Why Deities Are Not In The Constitution

I believe in Humans.

They let me down, all the time, but they are Tangible to me and that weighs a lot on my discernment between fact and fiction.
 
So there arises the great mistake of the GOP Amendment XIII, which necessitates the next amendment, often called Amendment XIV.

!) No specific references to deities are included in the enumeration of the Amendments, unless there is some nature of fetish regarding Rome, and the parties, and the festivals. . . .

2) This happens in Amendment XIV: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

So Due process goes beyond the simple limitation of Acts of Congress.

The Tea Party even: Appears not to know much about this(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Actually, numbers do have a certain religious meaning to them: On routlette wheels, on the dice tables, and even on the little cubes themselves--when properly. . . .weighted, and measured, and thrown!)
 
The whole point of the first amendment was to protect the free expression of religion and not to destroy as so many liberals keep attempting to do. Everytime someone professes some religious belief such as being christian they say "separation of church and state" and blah blah balh. The first sentence of that amendment says 'congress shall pass no law...' which means it is a limitation on the congress itself and not on individuals, politicians, or anyone else so the first amendment can't be used to silence by expression of my own religion or anyone elses.

Liberals haven't gotten that yet and seem to think they can just closet people who profess their belief in God.

"The whole point of the first amendment was to protect the free expression of religion and not to destroy as so many liberals keep attempting to do."

I tried to follow you scattergun approach, my friend, and found some things with which I agree, and much that was total nonsense.

But let me focus on this section:

"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."

The "...DANGEROUS nonsense ..." reference to religion is misplaced and shows an unforgivable lacunae that must be corrected.

You see, you are not anti-religion, just pro-statist religion.

And as for dangerous, the last two centuries or so have seen immense swaths of murder, maiming, slavery and misery due to the religion to which you subscribe.

Starting with the French Revolution, and the replacing of Christianity with a belief in the collective and the state, progressivism, fascism, communism, and every permutation of totalism, millions have suffered.


For your edification:

The French Revolution, the first fascist movement(The political terms "Right" and "Left" were born in the French Revolution, when two different revolutionary factions took seats in the French National Assembly's hall: the Girondins on the right wing and the Jacobins on the left wing.)

1. It was totalitarian, nationalist, conspiratorial, and populist, the origin of the revolutionary tradition of the left.
a. While the American Revolution, essentially conservative, and served as a paradigm for the American right and classical liberals, the left sees its model in the Jacobins.

2. Produced the first modern dictators, Robespierre and Napoleon.

3. Based on the premise that the nation had to be ruled by an enlightened avant-garde who represented the ‘general will.’

4. Jacobin mentality made the revolutionaries more savage and cruel than the king they replaced. Some 50,000 died in the Terror (1793-1794)

5. [Robespierre] “is the prototype of a particularly odious kind of evildoer: the ideologue who believes that reason and morality are on the side of his butcheries. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot are of the same mold. They are the characteristic scourges of humanity in modern times, but Robespierre has a good claim to being the first.” Why Robespierre Chose Terror by John Kekes, City Journal Spring 2006

6. Robespierre: "We must exterminate all our enemies."

7. Robespierre: “The people is always worth more than individuals…The people is sublime, but individuals are weak” or expendable. http://www.nationalaffairs.com/docl...hvsthefrenchenlightmentgertrudehimmelfarb.pdf, p. 20



Dangerous?
 
The whole point of the first amendment was to protect the free expression of religion and not to destroy as so many liberals keep attempting to do. Everytime someone professes some religious belief such as being christian they say "separation of church and state" and blah blah balh. The first sentence of that amendment says 'congress shall pass no law...' which means it is a limitation on the congress itself and not on individuals, politicians, or anyone else so the first amendment can't be used to silence by expression of my own religion or anyone elses.

Liberals haven't gotten that yet and seem to think they can just closet people who profess their belief in God.

"The whole point of the first amendment was to protect the free expression of religion and not to destroy as so many liberals keep attempting to do."

I tried to follow you scattergun approach, my friend, and found some things with which I agree, and much that was total nonsense.

But let me focus on this section:

"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."

The "...DANGEROUS nonsense ..." reference to religion is misplaced and shows an unforgivable lacunae that must be corrected.

You see, you are not anti-religion, just pro-statist religion.

And as for dangerous, the last two centuries or so have seen immense swaths of murder, maiming, slavery and misery due to the religion to which you subscribe.

Starting with the French Revolution, and the replacing of Christianity with a belief in the collective and the state, progressivism, fascism, communism, and every permutation of totalism, millions have suffered.


For your edification:

The French Revolution, the first fascist movement(The political terms "Right" and "Left" were born in the French Revolution, when two different revolutionary factions took seats in the French National Assembly's hall: the Girondins on the right wing and the Jacobins on the left wing.)

1. It was totalitarian, nationalist, conspiratorial, and populist, the origin of the revolutionary tradition of the left.
a. While the American Revolution, essentially conservative, and served as a paradigm for the American right and classical liberals, the left sees its model in the Jacobins.

2. Produced the first modern dictators, Robespierre and Napoleon.

3. Based on the premise that the nation had to be ruled by an enlightened avant-garde who represented the ‘general will.’

4. Jacobin mentality made the revolutionaries more savage and cruel than the king they replaced. Some 50,000 died in the Terror (1793-1794)

5. [Robespierre] “is the prototype of a particularly odious kind of evildoer: the ideologue who believes that reason and morality are on the side of his butcheries. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot are of the same mold. They are the characteristic scourges of humanity in modern times, but Robespierre has a good claim to being the first.” Why Robespierre Chose Terror by John Kekes, City Journal Spring 2006

6. Robespierre: "We must exterminate all our enemies."

7. Robespierre: “The people is always worth more than individuals…The people is sublime, but individuals are weak” or expendable. http://www.nationalaffairs.com/docl...hvsthefrenchenlightmentgertrudehimmelfarb.pdf, p. 20



Dangerous?

9/11
The Crusades
Pee-pee Touchers
Judging of human beings, in General, as some sort of seperate entity from others (less than equal) -->homosexuals.

Yes, Religion can be Dangerous. Also, you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting. It makes you seem like a pompass bee-hotch, and not a scholar in the least. You're arguing from a position of arrogance in that you're arguing against what you "perceive" him to be, aka building a strawman, knocking it down, and patting yourself on your arrogant back. Strong work.
 
"The whole point of the first amendment was to protect the free expression of religion and not to destroy as so many liberals keep attempting to do."

I tried to follow you scattergun approach, my friend, and found some things with which I agree, and much that was total nonsense.

But let me focus on this section:

"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."

The "...DANGEROUS nonsense ..." reference to religion is misplaced and shows an unforgivable lacunae that must be corrected.

You see, you are not anti-religion, just pro-statist religion.

And as for dangerous, the last two centuries or so have seen immense swaths of murder, maiming, slavery and misery due to the religion to which you subscribe.

Starting with the French Revolution, and the replacing of Christianity with a belief in the collective and the state, progressivism, fascism, communism, and every permutation of totalism, millions have suffered.


For your edification:

The French Revolution, the first fascist movement(The political terms "Right" and "Left" were born in the French Revolution, when two different revolutionary factions took seats in the French National Assembly's hall: the Girondins on the right wing and the Jacobins on the left wing.)

1. It was totalitarian, nationalist, conspiratorial, and populist, the origin of the revolutionary tradition of the left.
a. While the American Revolution, essentially conservative, and served as a paradigm for the American right and classical liberals, the left sees its model in the Jacobins.

2. Produced the first modern dictators, Robespierre and Napoleon.

3. Based on the premise that the nation had to be ruled by an enlightened avant-garde who represented the ‘general will.’

4. Jacobin mentality made the revolutionaries more savage and cruel than the king they replaced. Some 50,000 died in the Terror (1793-1794)

5. [Robespierre] “is the prototype of a particularly odious kind of evildoer: the ideologue who believes that reason and morality are on the side of his butcheries. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot are of the same mold. They are the characteristic scourges of humanity in modern times, but Robespierre has a good claim to being the first.” Why Robespierre Chose Terror by John Kekes, City Journal Spring 2006

6. Robespierre: "We must exterminate all our enemies."

7. Robespierre: “The people is always worth more than individuals…The people is sublime, but individuals are weak” or expendable. http://www.nationalaffairs.com/docl...hvsthefrenchenlightmentgertrudehimmelfarb.pdf, p. 20



Dangerous?

9/11
The Crusades
Pee-pee Touchers
Judging of human beings, in General, as some sort of seperate entity from others (less than equal) -->homosexuals.

Yes, Religion can be Dangerous. Also, you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting. It makes you seem like a pompass bee-hotch, and not a scholar in the least. You're arguing from a position of arrogance in that you're arguing against what you "perceive" him to be, aka building a strawman, knocking it down, and patting yourself on your arrogant back. Strong work.

It seems that your attempted arguments with me are on a personal level, not with the points expressed. I understand that technique, as your ability and knowledge are sorely limited.

But I worry about your dimunition of visual acuity, since you claim "...you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting."

You can't be that dumb, so you must have missed the quote of his that I provided:

"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."


Did you miss the quotation marks? Do you understand what quotation marks mean?

It seems that an optometrist is in your future.

Now, let's see if you can rise above your demonstated ability, and challenge any of the points that I made, as opposed to challenging me...since, in doing so you represent the type that Guicciardini described in "Dialogue on the Government of Florence"

“The fact that others dislike any one being superior to themselves ensures that whenever this happens, these men are destroyed.”
 
I tried to follow you scattergun approach, my friend, and found some things with which I agree, and much that was total nonsense.

But let me focus on this section:

"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."

The "...DANGEROUS nonsense ..." reference to religion is misplaced and shows an unforgivable lacunae that must be corrected.

You see, you are not anti-religion, just pro-statist religion.

And as for dangerous, the last two centuries or so have seen immense swaths of murder, maiming, slavery and misery due to the religion to which you subscribe.

Starting with the French Revolution, and the replacing of Christianity with a belief in the collective and the state, progressivism, fascism, communism, and every permutation of totalism, millions have suffered.


For your edification:

The French Revolution, the first fascist movement(The political terms "Right" and "Left" were born in the French Revolution, when two different revolutionary factions took seats in the French National Assembly's hall: the Girondins on the right wing and the Jacobins on the left wing.)

1. It was totalitarian, nationalist, conspiratorial, and populist, the origin of the revolutionary tradition of the left.
a. While the American Revolution, essentially conservative, and served as a paradigm for the American right and classical liberals, the left sees its model in the Jacobins.

2. Produced the first modern dictators, Robespierre and Napoleon.

3. Based on the premise that the nation had to be ruled by an enlightened avant-garde who represented the ‘general will.’

4. Jacobin mentality made the revolutionaries more savage and cruel than the king they replaced. Some 50,000 died in the Terror (1793-1794)

5. [Robespierre] “is the prototype of a particularly odious kind of evildoer: the ideologue who believes that reason and morality are on the side of his butcheries. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot are of the same mold. They are the characteristic scourges of humanity in modern times, but Robespierre has a good claim to being the first.” Why Robespierre Chose Terror by John Kekes, City Journal Spring 2006

6. Robespierre: "We must exterminate all our enemies."

7. Robespierre: “The people is always worth more than individuals…The people is sublime, but individuals are weak” or expendable. http://www.nationalaffairs.com/docl...hvsthefrenchenlightmentgertrudehimmelfarb.pdf, p. 20



Dangerous?

9/11
The Crusades
Pee-pee Touchers
Judging of human beings, in General, as some sort of seperate entity from others (less than equal) -->homosexuals.

Yes, Religion can be Dangerous. Also, you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting. It makes you seem like a pompass bee-hotch, and not a scholar in the least. You're arguing from a position of arrogance in that you're arguing against what you "perceive" him to be, aka building a strawman, knocking it down, and patting yourself on your arrogant back. Strong work.

It seems that your attempted arguments with me are on a personal level, not with the points expressed. I understand that technique, as your ability and knowledge are sorely limited.

But I worry about your dimunition of visual acuity, since you claim "...you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting."

You can't be that dumb, so you must have missed the quote of his that I provided:

"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."


Did you miss the quotation marks? Do you understand what quotation marks mean?

It seems that an optometrist is in your future.

Now, let's see if you can rise above your demonstated ability, and challenge any of the points that I made, as opposed to challenging me...since, in doing so you represent the type that Guicciardini described in "Dialogue on the Government of Florence"

“The fact that others dislike any one being superior to themselves ensures that whenever this happens, these men are destroyed.”
:lol: dUMBASS, I read his quote. You told him that he worships the State. Is that the exact opposite of thinking that Religion is "Dangerous nonsense?" If not, show me the quote he made which caused you to "ascribe" the view unto him that he "worships the State", ya ninny. "you can't be that dumb."

And B: you made no points to argue against. You showed how the State can be Dangerous, but didn't either A: prove that Religion Can't be.............or B: Argue counter to a point he actually made, which worship of the State wasn't one of them(his points)
 
Last edited:
9/11
The Crusades
Pee-pee Touchers
Judging of human beings, in General, as some sort of seperate entity from others (less than equal) -->homosexuals.

Yes, Religion can be Dangerous. Also, you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting. It makes you seem like a pompass bee-hotch, and not a scholar in the least. You're arguing from a position of arrogance in that you're arguing against what you "perceive" him to be, aka building a strawman, knocking it down, and patting yourself on your arrogant back. Strong work.

It seems that your attempted arguments with me are on a personal level, not with the points expressed. I understand that technique, as your ability and knowledge are sorely limited.

But I worry about your dimunition of visual acuity, since you claim "...you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting."

You can't be that dumb, so you must have missed the quote of his that I provided:

"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."


Did you miss the quotation marks? Do you understand what quotation marks mean?

It seems that an optometrist is in your future.

Now, let's see if you can rise above your demonstated ability, and challenge any of the points that I made, as opposed to challenging me...since, in doing so you represent the type that Guicciardini described in "Dialogue on the Government of Florence"

“The fact that others dislike any one being superior to themselves ensures that whenever this happens, these men are destroyed.”
:lol: dUMBASS, I read his quote. You told him that he worships the State. Is that the exact opposite of thinking that Religion is "Dangerous nonsense?" If not, show me the quote he made which caused you to "ascribe" the view unto him that he "worships the State", ya ninny. "you can't be that dumb."

And B: you made no points to argue against. You showed how the State can be Dangerous, but didn't either A: prove that Religion Can't be.............or B: Argue counter to a point he actually made, which worship of the State wasn't one of them(his points)

So, let's see what you have proven by this post. Did you " see if you can rise above your demonstated ability,..." and, sadly, you were unable.


At times one finds knowledgeable folks on the board, worthy of engagement...

and then there is you.

There are the folks who know, and the folks who don’t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know.

Be gone.
 
It seems that your attempted arguments with me are on a personal level, not with the points expressed. I understand that technique, as your ability and knowledge are sorely limited.

But I worry about your dimunition of visual acuity, since you claim "...you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting."

You can't be that dumb, so you must have missed the quote of his that I provided:

"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."


Did you miss the quotation marks? Do you understand what quotation marks mean?

It seems that an optometrist is in your future.

Now, let's see if you can rise above your demonstated ability, and challenge any of the points that I made, as opposed to challenging me...since, in doing so you represent the type that Guicciardini described in "Dialogue on the Government of Florence"

“The fact that others dislike any one being superior to themselves ensures that whenever this happens, these men are destroyed.”
:lol: dUMBASS, I read his quote. You told him that he worships the State. Is that the exact opposite of thinking that Religion is "Dangerous nonsense?" If not, show me the quote he made which caused you to "ascribe" the view unto him that he "worships the State", ya ninny. "you can't be that dumb."

And B: you made no points to argue against. You showed how the State can be Dangerous, but didn't either A: prove that Religion Can't be.............or B: Argue counter to a point he actually made, which worship of the State wasn't one of them(his points)

So, let's see what you have proven by this post. Did you " see if you can rise above your demonstated ability,..." and, sadly, you were unable.


At times one finds knowledgeable folks on the board, worthy of engagement...

and then there is you.

There are the folks who know, and the folks who don’t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know.

Be gone.
:lol:

You're not worthy of much of anything.

You wanted to engage a poster in conversation, but didn't have to.

Then, in a prudish manner, told him that he "worships the state," somehow, because he said Religion was Dangerous. (odd).

You then showed as some sort of proof of the State being Dangerous (again, arguing something he didn't even say......THAT IT WASN'T) a bunch of citations which aren't really pertinent to the conversation of RELIGION being Dangerous (which it surely can be, do you deny this?). This was your arguing with a strawman. Throughout your whole post of proudly arguing with said skinny strawman, you patted your own back by ridiculing the poster whom which you responded. Did you not ridicule him with the tone and tenor of your words? :eusa_shhh:

You deserve what the fuck you get. Look in the mirror.
 
Last edited:
The Kingdom of Heaven, in fact, is an arithmetic-like kind of place. There is part one in Matthew 20::1-16, and there is part two in Matthew 25::14-30. Part Two has been around since likely before time. As noted, time uses numbers. to make sense of meaning. The fact that B.C. has no date certain, and was set centuries later, still has nothing to say about time or arithmetic.

Like Part I, of Part II, they are simply not connected, until they are. So some human assigned a reference point to the calendar.

Finally, in 2009, C. E. There is Schedule M, of I.R.S. 1040, unconnected to the rest of the arithmetic in law: Like some great COLA, since it is refundable.

IRS arises because of an Amendment to the Constititution.

If the equal-amounts in Schedule M are increased over time--indexed, for example--then over time there is created an arithmetic concept, "Widespread Wealth Worldwide." From Widespread Wealth World, there arises the possibility of an anarchy--a civilization with no rulers, no borders, and no king. An anarchy would easily be a worldwide utility and transportation system, with denominated transactions providing the usual material and critter-comforts.

But there would be no king.

In fact, a king would likely be the last thing that anyone would want to have around in an anarchy!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred."
(Hmmm! White Eyes foist great concept of Great Completely Witless Father in Washington, with no treaties for many nations(?)! Where are the poison blankets, and rotted corn, in all this?!?)
 

Forum List

Back
Top