Zone1 If the US were to declare itself a Christian nation, what version of Christianity would you think it would be?

[konradv]

What? You are not an agent of "Free Will".........? Someone of another faith can force you to accept their faith and still abide by the common laws of this Republic? You are FREE......to choose what religion you wish, just as others have FREEDOM "OF" religion. That is the very point of the 1st amendment.......there can be NO LAW that demands you to accept a faith that you do not wish to accept. What more do you want to be protected from another religion.....its a guaranteed right as defined by this Consitutional Republic's Bill of Rights?

If you fear those of another faith.......are you sure you are serving the correct God? You have no need to fear, God watches over His people. (Luke 12:22-33) The only 1 you should fear is He that can cut your soul asunder. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter; Fear God and keep "HIS COMMANDMENTS", for this is the duty of man." -- Eccl. 12:13 "Fear not them that can kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." -- Matthew 10:28

This reminds me of and old Axiom by Ben Franklin; Those that would give up freedom for safety, deserve neither. You want to take another's right of religious freedom to comfort your personal fear? I am more than grateful for the freedom's that we enjoy in this republic. Why do you assume the world continues to flood the US by migrating here? Its for those very freedom's that you would deny to others. Your rights end at the threshold of were mine rights to the same begin.

I think you'd be singing a different tune, if ordered to pay the Jizya.

 

[Clyde 154]

it's called the civil war - 14th amendment - cry a river ... its not changing anytime too soon.

- except by the present, phony - scotus. if they can. by deception, their calling card.

Oligarchy: Look it up. Any law that has evolved by opinion only from the bench can be adjusted or rescinded the same way.

Yeah..........and Roe v. Wade did not change.

It appears that SCOTUS does not require an amendment when an opinion can circumvent an amendment. SELF PROFESSED BY SCOTUS Example: The 10th article of the States Bill of Rights still exists.......yet SCOTUS claims that the 14th amendment is somehow superior to the unrescinded 10th. SCOTUS claims that the 14th includes a great many things that are not actually recorded in that amendment. Example: Marriage. No where is marriage mentioned...therefore according to the 10th.....WORDS NOT FOUND IN THE CONSTIUTION belong respectively to the STATES/PEOPLE....not SCOTUS (an agent of the federal government).

When text is added or taken away from any part or portion of the Constitution........it serves the purpose of changing or amending the constitution void of any of the contitutional requirements that demand REPRESENTATION from the states/people in this representative republic. SCOTUS claims the right to legistate from the bench by opinion.

 

[Clyde 154]

I think you'd be singing a different tune, if ordered to pay the Jizya.

Your toughts? From a person that apparently lives in fear? Do you also "think" (subjective as hell ......like your opinion that lacks any objective construct)......what you FEEL (liberalism personified.......living by emotion instead of reality)....matters to ME? Empty words.

 

[Clyde 154]

That contract that limits the Feferal government influence upon states has been shattered. Religion be damned.

Yeah and Roe v. Wade will never be OPINED AWAY and made moot.......just like it was OPINED INTO EXISTENCE. FYI: Genius......anything that can be opined into existence can be rescinded with the same simple majority ease.


Tis the problem no? This Constitutional Republic has been fundamentally changed from being a government of the people and for the people......to a self professed (as professed by the radical SCOTUS) Oligarchy (a system of government lead by a self professed....unelected group of individuals).

SCOTUS has no contitutional authority to "shatter" anything.......its only power rests within the LITERAL WORDS of the Constitution. SCOTUS is authorized to "ARBITRATE" not "LEGISLATE". When words are "added" or "taken away" from the literal context and content of the Constitution and following amendments that include the States Bill of Rights.......SCOTUS is claiming the power and authority to change the contract among the states that is the US CONSITUTION.....void of any representation from the people/states whatsoever.

Example: The leftist court members claim that MARRIAGE is protected by the 14th amendment. Anyone? Show me the term marriage that is litterally addressed in the 14th amendment. No? If these words do not exist in the constitution..........who does that "silence" belong to? SCTOUS who is actually a body of the federal government the Constitution was drafted to place limits upon by the STATES/PEOPLE? Of course any representative of the federal government does not hold the authority to change the constitution void of representation by a supermajority of .75......but SCTOUS claims the right to change (add words that do not exist......or change the meaning of words that do exist when the context and subject matter self define every word in the constitution....its written at an 8th grade English level)

Marriage is.......and always has been a matter to be settled at the state and local level........SCOTUS finally Got one right when it sent Roe. v. Wade back to the states to self determine.

When SCTOUS "added" marriage to the 14th.......they robbed the people of their right of representation.....as defined in the 10th amendment.

Religion has always been protected..........until King Roosevelt packed the court with communist liberals.

 

[konradv]

Your toughts? From a person that apparently lives in fear? Do you also "think" (subjective as hell ......like your opinion that lacks any objective construct)......what you FEEL (liberalism personified.......living by emotion instead of reality)....matters to ME? Empty words.

You're not making much sense and not answering my question. Why is that? Fear?

 

[Clyde 154]

You're not making much sense and not answering my question. Why is that? Fear?

Another letist trait......"feigning" ignorance. If you do not comprhend the simple word FEAR (the basis for your attempt to deny others of their 1st amendment rights).......I understand your inability to comprehend the words of the 1st amendment that were drafted at an 8th grade level of education.

Circular Logic: Regardless of how many times your questions might be addressed......you never appear to be able to comprehend the answers. Deflection: 101 Saul Alinsky would be proud.

 

[BreezeWood]

Oligarchy: Look it up. Any law that has evolved by opinion only from the bench can be adjusted or rescinded the same way.

Yeah..........and Roe v. Wade did not change.

It appears that SCOTUS does not require an amendment when an opinion can circumvent an amendment. SELF PROFESSED BY SCOTUS Example: The 10th article of the States Bill of Rights still exists.......yet SCOTUS claims that the 14th amendment is somehow superior to the unrescinded 10th. SCOTUS claims that the 14th includes a great many things that are not actually recorded in that amendment. Example: Marriage. No where is marriage mentioned...therefore according to the 10th.....WORDS NOT FOUND IN THE CONSTIUTION belong respectively to the STATES/PEOPLE....not SCOTUS (an agent of the federal government).

When text is added or taken away from any part or portion of the Constitution........it serves the purpose of changing or amending the constitution void of any of the contitutional requirements that demand REPRESENTATION from the states/people in this representative republic. SCOTUS claims the right to legistate from the bench by opinion.

it's called the civil war - 14th amendment - cry a river ... its not changing anytime too soon.

to the extent when deliberately misconstrued for its success has nothing to do with the opinion than the redress for its removal.

 

[konradv]

Another letist trait......"feigning" ignorance. If you do not comprhend the simple word FEAR (the basis for your attempt to deny others of their 1st amendment rights).......I understand your inability to comprehend the words of the 1st amendment that were drafted at an 8th grade level of education.

Circular Logic: Regardless of how many times your questions might be addressed......you never appear to be able to comprehend the answers. Deflection: 101 Saul Alinsky would be proud.

You're the one talking in circles and not answering my question. Seems like fear to me. Why else try to "rope a dope" me?