“When law and religion conflict, choices have to be made.”

[Pumpkin Row]

And only 23% want sharia law. Not really cause for foaming at the mouth is it ?

it said half, do you have a reading disability? and ONLY 23% want sharia? LOL, you are truly stupid to call that an insignificant minority

and radical rightwing theocrats want to enact their theocratic views into law.

that's why we have a supreme court..... to keep you all under control

let me get this straight schlongbucket, you want to keep me, an atheist, 'under control' by not letting my theocratic views get enacted, while defending muslims who want homosexualty outlawed?

And while supporting a candidate that vows to violate the Constitution she says is to keep 'the right' in check.

the only candidate vowing to violate the constitution is dumb donald.

but good luck with that.

Well, your current Democrat President has violated the constitution 64 times. Hillary doesn't believe in the second amendment, or the right to life, nor border laws. Hillary also apparently doesn't believe in laws, either, since she broke 9+ and no justice was served.

 

[LuckyDuck]

When man-made law and religious beliefs/laws collide, I'll side with the man-made law. One just has to look at how mankind was treated throughout history when religion had control of governments.

 

[NCC1701]

the only candidate vowing to violate the constitution is dumb donald.

but good luck with that.

Stalinist progressives want to change or reinterpret the constitution regarding guns, there is a way to do that as you seem to forget. Muslims would do exactly that as well if they had the numbers, it is only a matter of fertility rate and they know it.

 

[NCC1701]

When man-made law and religious beliefs/laws collide, I'll side with the man-made law. One just has to look at how mankind was treated throughout history when religion had control of governments.

from my point of view it is all man made, there is no difference between politics and religion. Watch a political convention, then watch a church service, tell me they are not the same phemonena.

liberalism bears all the hallmarks of a religion

 

[LuckyDuck]

When man-made law and religious beliefs/laws collide, I'll side with the man-made law. One just has to look at how mankind was treated throughout history when religion had control of governments.

from my point of view, it is all man made, there is no difference between politics and religion. Watch a political convention, then watch a church service, tell me they are not the same phemonena.

liberalism bears all the hallmarks of a religion

In that, you are correct. Both are made by man, however, the superstitious attach a supernatural element to their laws.

 

[NCC1701]

When man-made law and religious beliefs/laws collide, I'll side with the man-made law. One just has to look at how mankind was treated throughout history when religion had control of governments.

from my point of view, it is all man made, there is no difference between politics and religion. Watch a political convention, then watch a church service, tell me they are not the same phemonena.

liberalism bears all the hallmarks of a religion

In that, you are correct. Both are made by man, however, the superstitious attach a supernatural element to their laws.

yes, and liberals attach a transcendent supernatural power to government

 

[Anathema]

This is,very simple..... Religion must never be allowed to supercede Law; but Law can never be allowed to supercede Morality.

 

[NCC1701]

This is,very simple..... Religion must never be allowed to supercede Law; but Law can never be allowed to supercede Morality.

oh sure, as long as it is your morality I am sure it is quite clear to you

 

[Iceweasel]

The government shouldn't be involved in any marriage. That's between you, your families, and your church.

Marriage is a government contract, not a religious one. It is far more important for your finances and your family to have the government recognize your marriage than your church.

Not if it makes no distinction between married and not married. Which is the way it should be since society is no longer allowed to define it. Then it wouldn't be important for government to recognize anything but your citizenship.

 

[Iceweasel]

Do you support social welfare? Obamacare? Abortion? Same sex marriage?

Are you saying that this Judge should be able to promote her religious beliefs over the law ?

That sorta sounds like Sharia to me.

Are you saying people should be able to refuse to obey the law if they don't like it.

Is someone saying that? You however aren't the arbiter of what laws to follow. The Supreme Court is. And if you understood the issue, you would understand that a state can always give greater rights than the Feds, never fewer.

Yiu might want to read up on that.

Governments don't give rights, by definition. Rights are inalienable, something you have by way of birth. Governments can only restrict rights. What happened was the SCOTUS took the rights of citizens of the state away to define marriage.

no. they ENFORCE rights. you know, like not allowing you to treat blacks, gays and women like trash

I treat you like trash because that's what you are. Blacks, gays and women get treated the same by me, they all get charged equally.

However, enforcing rights is not the same as granting rights. Silly Jilly.

 

[sealybobo]

I admit we pick and choose, same way Republicans in Michigan don't like that we voted to legalize pot so Republicans here are using federal law as their reason for fighting the will of the people. Go figure.

The argumentss you lose are because your state laws are deemed unconstitutional, no?

So you are a hypocrite? Just as I thought.

If your States laws are unconstitutional it's up to the feds to get you in line. That's your problem. You want to be unconstitutional in your laws.

When we (the feds) tell you what to do its because you want to be unconstitutional. But then you want to cherry pick out of the constitution the part that says States rights? Do you see how you're wrong?

So a state making a law when the STATE is supposed to be the one making the law is being out of line? My problem is when the Constitution indicates a state has the authority to make laws in areas not specifically delegated to the federal government yet the federal government goes against it's own Constitution.

When the Constitution indicates it is a states' right situation and the federal government chooses to do it anyway, that's wrong.

Unless you can show me where the term abortion, marriage, social welfare, etc. are in the Constitution as a federal authority, it's a state authority. When 5 people incorrectly decide it belongs to the federal government, it's because they WANT it to be not because it has the authority to be.

You can't descriminate against gays in your laws. See, your laws that are unconstitutional are always telling people they can't do something. Gays can't marry, women can't get abortions, blacks can't get welfare only whites can, blacks can't go to white schools, etc.

You right wingers just don't see why you can't use the constitution to be unconstitutional

Yet you can't show the words abortion, marriage, or social welfare in the Constitution.

What about the general welfare clause?

It also says a well regulated militia

 

[AmericanFirst1]

The top court in this state could sack this judge who keeps refusing to marry gays

Yup, like its time to get another job you backward bigot.

Stfu. Worry about you're own county, queenie.

 

[StLucieBengal]

When man-made law and religious beliefs/laws collide, I'll side with the man-made law. One just has to look at how mankind was treated throughout history when religion had control of governments.

from my point of view, it is all man made, there is no difference between politics and religion. Watch a political convention, then watch a church service, tell me they are not the same phemonena.

liberalism bears all the hallmarks of a religion

In that, you are correct. Both are made by man, however, the superstitious attach a supernatural element to their laws.

yes, and liberals attach a transcendent supernatural power to government

We need a super agree rating. Because this post deserves one.

 

[Dragonlady]

Well, your current Democrat President has violated the constitution 64 times. Hillary doesn't believe in the second amendment, or the right to life, nor border laws. Hillary also apparently doesn't believe in laws, either, since she broke 9+ and no justice was served.

Bullshit. There is no "right to life" for a fetus.

There is no evidence that Hillary doesn't believe in border laws. She has stated on numerous occasions that she supports 2nd Amendment rights. According to multiple Republican investigations, Hillary has committed no crimes.

Republican Investigations have cleared her.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Well, your current Democrat President has violated the constitution 64 times. Hillary doesn't believe in the second amendment, or the right to life, nor border laws. Hillary also apparently doesn't believe in laws, either, since she broke 9+ and no justice was served.

Bullshit. There is no "right to life" for a fetus.

There is no evidence that Hillary doesn't believe in border laws. She has stated on numerous occasions that she supports 2nd Amendment rights. According to multiple Republican investigations, Hillary has committed no crimes.

Republican Investigations have cleared her.

Actually, not a single investigation cleared her. What was said was that using a private server was not against the law, and that no prosecutor would be willing to take up the case.

As far as Benghazi, CNN incorrectly reported, without even reading the report, that she had nothing to do with it. that's also incorrect, what was said was that the report was not about Hillary, but four dead Americans. What it details is conflicting orders from high levels of government preventing troops from leaving for four hours.

A "fetus" is a living thing, even a sperm is a living thing, so of course when it combines with an egg is a living thing, and what it creates when it combines with an egg is a human, which is growing through the various stages of life, as a living thing. This living thing, being an unborn human American citizen, is someone who has Constitutional rights. One of those Constitutional rights is the right to life.

Hillary supports a 'path to citizenship'. In other words, granting citizenship to illegals who came here illegally, breaking the law. She does not support border laws.

She can claim she supports the second amendment all she likes, while promising to infringe on our second amendment rights, but as usual, like the vast majority of what she says, it is a bold-faced lie.

Any other Hillary lies you feel like buying into, or is that it?

 

[Igrok_]

Choice is obvious: to follow the religion, because the law is just the reflection of it. Religion forms the minds, whilst law reflects them. If you want to be ahead of the progress - follow the religion.

End.

 

[Conservative65]

So you are a hypocrite? Just as I thought.

If your States laws are unconstitutional it's up to the feds to get you in line. That's your problem. You want to be unconstitutional in your laws.

When we (the feds) tell you what to do its because you want to be unconstitutional. But then you want to cherry pick out of the constitution the part that says States rights? Do you see how you're wrong?

So a state making a law when the STATE is supposed to be the one making the law is being out of line? My problem is when the Constitution indicates a state has the authority to make laws in areas not specifically delegated to the federal government yet the federal government goes against it's own Constitution.

When the Constitution indicates it is a states' right situation and the federal government chooses to do it anyway, that's wrong.

Unless you can show me where the term abortion, marriage, social welfare, etc. are in the Constitution as a federal authority, it's a state authority. When 5 people incorrectly decide it belongs to the federal government, it's because they WANT it to be not because it has the authority to be.

You can't descriminate against gays in your laws. See, your laws that are unconstitutional are always telling people they can't do something. Gays can't marry, women can't get abortions, blacks can't get welfare only whites can, blacks can't go to white schools, etc.

You right wingers just don't see why you can't use the constitution to be unconstitutional

Yet you can't show the words abortion, marriage, or social welfare in the Constitution.

What about the general welfare clause?

It also says a well regulated militia

What about it? It doesn't say any of the things I posted.

It specifically says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you think that the only arms someone should own should be based on what existed at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment because of the words, next time you communicate with me find a piece of paper, write with a quill pen, and have someone on horseback deliver it to me.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Well, your current Democrat President has violated the constitution 64 times. Hillary doesn't believe in the second amendment, or the right to life, nor border laws. Hillary also apparently doesn't believe in laws, either, since she broke 9+ and no justice was served.

Bullshit. There is no "right to life" for a fetus.

There is no evidence that Hillary doesn't believe in border laws. She has stated on numerous occasions that she supports 2nd Amendment rights. According to multiple Republican investigations, Hillary has committed no crimes.

Republican Investigations have cleared her.

Actually, not a single investigation cleared her. What was said was that using a private server was not against the law, and that no prosecutor would be willing to take up the case.

As far as Benghazi, CNN incorrectly reported, without even reading the report, that she had nothing to do with it. that's also incorrect, what was said was that the report was not about Hillary, but four dead Americans. What it details is conflicting orders from high levels of government preventing troops from leaving for four hours.

A "fetus" is a living thing, even a sperm is a living thing, so of course when it combines with an egg is a living thing, and what it creates when it combines with an egg is a human, which is growing through the various stages of life, as a living thing. This living thing, being an unborn human American citizen, is someone who has Constitutional rights. One of those Constitutional rights is the right to life.

Hillary supports a 'path to citizenship'. In other words, granting citizenship to illegals who came here illegally, breaking the law. She does not support border laws.

She can claim she supports the second amendment all she likes, while promising to infringe on our second amendment rights, but as usual, like the vast majority of what she says, it is a bold-faced lie.

Any other Hillary lies you feel like buying into, or is that it?

When Clinton asked the State Department if she could user her private server, they informed her that she could, however, they would have also reminded her at the time that absolutely no classified information could be shared over the server.
She handled it carelessly and the investigation showed that some of the information she sent was, at the time, considered classified. The investigators determined that she was careless in her handling of classified information but her actions were not deliberate. There is also the issue of 33,000 missing emails which Clinton said were regarding Chelsea's wedding and Yoga. Without them, nothing can be proved, however, claiming that many emails for those two things is preposterous. On a separate note, I find it interesting that the Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, which subjugates and kills women, yet she claims to be a champion of women.
As far as Benghazi is concerned, there is no blame to her. The blame lies with the US military commander in the region, the minute he heard the embassy was in trouble, he should have sent troops in and he didn't. His fault.
Fetuses. Let me guess, you're a middle-aged or elderly white male steeped in religion and believe your specific religious beliefs should be forced upon all, regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs. I'm all for hindering late-term abortions, unless it threatens the mother's life; on the other hand, while it's still just a clump of cells (living or not), it's not in a state of being a sentient. To say otherwise would be to say that every cell in your body is a sentient being and in that case, allowing blood to be drawn would be the equivalent of murder to each of those living red-blood cells, white-blood cells, et cetera. The only individual with the right to make the choice to have a baby is the one who would be carrying it for nine months; not some middle-aged or elderly guy spouting his religious crap.
Clinton is an idiot for not supporting border laws. Every nation should have the right to control its borders so that it can vet those coming in and ensure that they are not fugitives or individuals/groups wanting to kill Americans, simply because their religion mandates that they do. Thousands regularly apply for entry into the US legally. Just opening your arms to those who sneak in and take government handouts at the taxpayers expense, is a slap in the face of those who follow the legal path to entry.

 

[LuckyDuck]

If your States laws are unconstitutional it's up to the feds to get you in line. That's your problem. You want to be unconstitutional in your laws.

When we (the feds) tell you what to do its because you want to be unconstitutional. But then you want to cherry pick out of the constitution the part that says States rights? Do you see how you're wrong?

So a state making a law when the STATE is supposed to be the one making the law is being out of line? My problem is when the Constitution indicates a state has the authority to make laws in areas not specifically delegated to the federal government yet the federal government goes against it's own Constitution.

When the Constitution indicates it is a states' right situation and the federal government chooses to do it anyway, that's wrong.

Unless you can show me where the term abortion, marriage, social welfare, etc. are in the Constitution as a federal authority, it's a state authority. When 5 people incorrectly decide it belongs to the federal government, it's because they WANT it to be not because it has the authority to be.

You can't descriminate against gays in your laws. See, your laws that are unconstitutional are always telling people they can't do something. Gays can't marry, women can't get abortions, blacks can't get welfare only whites can, blacks can't go to white schools, etc.

You right wingers just don't see why you can't use the constitution to be unconstitutional

Yet you can't show the words abortion, marriage, or social welfare in the Constitution.

What about the general welfare clause?

It also says a well regulated militia

What about it? It doesn't say any of the things I posted.

It specifically says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you think that the only arms someone should own should be based on what existed at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment because of the words, next time you communicate with me find a piece of paper, write with a quill pen, and have someone on horseback deliver it to me.

Technically, the 2nd Amendment is actually citing that the people may keep and bear (carry) arms for the purpose of providing for a state's militia.

 

[Conservative65]

So a state making a law when the STATE is supposed to be the one making the law is being out of line? My problem is when the Constitution indicates a state has the authority to make laws in areas not specifically delegated to the federal government yet the federal government goes against it's own Constitution.

When the Constitution indicates it is a states' right situation and the federal government chooses to do it anyway, that's wrong.

Unless you can show me where the term abortion, marriage, social welfare, etc. are in the Constitution as a federal authority, it's a state authority. When 5 people incorrectly decide it belongs to the federal government, it's because they WANT it to be not because it has the authority to be.

You can't descriminate against gays in your laws. See, your laws that are unconstitutional are always telling people they can't do something. Gays can't marry, women can't get abortions, blacks can't get welfare only whites can, blacks can't go to white schools, etc.

You right wingers just don't see why you can't use the constitution to be unconstitutional

Yet you can't show the words abortion, marriage, or social welfare in the Constitution.

What about the general welfare clause?

It also says a well regulated militia

What about it? It doesn't say any of the things I posted.

It specifically says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you think that the only arms someone should own should be based on what existed at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment because of the words, next time you communicate with me find a piece of paper, write with a quill pen, and have someone on horseback deliver it to me.

Technically, the 2nd Amendment is actually citing that the people may keep and bear (carry) arms for the purpose of providing for a state's militia.

Says who, you?

That means your next correspondence is going to be on paper sent through the mail?