a waste of time, needless effort and taxpayers money mostly ... bottom line.

Thanks @Lumpy1
That's EXACTLY what my bf and friends have been saying about liberal or LGBT activists "looking to be offended" as the next excuse to launch a protest or agenda campaign.
This fuels the whole "victimhood" mentality that makes people reject liberalism as a mental disorder or disease obsessed with projecting blame for problems on an "external locus"

To be fair, I recognize this stage of grief of projecting anger at a safe target as ONE STEP in the process of change and development over time.
But for Goodness sake, shouldn't we have spiritual and political counselors to walk people openly through this process, so we know the point is NOT to stay stuck in victimhood mode but to heal the wounds and cure the cause of injury to move PAST this stage and get to empowerment and independence .

Blaming people for blaming people doesnt help.
Reacting in anger to anger and bashing the bashing makes it worse.

So the solution is NOT to kick victims when they are down , but help them up the right way. In feminism there are terms for victim feminism vs power feminism. We need to recognise the same with all activism and quit enabling the victimism which get exploited. I'd like to focus on empowerment, and hope that's where the D party is going next since the other path has come to an end.

"Victim feminism vs power feminism". Interesting.

Like a yin/yang? Care to expound on this?

Dear Pogo I checked back with my friend who first gave me this terminology. I asked for resources into it, and she said you probably wouldn't find it in mainstream sources, especially not the Planned Parenthood and NOW crowd.

She basically said that victim feminism is focused on protesting and publicizing the problems but doesn't focus on helping people to change anything directly.

Power feminism is about actual empowerment and ACTION to change things, not just protesting problems.

She said there might be articles or references in MS magazine type op eds, but most of the mainstream is sold out.

She even complained the local GREENS don't do anything to fulfill the party platform of supporting feminist values, but just follow the Democrats who just push Planned Parenthood agenda and don't really create or campaign for any real change.

I see the problem with the ENTIRE D party this way: only about complaining and blaming "for political points" and not about real action real empowerment or direct change. so people stay stuck as "oppressed victims" dependent on the system that nobody is really changing.

 

[emilynghiem]

A friend of mine is in a tizzy about atheists being banned by law in seven states from holding public office.

I looked it up and also looked up religious test for office.

===============
No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia

Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God". In some cases, these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required also of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. In the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education and linking this to Torcaso v. Watkins Justice Hugo Black stated for the Court:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

The Supreme Court however did not rule on the applicability of Article VI, stating that "Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices."

In the 1997 case of Silverman v. Campbell[5] the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector violated Article VI of the federal constitution, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore could not be enforced.[6] The other seven states still have similar provisions in their constitutions, but they are not enforced in modern times because it is taken for granted they would be held to be unconstitutional if challenged.
=============================================

Basically because the Constitution already guarantees that no religious test will be required for federal office (and subsequent laws and interpretations expanded civil rights and protections to states and to public institutions) it is ASSUMED that nobody will enforce the state laws (still on the books) because these would not survive court challenges that would clearly find such discrimination to be unconstitutional.

Should states go through the process to amend or remove these laws if they are unconstitutional?

My friend is championing this issue as PROOF that atheists are discriminated against.
And "no other group" not even "Christians" are barred by any similar law by their label.

I said no that Christians may not be banned by name, but INDIRECTLY with the laws on abortion and now forcing people to recognizing LGBT practices against their beliefs, there is discrimination against Christians in practice, even if it isn't written literally into the laws. Where they are threatened with penalties by govt if they don't comply with laws that force them to violate their beliefs. This does happen even if not by name, but in PRACTICE.

Aren't Christians persecuted and discriminated for their beliefs, and not just atheists?
If you are going to say that's okay, why suddenly get so upset when atheists get their share of bashing for their beliefs. If you are going to say NOBODY should suffer discrimination,
then why push policies that penalize Christians for not believing in gay marriage for example?

I don't agree with this "victimization" mentality of one group claiming more suffering and persecution than another. If it's wrong for your group, then don't tolerate it for ANY group.

I find it hypocritical to only complain when it's YOUR beliefs being infringed upon,
but then preach and celebrate bashing another group when it's their turn to be the target?
NO.

All beliefs should be respected, and none imposed or treated with bias by govt.
If it's wrong when done to you, THEN DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE. LIKE DUH!!!!

Yo, FRIEND? I would never Vote for a Non-Believer, guess that`s why Hillary Clinton lost!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 113265

The Clintons obviously believe in forgiveness and grace, which they've been granted amply. Whether they believe in it for other people, or play politics or Mammon before God is another matter.

1stRambo do you believe in divine forgiveness for all people including the Clintons, or only people you respect? Do you believe in James 5:16 and Matthew 5:44 to pray for one another that we may be healed, and especially praying for those who persecute us? Isn't that what separates the true Christian believers from heathens wgi only reward those who are good to us?

Yo, are you including ISIS? They and the Clintons are in the same boat, ANIMALS!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 113275

Dear 1stRambo
If they are sick, let them be cured.
We are to hand them over to God through Christ in prayer, and let God be the judge, not us. For all we know, through Christ their souls can be redeemed. It is not God's will that a single soul be lost, but all be saved in Christ Jesus. Shouldn't we be praying for all souls to be saved in Christ?

 

[Pogo]

Well, you pretty well covered the topic to my liking.

The rise of the, "I'm a victim and deserve special rights" mentality is sure a waste of time, needless effort and taxpayers money mostly ... bottom line.

Thanks @Lumpy1
That's EXACTLY what my bf and friends have been saying about liberal or LGBT activists "looking to be offended" as the next excuse to launch a protest or agenda campaign.
This fuels the whole "victimhood" mentality that makes people reject liberalism as a mental disorder or disease obsessed with projecting blame for problems on an "external locus"

To be fair, I recognize this stage of grief of projecting anger at a safe target as ONE STEP in the process of change and development over time.
But for Goodness sake, shouldn't we have spiritual and political counselors to walk people openly through this process, so we know the point is NOT to stay stuck in victimhood mode but to heal the wounds and cure the cause of injury to move PAST this stage and get to empowerment and independence .

Blaming people for blaming people doesnt help.
Reacting in anger to anger and bashing the bashing makes it worse.

So the solution is NOT to kick victims when they are down , but help them up the right way. In feminism there are terms for victim feminism vs power feminism. We need to recognise the same with all activism and quit enabling the victimism which get exploited. I'd like to focus on empowerment, and hope that's where the D party is going next since the other path has come to an end.

"Victim feminism vs power feminism". Interesting.

Like a yin/yang? Care to expound on this?

Dear Pogo I checked back with my friend who first gave me this terminology. I asked for resources into it, and she said you probably wouldn't find it in mainstream sources, especially not the Planned Parenthood and NOW crowd.

She basically said that victim feminism is focused on protesting and publicizing the problems but doesn't focus on helping people to change anything directly.

Power feminism is about actual empowerment and ACTION to change things, not just protesting problems.

She said there might be articles or references in MS magazine type op eds, but most of the mainstream is sold out.

She even complained the local GREENS don't do anything to fulfill the party platform of supporting feminist values, but just follow the Democrats who just push Planned Parenthood agenda and don't really create or campaign for any real change.

I see the problem with the ENTIRE D party this way: only about complaining and blaming "for political points" and not about real action real empowerment or direct change. so people stay stuck as "oppressed victims" dependent on the system that nobody is really changing.

So I take it this is at base a distinction of "passive" versus "active". Always interesting human dynamic, whether in 'feminism', politics, office politics or personal relationships.

 

[1stRambo]

A friend of mine is in a tizzy about atheists being banned by law in seven states from holding public office.

I looked it up and also looked up religious test for office.

===============
No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia

Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God". In some cases, these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required also of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. In the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education and linking this to Torcaso v. Watkins Justice Hugo Black stated for the Court:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

The Supreme Court however did not rule on the applicability of Article VI, stating that "Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices."

In the 1997 case of Silverman v. Campbell[5] the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector violated Article VI of the federal constitution, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore could not be enforced.[6] The other seven states still have similar provisions in their constitutions, but they are not enforced in modern times because it is taken for granted they would be held to be unconstitutional if challenged.
=============================================

Basically because the Constitution already guarantees that no religious test will be required for federal office (and subsequent laws and interpretations expanded civil rights and protections to states and to public institutions) it is ASSUMED that nobody will enforce the state laws (still on the books) because these would not survive court challenges that would clearly find such discrimination to be unconstitutional.

Should states go through the process to amend or remove these laws if they are unconstitutional?

My friend is championing this issue as PROOF that atheists are discriminated against.
And "no other group" not even "Christians" are barred by any similar law by their label.

I said no that Christians may not be banned by name, but INDIRECTLY with the laws on abortion and now forcing people to recognizing LGBT practices against their beliefs, there is discrimination against Christians in practice, even if it isn't written literally into the laws. Where they are threatened with penalties by govt if they don't comply with laws that force them to violate their beliefs. This does happen even if not by name, but in PRACTICE.

Aren't Christians persecuted and discriminated for their beliefs, and not just atheists?
If you are going to say that's okay, why suddenly get so upset when atheists get their share of bashing for their beliefs. If you are going to say NOBODY should suffer discrimination,
then why push policies that penalize Christians for not believing in gay marriage for example?

I don't agree with this "victimization" mentality of one group claiming more suffering and persecution than another. If it's wrong for your group, then don't tolerate it for ANY group.

I find it hypocritical to only complain when it's YOUR beliefs being infringed upon,
but then preach and celebrate bashing another group when it's their turn to be the target?
NO.

All beliefs should be respected, and none imposed or treated with bias by govt.
If it's wrong when done to you, THEN DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE. LIKE DUH!!!!

Yo, FRIEND? I would never Vote for a Non-Believer, guess that`s why Hillary Clinton lost!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 113265

The Clintons obviously believe in forgiveness and grace, which they've been granted amply. Whether they believe in it for other people, or play politics or Mammon before God is another matter.

1stRambo do you believe in divine forgiveness for all people including the Clintons, or only people you respect? Do you believe in James 5:16 and Matthew 5:44 to pray for one another that we may be healed, and especially praying for those who persecute us? Isn't that what separates the true Christian believers from heathens wgi only reward those who are good to us?

Yo, are you including ISIS? They and the Clintons are in the same boat, ANIMALS!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 113275

Dear 1stRambo
If they are sick, let them be cured.
We are to hand them over to God through Christ in prayer, and let God be the judge, not us. For all we know, through Christ their souls can be redeemed. It is not God's will that a single soul be lost, but all be saved in Christ Jesus. Shouldn't we be praying for all souls to be saved in Christ?

Yo, Dear Emily, I don`t think "GOD" will forgive the "Devil" in those people, sorry, but I`m just saying what I`ve learned over my years! You think ISIS will drop their swords, or knives, in paradise? Or the Clintons, and the whole "Socialist Democrat Party" will stop their hate for the United States? Don`t think so! I`m not a forgiving person like you, I know what they say in the good book, but "GOD" is not going to forgive their hatred for mankind, period!!!

"GTP"
THE DEVIL LIVES, DON`T BE SO NAIVE!

 

[emilynghiem]

A friend of mine is in a tizzy about atheists being banned by law in seven states from holding public office.

I looked it up and also looked up religious test for office.

===============
No Religious Test Clause - Wikipedia

Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God". In some cases, these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required also of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. In the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education and linking this to Torcaso v. Watkins Justice Hugo Black stated for the Court:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

The Supreme Court however did not rule on the applicability of Article VI, stating that "Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices."

In the 1997 case of Silverman v. Campbell[5] the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector violated Article VI of the federal constitution, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore could not be enforced.[6] The other seven states still have similar provisions in their constitutions, but they are not enforced in modern times because it is taken for granted they would be held to be unconstitutional if challenged.
=============================================

Basically because the Constitution already guarantees that no religious test will be required for federal office (and subsequent laws and interpretations expanded civil rights and protections to states and to public institutions) it is ASSUMED that nobody will enforce the state laws (still on the books) because these would not survive court challenges that would clearly find such discrimination to be unconstitutional.

Should states go through the process to amend or remove these laws if they are unconstitutional?

My friend is championing this issue as PROOF that atheists are discriminated against.
And "no other group" not even "Christians" are barred by any similar law by their label.

I said no that Christians may not be banned by name, but INDIRECTLY with the laws on abortion and now forcing people to recognizing LGBT practices against their beliefs, there is discrimination against Christians in practice, even if it isn't written literally into the laws. Where they are threatened with penalties by govt if they don't comply with laws that force them to violate their beliefs. This does happen even if not by name, but in PRACTICE.

Aren't Christians persecuted and discriminated for their beliefs, and not just atheists?
If you are going to say that's okay, why suddenly get so upset when atheists get their share of bashing for their beliefs. If you are going to say NOBODY should suffer discrimination,
then why push policies that penalize Christians for not believing in gay marriage for example?

I don't agree with this "victimization" mentality of one group claiming more suffering and persecution than another. If it's wrong for your group, then don't tolerate it for ANY group.

I find it hypocritical to only complain when it's YOUR beliefs being infringed upon,
but then preach and celebrate bashing another group when it's their turn to be the target?
NO.

All beliefs should be respected, and none imposed or treated with bias by govt.
If it's wrong when done to you, THEN DON'T DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE. LIKE DUH!!!!

Yo, FRIEND? I would never Vote for a Non-Believer, guess that`s why Hillary Clinton lost!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 113265

The Clintons obviously believe in forgiveness and grace, which they've been granted amply. Whether they believe in it for other people, or play politics or Mammon before God is another matter.

1stRambo do you believe in divine forgiveness for all people including the Clintons, or only people you respect? Do you believe in James 5:16 and Matthew 5:44 to pray for one another that we may be healed, and especially praying for those who persecute us? Isn't that what separates the true Christian believers from heathens wgi only reward those who are good to us?

Yo, are you including ISIS? They and the Clintons are in the same boat, ANIMALS!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 113275

Dear 1stRambo
If they are sick, let them be cured.
We are to hand them over to God through Christ in prayer, and let God be the judge, not us. For all we know, through Christ their souls can be redeemed. It is not God's will that a single soul be lost, but all be saved in Christ Jesus. Shouldn't we be praying for all souls to be saved in Christ?

Yo, Dear Emily, I don`t think "GOD" will forgive the "Devil" in those people, sorry, but I`m just saying what I`ve learned over my years! You think ISIS will drop their swords, or knives, in paradise? Or the Clintons, and the whole "Socialist Democrat Party" will stop their hate for the United States? Don`t think so! I`m not a forgiving person like you, I know what they say in the good book, but "GOD" is not going to forgive their hatred for mankind, period!!!

"GTP"
THE DEVIL LIVES, DON`T BE SO NAIVE!
View attachment 113394

1stRambo remember when Jesus drove demons into a wild herd that went plunging to their death. I say FIRST declare a unified REBUKE and call to remove all the demonic influence and send it back to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Whatever is left, sure we can process that through our regular channels of establishing justice. If this is done right, the people who have truly repented will WANT to participate in willful restitution and correction for what they contributed to that was evil wrong damaging and deadly.

If you are saying all will get thrown in the lake of fire because none will repent and come forth, that could be true too! But we don't make that assumption or judgment.

First we call to correct the problem.

And 1stRambo we ahven't even DONE that, because we are too busy blaming the Muslim clergy and political human rights leaders who COULD rebuke their own and separate the sheep from the goats. we need to first ally with the Jews Christians and Muslims for peace and against war and antichrist. First steps first.

Then after we have made the united call in Christ, God will take over from there, and that is not up to us to do. We will follow God's will that will be ESTABLISHED by agreeing in Christ, that means Muslims Jews and Christians who are all believers and people of the BOOK.

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, FRIEND? I would never Vote for a Non-Believer, guess that`s why Hillary Clinton lost!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 113265

The Clintons obviously believe in forgiveness and grace, which they've been granted amply. Whether they believe in it for other people, or play politics or Mammon before God is another matter.

1stRambo do you believe in divine forgiveness for all people including the Clintons, or only people you respect? Do you believe in James 5:16 and Matthew 5:44 to pray for one another that we may be healed, and especially praying for those who persecute us? Isn't that what separates the true Christian believers from heathens wgi only reward those who are good to us?

Yo, are you including ISIS? They and the Clintons are in the same boat, ANIMALS!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 113275

Dear 1stRambo
If they are sick, let them be cured.
We are to hand them over to God through Christ in prayer, and let God be the judge, not us. For all we know, through Christ their souls can be redeemed. It is not God's will that a single soul be lost, but all be saved in Christ Jesus. Shouldn't we be praying for all souls to be saved in Christ?

Yo, Dear Emily, I don`t think "GOD" will forgive the "Devil" in those people, sorry, but I`m just saying what I`ve learned over my years! You think ISIS will drop their swords, or knives, in paradise? Or the Clintons, and the whole "Socialist Democrat Party" will stop their hate for the United States? Don`t think so! I`m not a forgiving person like you, I know what they say in the good book, but "GOD" is not going to forgive their hatred for mankind, period!!!

"GTP"
THE DEVIL LIVES, DON`T BE SO NAIVE!
View attachment 113394

1stRambo remember when Jesus drove demons into a wild herd that went plunging to their death. I say FIRST declare a unified REBUKE and call to remove all the demonic influence and send it back to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Whatever is left, sure we can process that through our regular channels of establishing justice. If this is done right, the people who have truly repented will WANT to participate in willful restitution and correction for what they contributed to that was evil wrong damaging and deadly.

If you are saying all will get thrown in the lake of fire because none will repent and come forth, that could be true too! But we don't make that assumption or judgment.

First we call to correct the problem.

And 1stRambo we ahven't even DONE that, because we are too busy blaming the Muslim clergy and political human rights leaders who COULD rebuke their own and separate the sheep from the goats. we need to first ally with the Jews Christians and Muslims for peace and against war and antichrist. First steps first.

Then after we have made the united call in Christ, God will take over from there, and that is not up to us to do. We will follow God's will that will be ESTABLISHED by agreeing in Christ, that means Muslims Jews and Christians who are all believers and people of the BOOK.

Yo, Emily, I`m glad you believe in GOD! But you`re naive if you think the "Devils" will repent, that will not happen, maybe the ones on the fence, like a Sen. Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia, but the rest have been brainwashed! All you need to do is watch how the "Socialist Democrats" operate, you can actually see the "Devil" in those people, the lowest of the low on earth!

Also, I think Pope Francis is a naive person, and is leading his followers down the wrong road! Pope Francis kissing a Koran? The Muslim Holy Book was given to Francis during a meeting with Muslim leaders! Francis has gone on record to say that "Homosexuals" are not to be judged, "Proselytism" is nonsense! Sounds to me, he was following the "Immoral Obama Administration" to the T!!!

Pope Francis has repeatedly said things like “Mary is more important than all of the Apostles”, and that it is """Nonsense to share the Gospel with lost people!""" How might these quotes line up with the very scripture that he claims to follow? He came onto the World stage much in the manner of Immoral President Obama. The left wing “Save Mother Earth Radicals" are embracing him as their own! """Say No More, The Truth Is Spoken"""

"GTP"