Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

Emily... step away from your computer or mobile device and call your mother.

Thanks Faun
I can't even make it to Austin for her birthday because I'm so behind at work
and been sick on and off.

What I really want to
is to shift this whole Freedmen's Town project back into the hands of the
church and community leaders who WANT jobs and credit for rebuilding and restoring
programs the right way to be sustainable, not more dependence on govt
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

So whatever it takes to get this in the right hands, instead of me working two jobs
while the fundraising or organizing isn't getting done.
the nonprofits have the intent to pay back 60,000 in debts I covered for them,
but they are overworked unpaid volunteers also understaffed.
And just need the support to do the fundraising, which I have
been networking around to find help to promote the campus
plans, and create jobs for all of them instead of me paying bills until they find nonprofit sponsors.

Just 60K in nonprofit fundraising, and I could clear these credit cards
and not have to work two jobs and volunteer as a third unpaid job
trying to organize support around these campus plans:
http://www.campusplan.org

Then I will be free to see my family again, without that insane pressure.

That's what I really want for Christmas,
to get the RIGHT help for my friends
because this isn't working and never was the solution. It was supposed
to be temporary only and it has dragged out for years!

Hey Sneekin
Would your students be interested in a letter writing contest
to get the issues of legal abuse to the President and the need for restitution
in order to save a national historic Civil rights landmark?

Which theme do you think is more challenging
1. Addressing the left right political divide among the Black leadership preventing
Obama and Democrats from working with Carson and Republicans?
2. Addressing legal and corporate abuse of govt to oppress the
rights of underrepresented minority interests and communities
that have no support to defend our rights from violations?
3. Inviting Obama and Carson to visit Freedmen's Town
and see if Allen West and Sheila Jackson Lee can team up to
create jobs for Veterans and minority leaders to save this district as a campus
for training future leaders for govt office?

Since I have been trying to defend the overrun interests and censored restoration
plans of this FT community since 1995, and have been working two jobs since 2008
and can't get this resolved, I should be fired from this position I was never paid to take on anyway! Instead it has cost me over 60,000 that I am still paying at least 1000 a month to cover.

If I am going to ask help to raise 60K to get out from under these nonprofit debts,
all from govt abuses that cost nonprofit volunteers and organizations a heavy toll
in damages where the part I paid for was only for some of the emergencies these abuses
caused, I might as well raise money to hire someone to do this job right!

What would it cost a legal team to map out the damages assessment
and try to negotiate with Congressional and Executive level officials to cover those damages?

How much would have to be raised to hire a legal team to do this right,
even if it is a group of law students you are supervising? Thank you!

 

[Sneekin]

Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions. So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion. Your definition is NT law. I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery. Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine). Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian. You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible. There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and (translations) a) kissed; b) chastely kissed on the cheek; c) shook hands. Some translations recognize several same sex relationships. Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie. Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century. That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.

Not at all Sneekin

by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
see Matthew 18:15-20

I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!

to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.

If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
I am called to leave you alone.

But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
either agreement or neutral stalemate.

It is a mutual process of exchange,
not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.

Emily - again you bring religion into it. Enough. Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion. You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate. Enough discussion.

1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.

2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
laws too which come from God.

My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.

This works by fr e e choice, never by force.

So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!

No - freedom from ALL religions. Your religious beliefs are not my constitutional rights and won't be. My religious beliefs are not to be factored into the law as well (and not).

That may be Mustafaa's belief (followers of the book), but it's not all - and it doesn't cover all religions. It doesn't cover the NT - which didn't exist to all 3 parties. The book is the OT. Followers of Abraham would be another name for them, as they are descended from a single religion (Judaism). So, we are back to Jews who recognize slavery, etc, etc. No shellfish, no pork, no mixing meat and dairy - the list goes on. Except, then Christians can't have their Lobster, Muslims can't have their meat be Halal, etc.This too would violate law. Of course, much of this violates tenets of other faiths. I've been on threads where people have stated that Catholics are cannibals - because they believe in transubstantiation - that bread and wine is converted to the actual body and blood of Christ. by eating/drinking actual blood and flesh, one would be a cannibal. Only a few religions believe in that concept any more (Christian), and non-Christians don't believe it at all. This is why we don't have what you ask for.

Right Sneekin

So why is it that you understand not to impose spiritual healing through govt, since it violates the beliefs of you and others
but can't understand when health care mandates violate someone's BELIEFS and should not be REQUIRED by govt under penalty for noncompliance?

Is it only because you don't see religious freedom as
applying equally to political beliefs but only religious beliefs?

Spiritual healing can't be imposed because of first amendment violations - period.

Healthcare (written in the mid-90's), then passed as Romneycare (and found legal) and then it became the PP/ACA. This went to SCOTUS, who signed off on it. It really makes no difference if it violates your personal beliefs - it doesn't violate any of your constitutional rights. It was passed by a majority in the House and Senate. It went through the entire democratic process. It was discussed, etc. It was signed into law.

The real question is - why don't you understand that laws aren't written IAW your beliefs or consensus. These bills went through a process. You elected people to represent you in the federal government (people of your state). They voted against it - however, it's a federal law, not violating any constitutional law, and it passed.

Religious freedoms apply in certain situations, not all. They have nothing to do with political beliefs, just religious beliefs.

 

[Syriusly]

Here Sneekin how is this NOT federal govt
regulating or discriminating on the basis of RELIGION
to determine who is exempt and who is fined for not complying:

Are You Exempt From The Obamacare Insurance Penalty?

You are not subject to the penalty for 2014 if you qualify for any of the following exemptions

• You are a member of a health care sharing ministry, which is a tax-exempt organization whose members share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and have shared medical expenses in accordance with those beliefs continuously since at least December 31, 1999.
• 
  
• You are a member of a religious sect that has been in existence since December 31, 1950 and is recognized by the Social Security Administration as conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits.

NOTE: and NO I am NOT trying to diminish the definition of domestic violence.

Technically what I am going through constitutes LEGAL abuse or government abuse.
Where govt authority and public resources were abused to exclude and damage
an entire community, and in trying to cap or restore that community from damages,
I have become "enslaved" against my consent, to pay the costs using MY labor and income
to restore rights of citizens abridged or denied by govt induced damages until the restitution is resolved other ways.
I can also argue that as a volunteer supporting the nonprofit volunteer efforts and organization
of Darrell Patterson who is an elected Precinct Chair for this community district,
I have be en forced to pay $300 a month to prevent loss of the Van he uses for elderly and youth.
I didn't agree to pay the whole amount, the original agre ement was that he raise the money,
but since he couldn't we then agreed to alternate where I pay 300 a month and he pays 300 the next.
That never happened.

Thus working a second job goes to pay for the VAN HE USES for HIS nonprofit group
under terms I never agreed to enslave myself to, but that's what happened.

I am sure I will regret going down this rabbit hole.

How have you been forced to pay for Darrell Patterson's van?

 

[Faun]

So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament. No Christianity for me. If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.

The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.

What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.

B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.

so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.

C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.

Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.

They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.

And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

I subscribe to the Old Testament, not the new one. Does that mean I can have a slave even though you can't?

 

[Faun]

Then

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies
Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with "yes" or "no."

WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.

Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??

That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?

That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.

A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)

In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.

What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.

The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.

RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
(and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
then ALL people get that.
C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.

Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
I am trying to address these things in context.
the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).

* NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?

While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.

What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.

Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?

NOPE
1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution

2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed

Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through
options that aren't equally available for all people?

And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.

if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
OR ELSE FACE FINES?

Please answer that question ^
Thanks Faun

You say, "nope," but your position said, "yes, yes, yes!"

You said you believe churches should marry folks but that the government shouldn't. If such a disaster ever occurred, it would mean exactly that -- religious heterosexual would be about the only people who could get married on the U.S.. At least freely and to the person of their choice.

You may not comprehend this, but it's because of people like you that the government is in the business of marriage; as well as securing all other rights as well.

As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here Sneekin how is this NOT federal govt
regulating or discriminating on the basis of RELIGION
to determine who is exempt and who is fined for not complying:

Are You Exempt From The Obamacare Insurance Penalty?

You are not subject to the penalty for 2014 if you qualify for any of the following exemptions

• You are a member of a health care sharing ministry, which is a tax-exempt organization whose members share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and have shared medical expenses in accordance with those beliefs continuously since at least December 31, 1999.
• 
  
• You are a member of a religious sect that has been in existence since December 31, 1950 and is recognized by the Social Security Administration as conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits.

NOTE: and NO I am NOT trying to diminish the definition of domestic violence.

Technically what I am going through constitutes LEGAL abuse or government abuse.
Where govt authority and public resources were abused to exclude and damage
an entire community, and in trying to cap or restore that community from damages,
I have become "enslaved" against my consent, to pay the costs using MY labor and income
to restore rights of citizens abridged or denied by govt induced damages until the restitution is resolved other ways.
I can also argue that as a volunteer supporting the nonprofit volunteer efforts and organization
of Darrell Patterson who is an elected Precinct Chair for this community district,
I have be en forced to pay $300 a month to prevent loss of the Van he uses for elderly and youth.
I didn't agree to pay the whole amount, the original agre ement was that he raise the money,
but since he couldn't we then agreed to alternate where I pay 300 a month and he pays 300 the next.
That never happened.

Thus working a second job goes to pay for the VAN HE USES for HIS nonprofit group
under terms I never agreed to enslave myself to, but that's what happened.

I am sure I will regret going down this rabbit hole.

How have you been forced to pay for Darrell Patterson's van?

In order to save it from total loss, the only way I could afford to buy it out from his predatory payday loan
was to buy it using my autoloan credit with USAA. We used the car loan to transfer
a previous loan he never paid that was sitting on my credit cards, and he needed the other cash to bail out
some rent and other expenses. So we transferred those debts to a car loan of 14,000 or 14,400?.

The deal was we would do fundraising to pay off this money for his nonprofit (that would have paid off the car loan)
But he was so strapped he had told me he couldn't pay the 300 a month so he asked
if I would cover every other month, so we compromised (but then he never paid that either.)
He is also working and volunteering at the same time and never did the fundraising.
(He also incurred a 26,000 debt on some other property that had to be paid or he'd lose that from the
nonprofit that was supposed to be managing it. And then he got diagnosed with leukemia and couldn't work at all.)

So in order to save the van and my credit, I have had to pay the 300 by each month deadline, until we do the fundraising to pay
back the full amount. Because I don't really have that money, it is coming out of money I need for rent and other expenses,
so it has technically been transferred to other credit card accounts that are running up interest instead of really paying it off.

He did not even understand the debt is still 14,000, because it has merely been transferred from one debt to another.
He thinks it was paid or at least half of it, but he never paid for these, so they didn't just disappear!

He does not understand that since the first loans I covered for him never got paid, they were sitting on credit.
And I only transferred them to the van and then to pay THAT back they got transferred back onto credit again.

So the 300 a month wasn't really getting paid either, it was merely being exchanged for charges on credit cards and
going there until it is paid off.

I had even offered to do a fundraiser to help one of his VET volunteers buy the van
to continue using it for the nonprofit. He didn't understand that either.
I said if he is doing nothing to raise the money to pay the cost, then if a VET can raise the money
and buy it, let's do it that way.

As long as it's under my name and I have to pay, then he is going to be pressured to focus on
paying the courts 26,000 to save property the nonprofit could lose, and the van is secondary.

Gladys House who originally managed that property under the nonprofit begged for him to
step down and let her come back in and save the property from getting seized.
But he insisted on being in charge, and fighting the court over the decision to use units
to house him and another volunteer instead of renting them as affordable housing;
so the courts retracted the tax exempt status and that's why they ordered the nonprofit to pay
26,000 in back taxes or lose the property.

He is more tied up with going through chemo and trying to raise 26K to save the apts
for the community, and the van is the least of his issues because I was able to work
two jobs and borrow money to keep paying for it.

It was easier to him to keep letting me do that, to keep paying out of my own means,
rather than ask for help to raise the money for that in addition to the mess with the property.

That's also why he wasn't free to help raise money for either the Youth Center
that was supposed to be built, or raise money to save the other historic houses.

The men in the district would not respect or listen to the women trying to save the properties.
They want to be in charge and the district is almost gone while they wait on God or govt to save them!
All I can think to do is try to organize support around the campus plans to save the ENTIRE district
and hope that brings in the right people that he WOULD respect and listen to.

At this point only if President Obama or Ben Carson with HUD came down would he listen.
I think it has to be the MEN leaders because Gladys also works 2-3 jobs to save the community
and they won't listen to her. The men expect to be in charge, and all the work women do doesn't count.

 

[emilynghiem]

What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.

B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.

so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.

C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.

Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.

They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.

And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

I subscribe to the Old Testament, not the new one. Does that mean I can have a slave even though you can't?

Dear Faun by religious freedom you can follow and exercise your faith
along with others who consent to the same. So if you AG R E E to "enslave" each other,
such as declaring health care a right, where everyone has to work for free to provide
health care to the collective, then that is your choice so it is VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

Your ACA calls for either voluntary servitude if you agree to those terms.
Or involuntary if you don't agree with it.

Other people don't agree with imposing servitude, so we don't believe
in any such right to pass mandates like that and force servitude on others.

But apparently you believe in this if you have no problem with ACA
requiring people to pay their income from their labor under terms we don't consent to or believe in!

 

[Sneekin]

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

I subscribe to the Old Testament, not the new one. Does that mean I can have a slave even though you can't?

Dear Faun by religious freedom you can follow and exercise your faith
along with others who consent to the same. So if you AG R E E to "enslave" each other,
such as declaring health care a right, where everyone has to work for free to provide
health care to the collective, then that is your choice so it is VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

Your ACA calls for either voluntary servitude if you agree to those terms.
Or involuntary if you don't agree with it.

Other people don't agree with imposing servitude, so we don't believe
in any such right to pass mandates like that and force servitude on others.

But apparently you believe in this if you have no problem with ACA
requiring people to pay their income from their labor under terms we don't consent to or believe in!

Have you contacted your State's Attorney General, so he can file another frivolous lawsuit, this one claiming that the ACA imposes servitude on you?

You aren't using the proper translation of the OT. Try reading the Greek, you'll get a better understanding. That, and put your NT out of your mind. Slavery that you refer to was not performed by consent. Neither is your incorrect analogy claiming the PP/ACA is VOLUNTARY or INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. Your representatives from Texas (Ted Cruz, Gohmert for starters - I try to ignore TX as they have too many pending lawsuits for various civil rights violations) voted against the PP/ACA, and they lost the vote, where it was signed into law. But I guess you claim all your taxes are involuntary servitude as well? Good luck - when your interstate system goes to hell in TX, and you refuse to pay your taxes, you'll be putting tolls on your road and paying by the mile. You'll have plenty of dirt roads. Don't you realize that once your taxes are paid, it's not your money? Your taxes must be cut to get reduction - you can't arbitrarily refuse, without actions taken against you. If you had the knowledge to run a budget the size of the federal government, you might grasp the magnitude of the job. As a student, I assisted on a military munitions budget. At my level, there were 8 years, down to the individual budget, detailed to engineering costs, above the line and below the line costs, assembly, and components. This was done for every munitions item purchased over an 8 year period, done 4 times a year. Every expense was justified. It went forward to congressmen, then the various committees, who rolled numbers (our backup data) up to the number of billions required for all munitions over 8 years. For the military, do the same for materiel purchases, clothing, electronics, tanks/jeeps/etc, costs for military housing, construction, Corp of Engineers work, ad nauseum. That is just one branch, and a small portion of line items that make the budget. Multiply this by every branch of the service. Now, you have the DoD budget, which will also include subs, ships, planes, helicopters, spare parts, etc. When the President sees this, he sees "X" dollars for DoD. The congressional committee sees more detail, the branches more detail, the Program Executive Offices sees finer grain detail (we need x bombs, "Y" missiles, "Z" bullets, "B" tanks, etc. Worker bees know down to how many grains of black powder is needed, and who can manufacture. Now multiply this by every other Branch of the government, to see how your taxes are spread. You don't have a clue how your money is used - because the appropriations committee has to determine how to tax your income (cash income) and spread it out over the various line items in the budget. (cash outlay). The money isn't yours once collected. Corporate and income taxes are General revenues. Those general revenues are spent - determined by Congress and the President. Not you. Your payroll taxes go into a trust fund (ie, Social Security and Medicare).

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) grants Congress the power to collect taxes. Nowadays, more than 100 million American households file a federal tax return each year, and those income taxes make up the federal government's single largest revenue source. If you read the constitutionn, you will see that nowhere does it allow you to withhold your tax because you think it's voluntary servitude.

 

[emilynghiem]

[bQUOTE="emilynghiem, post: 15988737, member: 22295"]

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

I subscribe to the Old Testament, not the new one. Does that mean I can have a slave even though you can't?

Dear Faun by religious freedom you can follow and exercise your faith
along with others who consent to the same. So if you AG R E E to "enslave" each other,
such as declaring health care a right, where everyone has to work for free to provide
health care to the collective, then that is your choice so it is VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

Your ACA calls for either voluntary servitude if you agree to those terms.
Or involuntary if you don't agree with it.

Other people don't agree with imposing servitude, so we don't believe
in any such right to pass mandates like that and force servitude on others.

But apparently you believe in this if you have no problem with ACA
requiring people to pay their income from their labor under terms we don't consent to or believe in!

Have you contacted your State's Attorney General, so he can file another frivolous lawsuit, this one claiming that the ACA imposes servitude on you?

You aren't using the proper translation of the OT. Try reading the Greek, you'll get a better understanding. That, and put your NT out of your mind. Slavery that you refer to was not performed by consent. Neither is your incorrect analogy claiming the PP/ACA is VOLUNTARY or INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. Your representatives from Texas (Ted Cruz, Gohmert for starters - I try to ignore TX as they have too many pending lawsuits for various civil rights violations) voted against the PP/ACA, and they lost the vote, where it was signed into law. But I guess you claim all your taxes are involuntary servitude as well? Good luck - when your interstate system goes to hell in TX, and you refuse to pay your taxes, you'll be putting tolls on your road and paying by the mile. You'll have plenty of dirt roads. Don't you realize that once your taxes are paid, it's not your money? Your taxes must be cut to get reduction - you can't arbitrarily refuse, without actions taken against you. If you had the knowledge to run a budget the size of the federal government, you might grasp the magnitude of the job. As a student, I assisted on a military munitions budget. At my level, there were 8 years, down to the individual budget, detailed to engineering costs, above the line and below the line costs, assembly, and components. This was done for every munitions item purchased over an 8 year period, done 4 times a year. Every expense was justified. It went forward to congressmen, then the various committees, who rolled numbers (our backup data) up to the number of billions required for all munitions over 8 years. For the military, do the same for materiel purchases, clothing, electronics, tanks/jeeps/etc, costs for military housing, construction, Corp of Engineers work, ad nauseum. That is just one branch, and a small portion of line items that make the budget. Multiply this by every branch of the service. Now, you have the DoD budget, which will also include subs, ships, planes, helicopters, spare parts, etc. When the President sees this, he sees "X" dollars for DoD. The congressional committee sees more detail, the branches more detail, the Program Executive Offices sees finer grain detail (we need x bombs, "Y" missiles, "Z" bullets, "B" tanks, etc. Worker bees know down to how many grains of black powder is needed, and who can manufacture. Now multiply this by every other Branch of the government, to see how your taxes are spread. You don't have a clue how your money is used - because the appropriations committee has to determine how to tax your income (cash income) and spread it out over the various line items in the budget. (cash outlay). The money isn't yours once collected. Corporate and income taxes are General revenues. Those general revenues are spent - determined by Congress and the President. Not you. Your payroll taxes go into a trust fund (ie, Social Security and Medicare).

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) grants Congress the power to collect taxes. Nowadays, more than 100 million American households file a federal tax return each year, and those income taxes make up the federal government's single largest revenue source. If you read the constitutionn, you will see that nowhere does it allow you to withhold your tax because you think it's voluntary servitude.[/QUOTE]
Dear Sneekin Whoa Whoa Whoa

I did NOT say ALL taxes are involuntary.
In fact I believe the Main Justification that makes the IRS constitutional is people DO consent to use it! Otherwise without consent it has been argued it's unconstitutional.

What I'm talking about is specifically
A. Forcing me to Pay for health share membership or insurance, which I did not consent to as a taxpayer, to be exempted from either fines or federal regulated exchange registration I deem unconstitutional by violating beliefs in free choice, civil liberties and due process, and rights reserved to people or states (unless the hardship exemption is approved by counting these deprivation of income to be economic abuse under domestic violence)
B. The Democratic Precinct Chair imposing a 300 a month debt that I did not agree to pay out of my income. You can count that as breach of contract but it's still imposing Involuntary Servitude until he and other Black church civic and govt. Leaders unite and reorganize resources and funding to save the national historic district of Freedmens Town instead of borrowing from me and taking it out of my income, where I did not consent to lose this income from my labor to pay debts UNLESS the Black leaders unite to pay it back!

So if they all Unite to pay it back, then I consent to LEND the money from income and labor to buy that time to organize.

If NOT, then this is Involuntary seizure of my income and labor I did not consent to.

Is that more specific?

And yes I understand this is not the typical use of the terms Involuntary servitude, but that is the most clear way I have seen to describe what is wrong with ACA mandates that deprive liberty income and labor from taxpaying citizens, like me, without due process to prove what crimes were committed that merit loss of freedom.

Rand Paul described it that way.
Avatar4321 was the first person I read explain it this way.
We have equal rights to our beliefs and representation as you and others who don't see it the same way. Govt cannot be abused to impose your beliefs and interpretations while denying and penalizing us for our equal beliefs when we have committed no crimes!

That's fine if you believe it's not involuntary servitude, but what gives you or Govt the right to impose your beliefs on others to whom this is a complete violation of Constitutional rights freedoms and principles.

At the very least, as you and I both believe in not imposing faith based beliefs through Govt, we should agree to offer equal CHOICES but not to impose them under Mandates or Fines.

And yes, if this is how people think, and cannot treat political beliefs equally as religious beliefs, then I would join in petitioning the AG to sue for restraining orders until all such contested Mandates are revised as *Optional Choices* to respect equal political beliefs of taxpayers who have committed no crimes that justify deprivation of liberty and free choice of how to pay and provide for health care.

 

[Syriusly]

Here Sneekin how is this NOT federal govt
regulating or discriminating on the basis of RELIGION
to determine who is exempt and who is fined for not complying:

Are You Exempt From The Obamacare Insurance Penalty?

You are not subject to the penalty for 2014 if you qualify for any of the following exemptions

• You are a member of a health care sharing ministry, which is a tax-exempt organization whose members share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and have shared medical expenses in accordance with those beliefs continuously since at least December 31, 1999.
• 
  
• You are a member of a religious sect that has been in existence since December 31, 1950 and is recognized by the Social Security Administration as conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits.

NOTE: and NO I am NOT trying to diminish the definition of domestic violence.

Technically what I am going through constitutes LEGAL abuse or government abuse.
Where govt authority and public resources were abused to exclude and damage
an entire community, and in trying to cap or restore that community from damages,
I have become "enslaved" against my consent, to pay the costs using MY labor and income
to restore rights of citizens abridged or denied by govt induced damages until the restitution is resolved other ways.
I can also argue that as a volunteer supporting the nonprofit volunteer efforts and organization
of Darrell Patterson who is an elected Precinct Chair for this community district,
I have be en forced to pay $300 a month to prevent loss of the Van he uses for elderly and youth.
I didn't agree to pay the whole amount, the original agre ement was that he raise the money,
but since he couldn't we then agreed to alternate where I pay 300 a month and he pays 300 the next.
That never happened.

Thus working a second job goes to pay for the VAN HE USES for HIS nonprofit group
under terms I never agreed to enslave myself to, but that's what happened.

I am sure I will regret going down this rabbit hole.

How have you been forced to pay for Darrell Patterson's van?

In order to save it from total loss, the only way I could afford to buy it out from his predatory payday loan
was to buy it using my autoloan credit with USAA. We used the car loan to transfer
a previous loan he never paid that was sitting on my credit cards, and he needed the other cash to bail out
some rent and other expenses. So we transferred those debts to a car loan of 14,000 or 14,400?..

Okay- what i don't understand is why you have ever lent any money to any of these people. Or why you agreed to pay for this van- or were you forced?

This seems to be a far bigger personal issue for you than any of this other crap.

Personally it seems to me that you might have been taken advantage of. Have you looked into any legal clinics who might be able to look at your case and see if they can help you?

Again- it seems to me that your posts here might be an escape from dealing and confronting the ugly mess that you are in- and I suspect that perhaps your good intentions allowed you to be taken advantage of.

Check out this link- and I sincerely wish you the best to try to dig out of this mess.

Community Legal Resources | Dallas Bar Association

 

[Sneekin]

[bQUOTE="emilynghiem, post: 15988737, member: 22295"]

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

I subscribe to the Old Testament, not the new one. Does that mean I can have a slave even though you can't?

Dear Faun by religious freedom you can follow and exercise your faith
along with others who consent to the same. So if you AG R E E to "enslave" each other,
such as declaring health care a right, where everyone has to work for free to provide
health care to the collective, then that is your choice so it is VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

Your ACA calls for either voluntary servitude if you agree to those terms.
Or involuntary if you don't agree with it.

Other people don't agree with imposing servitude, so we don't believe
in any such right to pass mandates like that and force servitude on others.

But apparently you believe in this if you have no problem with ACA
requiring people to pay their income from their labor under terms we don't consent to or believe in!

Have you contacted your State's Attorney General, so he can file another frivolous lawsuit, this one claiming that the ACA imposes servitude on you?

You aren't using the proper translation of the OT. Try reading the Greek, you'll get a better understanding. That, and put your NT out of your mind. Slavery that you refer to was not performed by consent. Neither is your incorrect analogy claiming the PP/ACA is VOLUNTARY or INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. Your representatives from Texas (Ted Cruz, Gohmert for starters - I try to ignore TX as they have too many pending lawsuits for various civil rights violations) voted against the PP/ACA, and they lost the vote, where it was signed into law. But I guess you claim all your taxes are involuntary servitude as well? Good luck - when your interstate system goes to hell in TX, and you refuse to pay your taxes, you'll be putting tolls on your road and paying by the mile. You'll have plenty of dirt roads. Don't you realize that once your taxes are paid, it's not your money? Your taxes must be cut to get reduction - you can't arbitrarily refuse, without actions taken against you. If you had the knowledge to run a budget the size of the federal government, you might grasp the magnitude of the job. As a student, I assisted on a military munitions budget. At my level, there were 8 years, down to the individual budget, detailed to engineering costs, above the line and below the line costs, assembly, and components. This was done for every munitions item purchased over an 8 year period, done 4 times a year. Every expense was justified. It went forward to congressmen, then the various committees, who rolled numbers (our backup data) up to the number of billions required for all munitions over 8 years. For the military, do the same for materiel purchases, clothing, electronics, tanks/jeeps/etc, costs for military housing, construction, Corp of Engineers work, ad nauseum. That is just one branch, and a small portion of line items that make the budget. Multiply this by every branch of the service. Now, you have the DoD budget, which will also include subs, ships, planes, helicopters, spare parts, etc. When the President sees this, he sees "X" dollars for DoD. The congressional committee sees more detail, the branches more detail, the Program Executive Offices sees finer grain detail (we need x bombs, "Y" missiles, "Z" bullets, "B" tanks, etc. Worker bees know down to how many grains of black powder is needed, and who can manufacture. Now multiply this by every other Branch of the government, to see how your taxes are spread. You don't have a clue how your money is used - because the appropriations committee has to determine how to tax your income (cash income) and spread it out over the various line items in the budget. (cash outlay). The money isn't yours once collected. Corporate and income taxes are General revenues. Those general revenues are spent - determined by Congress and the President. Not you. Your payroll taxes go into a trust fund (ie, Social Security and Medicare).

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) grants Congress the power to collect taxes. Nowadays, more than 100 million American households file a federal tax return each year, and those income taxes make up the federal government's single largest revenue source. If you read the constitutionn, you will see that nowhere does it allow you to withhold your tax because you think it's voluntary servitude.

Dear Sneekin Whoa Whoa Whoa

I did NOT say ALL taxes are involuntary.
In fact I believe the Main Justification that makes the IRS constitutional is people DO consent to use it! Otherwise without consent it has been argued it's unconstitutional.

What I'm talking about is specifically
A. Forcing me to Pay for health share membership or insurance, which I did not consent to as a taxpayer, to be exempted from either fines or federal regulated exchange registration I deem unconstitutional by violating beliefs in free choice, civil liberties and due process, and rights reserved to people or states (unless the hardship exemption is approved by counting these deprivation of income to be economic abuse under domestic violence)
B. The Democratic Precinct Chair imposing a 300 a month debt that I did not agree to pay out of my income. You can count that as breach of contract but it's still imposing Involuntary Servitude until he and other Black church civic and govt. Leaders unite and reorganize resources and funding to save the national historic district of Freedmens Town instead of borrowing from me and taking it out of my income, where I did not consent to lose this income from my labor to pay debts UNLESS the Black leaders unite to pay it back!

So if they all Unite to pay it back, then I consent to LEND the money from income and labor to buy that time to organize.

If NOT, then this is Involuntary seizure of my income and labor I did not consent to.

Is that more specific?

And yes I understand this is not the typical use of the terms Involuntary servitude, but that is the most clear way I have seen to describe what is wrong with ACA mandates that deprive liberty income and labor from taxpaying citizens, like me, without due process to prove what crimes were committed that merit loss of freedom.

Rand Paul described it that way.
Avatar4321 was the first person I read explain it this way.
We have equal rights to our beliefs and representation as you and others who don't see it the same way. Govt cannot be abused to impose your beliefs and interpretations while denying and penalizing us for our equal beliefs when we have committed no crimes!

That's fine if you believe it's not involuntary servitude, but what gives you or Govt the right to impose your beliefs on others to whom this is a complete violation of Constitutional rights freedoms and principles.

At the very least, as you and I both believe in not imposing faith based beliefs through Govt, we should agree to offer equal CHOICES but not to impose them under Mandates or Fines.

And yes, if this is how people think, and cannot treat political beliefs equally as religious beliefs, then I would join in petitioning the AG to sue for restraining orders until all such contested Mandates are revised as *Optional Choices* to respect equal political beliefs of taxpayers who have committed no crimes that justify deprivation of liberty and free choice of how to pay and provide for health care.[/QUOTE]


EMILY:
You need to wave goodbye to the boat. YOU don't get to choose what is done with the money after it's collected in taxes. You don't get to decide on the ACA. That was already decided, went to court - YOU LOST. It's constitutional. End of Discussion. When you can stop paying taxes as a taxpayer, let me know until then, or until the ACA is ended, by law YOU MUST. YOU personally have no vote in the matter - for the 10th time -YOU ELECT REPRESENTATIVES. THEY VOTED ON IT. Tell me, Emily, what happens when you have no health care (by your own choice) and you have a heart attack or a stroke - and no way to pay the bill. Current law says you can go to a hospital and get treated. Written off the hospital's taxes. You are paying that premium because the rest of us are sick and tired of paying "your" bills. Short of rescinding that law (would never happen) and letting "you all" just die in the street, the government found that you need to pay your own bills. The paltry sum people pay for health care along with requirements from the ACA entitle EVERYONE to get checked for these serious conditions, getting a yearly physical, tests, most vaccinations - which will now be paid for instead of ME paying "your" bill. You may not want to pay it - but I don't want to pay your bills, and year after year, I pay more in taxes, doctor visits (copays), and ANY form of medical treatment. In essence I'm paying for me and you prior to the ACA. Since the ACA went into effect, my insurance dropped literally 50 percent. All years following COMBINED, my insurance went up less than 25 dollars. So yes, call it what you want - I'm not paying your bill without having a voice. And if I have to pay for treatment because you are poor, I don't have an issue - provided you go and see a doctor and get treated (total cost, DR + Drug) is 100-150. Let it go to Pneumonia because you are too freaking lazy to pay for insurance, and it can cost upwards of 5000-10000. I'm not paying your bills. Pay for your insurance and get treated.

Petition away - they deserve a good laugh. It's not anything you can do, Emily. It's NOT OPTIONAL. WE DON'T PAY YOUR BILLS, PAY YOUR OWN. WE WILL EVEN PAY FOR THE POOR. You personally have a vote - you have representatives to do it for you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sneekin

A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.

I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/

This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
[Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]

Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!

Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.

B. So in general
NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.

The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.

Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.

At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.

If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,

Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. Faun and Sneekin
A. I took your advice and rested.
I even missed a call from my mother to catch up on sleep!

Thanks for your concern; the most pressing issue is to
delegate these problems to the people who have asked to
organize the plans by radio outreach, and speed up the process
of getting all of these off of me and my paychecks to carry which have run out.
Govt should have redressed these grievances UP FRONT, and I was only
acting as emergency measures to cap and do damage control
until this gets resolved correctly, without depending on my "slave labor"
to pay the costs of govt abuses that went on for longer than we could afford.

The more people I find willing to take this on correctly, the less stress on me,
and the more I can talk like normal with my family and friends insetad of arguing
how long is this situation going to impair me.

Sneekin as a teacher in law, you should know that legal abuse happens.
Because not all people can afford equal legal defense, big corporations that
can afford to sue cities if they don't get to develop have more voice and "REPRESENTATION"
in govt than people with no money trying to defend historic preservation interests that
aren't counted in the equation like development is that determines property value and taxes.
Unless there is MONEY to buy out the property, people don't have equal rights and protections.
You should know this as a law professor, or what are you teaching your students?

Key Note: The reason I am proposing a privatized system through govt is to accommodate restitution involving govt but which has to be funded voluntarily where Statutes have run and cannot be mandated by law. The Federal Reserve is partially private involving banks; I'm saying to set up other accounts through the Fed for voluntary restitution to be paid to redress grievances that exceed the capacity of govt. If we don't find a way to redress grievances that go beyond govt jurisdiction, then corporations that destroy communities and evidence of wrongdoing mean that affected citizens go without equal protection and right to redress grievances. Suing after the fact doesn't restore the damages lost, and these damages cannot always be proven in advance to prevent corporations from taking action to cause them; so rights are being violated that cannot always be restored using the given system. So that is one area that I have been proposing solutions for. It make take executive orders from Govt at state or federal levels, but those should be by consensus of the people or that can be argued as unconstitutional. Either way, this requires consensus to be formed either inside or outside govt, before means can be set up to Represent that consensus.

P.S. Sneekin

B. the same way you are saying "spiritual healing" can be done in private without implementing the CHOICE through govt,
you and Faun and Syriusly are saying it's not fair to treat marriages that way, but ALL people should be able to go through govt
to get MARRIED NOT JUST TO GET LICENSED FOR CIVIL CONTRACTS BUT TO DO THE ACTUAL CEREMONY

so I am saying treat these options the same!

If you are ENDORSING federal govt CONTROLLING AND REGULATING ALL CHOICES OF HEALTH CARE
then Spiritual Healing as one of those choices would HAVE to get endorsed and approved by govt as an option.

If you are saying this remains private, then GET HEALTH CARE OUT OF GOVT.
And so should personal means of marriage be left in private.

What are we going to do then?
Keep the FACILITIES public, but ALLOW people to bring in their OWN staff and services
to conduct their OWN services for spiritual healing, marriage, etc. so that this isn't endorsed by govt???

C. also Syriusly and Faun
I totally sympathize with what you are saying about not taking marriage away from others.
I cannot even get married under the given choices that don't accommodate me either!

These have not been set up yet, that could handle marrying one person who doesn't
believe in going through church and the other who doesn't believe in going through the state.

I think by the time I set up a system that would work for this situation,
then anyone would be accommodated equally!

 

[emilynghiem]

I subscribe to the Old Testament, not the new one. Does that mean I can have a slave even though you can't?

Dear Faun
did I answer this question already or short enough for you?

If YOU follow the OT, you and OTHERS who follow the SAME faith,
can practice that with each other. It's called BARTER or VOLUNTEER services.
If YOU and OTHERS agree to work for each other for FREE.
YES it's your RIGHT to practice your FREE exercise of religion.
however, if anyone COMPLAINS they are ABUSED or COERCED
that's NOT "free exercise of religion" by FORCED.
so if they don't agree to be "enslaved" or volunteer for free,
they DON"T agree to that faith in that practice.
So you'd have to find volunteers who AGREE and yes you can practice that freely!

And the same rule applies to all people of all faiths and practices.
It has to be voluntary compliance, not FORCED faith or it's religious abuse
and violate the religious freedom and due process of people not to be
deprived of liberty. Those are natural laws that apply to all human nature,
free will and right to defend one's will consent and beliefs. So people of
all religions or none at all are still under laws that govern human nature in general.

 

[emilynghiem]

Then
Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??

That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?

That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.

A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)

In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.

What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.

The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.

RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
(and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
then ALL people get that.
C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.

Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
I am trying to address these things in context.
the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).

* NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?

While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.

What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.

Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?

NOPE
1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution

2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed

Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through
options that aren't equally available for all people?

And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.

if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
OR ELSE FACE FINES?

Please answer that question ^
Thanks Faun

You say, "nope," but your position said, "yes, yes, yes!"

You said you believe churches should marry folks but that the government shouldn't. If such a disaster ever occurred, it would mean exactly that -- religious heterosexual would be about the only people who could get married on the U.S.. At least freely and to the person of their choice.

You may not comprehend this, but it's because of people like you that the government is in the business of marriage; as well as securing all other rights as well.

As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.

Dear Faun
I believe govt should accommodate ALL These beliefs equally
1. people who want to go through church to marry
2. people who want to go through govt
3. people who want both, or neither, or some other way
So how do we set up a system that allows any combination of these
without imposing on anyone with different beliefs?

Just because I believe the problem is solved by everyone setting up private means FIRST,
before setting up public means second, based on where all the public agrees accommodates
everyone equally of all beliefs,
doesn't mean people like you agree.
Obviously you believe you don't have equal access unless this is set up THROUGH govt
FIRST, and then set up the private alternatives SECOND which you feel accommodates everyone. Not everyone agrees with that either!

So how do we accommodate YOUR belief where it doesn't impose on the equal
consent and beliefs of others that govt is supposed to represent?

If you are insisting that it be done through govt,
how are you different from people insisting right to life has to be recognized as a
CHOICE through govt and can't just be exercised privately outside?

And what about people who want Spiritual Healing as a CHOICE through govt as a recognized
exemption to avoid penalties -- how can that be recognized as a CHOICE
without imposing on others who see that as a violation for govt to include that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Spiritual healing can't be imposed because of first amendment violations - period.

Healthcare (written in the mid-90's), then passed as Romneycare (and found legal) and then it became the PP/ACA. This went to SCOTUS, who signed off on it. It really makes no difference if it violates your personal beliefs - it doesn't violate any of your constitutional rights. It was passed by a majority in the House and Senate. It went through the entire democratic process. It was discussed, etc. It was signed into law.

The real question is - why don't you understand that laws aren't written IAW your beliefs or consensus. These bills went through a process. You elected people to represent you in the federal government (people of your state). They voted against it - however, it's a federal law, not violating any constitutional law, and it passed.

Religious freedoms apply in certain situations, not all. They have nothing to do with political beliefs, just religious beliefs.

Sneekin
0. I am NOT talking about IMPOSING spiritual healing which is NOT possible for two reasons
A. like you and I agree, it is against govt principles = UNLAWFUL
That's NOT what I am proposing at ALL
B. AND IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY PERIOD
Whatever YOU are talking about "forcing" anything is
like the *polar opposite difference* between RAPE which is forced and ILLEGAL,
and consensual sex which is legal and cannot be regulated by govt much less forced.

So whatever thinking you have in your mind,
forced abusive "reparative therapy" is like RAPE
while
spiritual healing is EVEN MORE sensitive than sexual intercourse
because it has to be COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY AND WANTED
in order to work. If the person does not want the changes to happen,
if they are not ready, it will not work. it can NEVER be forced.

And yes, the people who go through it to remove intense DEMONIC
obsessions out of their control, report that the process "feels like rape"
It is THAT sensitive where it can only be done if people agree to the full process
which can be VERY difficult, like going through chemo or having a baby. Very painful.

1. I'm talking about offering it as a CHOICE.
You said offering the choice of marriage to gay couples isn't imposing that belief on others.
So why can't the same be done for spiritual healing as a FREE CHOICE.
NOT FORCING IT ON ANYONE AS WE AGREE THAT GAY MARRIAGE CAN'T BE FORCED ON ANYONE.

3. You are free to only recognize "religious beliefs" under the First Amendment.
I don't limit it to that BECAUSE I find it would discriminate against
people with other types of beliefs deserving of equal protections.
So by my standards on NOT discriminating on the basis of CREED,
I recognize beliefs equally both for or against gay marriage, marriage rights,
health care rights through govt, states rights and civil liberties not deprived without due process, etc. etc.

I find that approach ACCOMMODATES yours, but not vice versa.
So in order to include all people and beliefs equally
I take the more INCLUSIVE approach that doesn't leave any beliefs or people out.

I believe mediation and consensus requires starting from NEUTRAL
and universally including ALL beliefs first, then working out agreements on laws from there.

Sneekin I find this approach NECESSARY
for equal representation and protection of laws.
while starting with a skewed base that already leaves people
out of negotiations to being with, is going to prevent democratic
process from reaching a consensus. Legally I recommend it to govt
to set up means of mediation that accommodate this level of process.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have no idea why you are bringing 'spiritual healing' into this discussion and have no interest in pursuing it.

Dear Syriusly Sneekin also Faun and rightwinger
I AM going back and thanking your msg with info as these are ALL helpful.
I am missing pages and responses, so please bear with me, if I can't catch them all when I'm rushing.

Syriusly the reason it helps to compare with spiritual healing
Sneekin fe els the same way about "offering the CHOICE of spiritual healing through govt"
as opponents feel about offering marriage through govt to gay couples.

So I am trying to compare how do we ACCOMMODATE those choices
without govt imposing them on others?

If we can figure it out for spiritual healing we can figure it out for marriage.
Sneekin does not see how offering the choice of marriage to gay people is imposing.
And I don't see how offering the choice of spiritual healing is imposing.
If we can understand the reaction and imposition in the other case, we can understand both sides
and why they object as they do!

 

[emilynghiem]

Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.

I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
so both are included represented and protected equally.
Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.

I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.

(If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
a form of discrimination for political expedience.)

One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.

I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.

NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
the other views at the same time.

And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.

Makes no sense..

Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE

How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?

Here's an example rightwinger

A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
if all residents happen to agree on terms.

Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
(and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.

So it could be agreed upon that an act
resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.

so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.

It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.

We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.

B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
anything to do with abortion.

If the left wants right to health care through govt,
why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.

That is both prochoice and prolife!

300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...

The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?

Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
How do you reconcile that?

Dear rightwinger
1. if there cannot be a consensus then both sides should agree to separate,
and where that isn't fully possible, they should agree to mutual concessions where BOTH sides agree that is the best that can be done.
that would be fair to both.

2. What I tell my prolife friends is they themselves are PROOF
that abortion can be prevented and ended WITHOUT BANNING IT.
Because THEY don't require it to be banned by law for THEM to
do what they do, which is purely through offering better CHOICES
and education to PREVENT abortion. That's enough to wipe it out.
One prolife advocate I spoke with doesn't think this is possible but
believe in promoting better birth control as the solution. Great!
So let's work together on that instead of working against each other.
If we use all resources to focus on where we AGREE will prevent abortion,
that's better than wasting resources fighting where we disagree.

So of all the prolife people I've talked with, the real reason they don't
think the laws are enough is that the prochoice people keep rejecting
their efforts to stop abortion, so they think these people are pro ABORTION instead of prochoice.
If prochoice people work WITH prolife to prevent abortion as much as possible,
they wouldn't feel the need to ban it to stop it.

3. for the hardcore people who don't want govt legalizing it in any form,
that's where I recommend to separate those taxpayers funding and let
them pay under a health care track that is prolife with no abortion.
And same with people who are against death penalty and costs of war,
and want health care, let them separate tracks and pay for life not death!

So separation is possible where people have strong beliefs as conscientious objectors.
I don't think that will divide people any more than we already are along political or religious beliefs,
but will have the opposite effect and allow people to unite, when they can all have their
own way and don't have to compete to force everyone to pay for policies they don't believe in.

 

[Syriusly]

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction. The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??

That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?

That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.

A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)

In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.

What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.

The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.

RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
(and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
then ALL people get that.
C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.

Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
I am trying to address these things in context.
the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).

* NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?

While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.

What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.

Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?

NOPE
1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution

2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed

Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through
options that aren't equally available for all people?

And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.

if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
OR ELSE FACE FINES?

Please answer that question ^
Thanks Faun

You say, "nope," but your position said, "yes, yes, yes!"

You said you believe churches should marry folks but that the government shouldn't. If such a disaster ever occurred, it would mean exactly that -- religious heterosexual would be about the only people who could get married on the U.S.. At least freely and to the person of their choice.

You may not comprehend this, but it's because of people like you that the government is in the business of marriage; as well as securing all other rights as well.

As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.

Dear Faun
I believe govt should accommodate ALL These beliefs equally
1. people who want to go through church to marry
2. people who want to go through govt
3. people who want both, or neither, or some other way
So how do we set up a system that allows any combination of these
without imposing on anyone with different beliefs?

Our system does accommodate exactly that
1- if a couple wants to marry through a church- then they can be married through a church.
2- if a couple wants to marry, but not through a church- then they can be married outside a church.
3- if a couple wants both- then they can do both.
4.- if a couple wants neither- well then they are not married- and our system accommodates that also.

Whatever any of those couples do- do not impose on the beliefs of anyone else?

Why would a Jewish couple marrying in a synogogue be imposing on the beliefs of a Christian who doesn't believe in the Jewish faith?

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Sneekin

A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.

I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/

This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
[Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]

Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!

Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.

B. So in general
NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.

The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.

Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.

At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.

If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,

Thanks!

Emily,
I don't think you grasp how government works. Your representatives are elected, then they represent you. Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's. Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress APPROVED it. You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts. They represented you. PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it. Like it or not, you were represented. Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off). One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are. The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.

If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.

While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us. My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease. It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good. My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35. She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock. She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later. So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars. Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million. Insurance? Would pay for it. You refuse insurance? You expect ME to pay for it? That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.

Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect. That's really funny, since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated. The ACA is LAW. Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have. There are checks and balances. And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick? I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance. Live in a nice house? I'll take it. Nice car? keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car. After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health. And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections. I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids. Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth control, perhaps?