Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And the Constitution is the law of the land not the big book of the goyim
Without God we would not have our Constitution.
Everyone who fought in the Revolutionary war knew we won because of God's helping hand.
From the Generals down to the soldiers.
You should read some of their letters and papers and the many miracles that happened.
"Everyone who fought in the Revolutionary War knew we won because of Gods helping hand"
Try to keep up before you butt in Redfish
whoever said that was quoting what some of the people of those times said or believed. Maybe they were right maybe they were wrong. Only God knows.
That was me and it was from their letters that they wrote that I was talking about.
Many choose to ignore that fact and twisted the meaning.
whose letters? what one individual person believed is fairly irrelevant. what is relevant is what they ended up with.
I think my religion should run things.
(I figure that has as much validity as your BS).
its foolish to judge people who lived 200 years ago by today's standards of right and wrong. in the 1700s most of the world believed that slavery was acceptable. Today we believe otherwise.
In the 1400s most people believed that evil vapors caused pneumonia and that blood letting would cure it. Today we know better.
If you want to judge people in history you need to use the morals and ethics of the time that they lived.
which is why laws and constitutional interpretations change. inter-racial marriage used to be illegal. then Loving v Virginia found marriage to be a fundamental right to which all consenting adults were entitled if they chose. this court applied Loving to same sex couples.
it isn't that difficult to grasp. people can't use their professed religious beliefs as an excuse to divest people of their constitutionally protected rights.
Ok, fine. But Loving was about interracial marriage between one man and one woman of different races, not the same sex. Loving is not a valid legal precedent for gay marriage.
But gay marriage is now legal in the USA, Whats next? polygamy, parent/child, siblings, multiples?
The gay marriage ruling DOES set a valid legal precedent for all other forms of "marriage". So get ready for Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice.
irrelevant to constitutional construction. it was about marriage being a fundamental right and only in the face of a heavy duty governmental interest can it be infringed upon.
there is no governmental interest in bigotry.
you don't even understand the concept of bigotry. You are one of the biggest bigots on this forum. You are bigotted against anyone who professes a believe in God and practices religion.
YOU are the bigot in this discussion.
we can pretend.
No it wasn't and it never was about that.
That was how it was twisted.
They don't understand the difference of having helping hand and direct involvement or direct writing.
My guestion was....Why would God get involved in a document written by a slaveholder and incorporating the institution of slavery into a new nation?
Because in those times the general belief was that slavery was an acceptable way of life. Again you are trying to judge the people of 1776 by the morals of 2015.
So God evolves? Hmmm....
No, but people do.
Well then too many people rely on arguing from the perspective of what did the founding fathers believe.
It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
Her religious beliefs are what led to her being jailed and they changed the rules in the middle of the game. SSM wasn't "legal" when she was elected, in fact it was banned in KY
Times change, so do job requirements. But wait, her job is now praying to Jesus, full-time from behind bars. Just where a lower animal ought to be.It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
Her religious beliefs are what led to her being jailed and they changed the rules in the middle of the game. SSM wasn't "legal" when she was elected, in fact it was banned in KY
It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
Her religious beliefs are what led to her being jailed and they changed the rules in the middle of the game. SSM wasn't "legal" when she was elected, in fact it was banned in KY
You are making a chicken and egg argument that is irrelevant! It makes no sense to argue an alleged faithful Christian who takes an OATH before her God to FAITHFULLY execute her duties and then OPENLY AND WILLFULLY FORSAKES THAT OATH on the same grounds of ALLEGED Christian beliefs. That is the highest of hypocrisies!
It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
Her religious beliefs are what led to her being jailed and they changed the rules in the middle of the game. SSM wasn't "legal" when she was elected, in fact it was banned in KY
It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
Her religious beliefs are what led to her being jailed and they changed the rules in the middle of the game. SSM wasn't "legal" when she was elected, in fact it was banned in KY
You are making a chicken and egg argument that is irrelevant! It makes no sense to argue an alleged faithful Christian who takes an OATH before her God to FAITHFULLY execute her duties and then OPENLY AND WILLFULLY FORSAKES THAT OATH on the same grounds of ALLEGED Christian beliefs. That is the highest of hypocrisies!
God's law trumps human law. Your argument has failed
It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
She was charged with contempt of court because she refused to give marriage licenses to same sex couples which is her religious believe.
It should have been handled like it has been done in other States, where someone else could give them out not her being jailed.
It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
Her religious beliefs are what led to her being jailed and they changed the rules in the middle of the game. SSM wasn't "legal" when she was elected, in fact it was banned in KY
You are making a chicken and egg argument that is irrelevant! It makes no sense to argue an alleged faithful Christian who takes an OATH before her God to FAITHFULLY execute her duties and then OPENLY AND WILLFULLY FORSAKES THAT OATH on the same grounds of ALLEGED Christian beliefs. That is the highest of hypocrisies!
In your mind. Not everyone else.
Again. LAME!
It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
Her religious beliefs are what led to her being jailed and they changed the rules in the middle of the game. SSM wasn't "legal" when she was elected, in fact it was banned in KY
You are making a chicken and egg argument that is irrelevant! It makes no sense to argue an alleged faithful Christian who takes an OATH before her God to FAITHFULLY execute her duties and then OPENLY AND WILLFULLY FORSAKES THAT OATH on the same grounds of ALLEGED Christian beliefs. That is the highest of hypocrisies!
God's law trumps human law. Your argument has failed
It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
Her religious beliefs are what led to her being jailed and they changed the rules in the middle of the game. SSM wasn't "legal" when she was elected, in fact it was banned in KY
You are making a chicken and egg argument that is irrelevant! It makes no sense to argue an alleged faithful Christian who takes an OATH before her God to FAITHFULLY execute her duties and then OPENLY AND WILLFULLY FORSAKES THAT OATH on the same grounds of ALLEGED Christian beliefs. That is the highest of hypocrisies!
God's law trumps human law. Your argument has failed
It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
Her religious beliefs are what led to her being jailed and they changed the rules in the middle of the game. SSM wasn't "legal" when she was elected, in fact it was banned in KY
You are making a chicken and egg argument that is irrelevant! It makes no sense to argue an alleged faithful Christian who takes an OATH before her God to FAITHFULLY execute her duties and then OPENLY AND WILLFULLY FORSAKES THAT OATH on the same grounds of ALLEGED Christian beliefs. That is the highest of hypocrisies!
God's law trumps human law. Your argument has failed
You pay your taxes to Caesar do you not, and you give to Him what is His. You are deluding yourself and deflecting because your arguments have been faulty!
Fine, only God doesn't rule here, we do. So in this case God, and his opinion is unknown, matters not a fuckin' damn. Our laws, our jail, her ass that sits in it...God's law trumps human law.
The sins that you yourself engage in on a daily basis would be too long to list, starting with anger, and pride...First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
Her religious beliefs are what led to her being jailed and they changed the rules in the middle of the game. SSM wasn't "legal" when she was elected, in fact it was banned in KY
You are making a chicken and egg argument that is irrelevant! It makes no sense to argue an alleged faithful Christian who takes an OATH before her God to FAITHFULLY execute her duties and then OPENLY AND WILLFULLY FORSAKES THAT OATH on the same grounds of ALLEGED Christian beliefs. That is the highest of hypocrisies!
God's law trumps human law. Your argument has failed
You pay your taxes to Caesar do you not, and you give to Him what is His. You are deluding yourself and deflecting because your arguments have been faulty!
The Bible clearly states we are to follow human law UNLESS it is in contradiction to God's law. The Bible makes it clear homosexuality is a sin and abomination. You lose, toad
It is the acceptance of sinful things overall since the 1960's and for the 1st time in our history we have jailed a person for her religious beliefs rather than trying to work out a compromise like other States have done.
That is hatred all the way around on both sides.
First, that woman was charged with contempt of court, not for her religious belief! You are distorting the facts. To a real person of Faith, that is gross error in His eyes.
Second, the woman had worked in that office for many years when her own mother had been the elected Clerk, and knew the responsibilities of the Clerk very well. Then she was ELECTED and took the OATH as the Clerk. Do Christians taking OATHS and swearing to God that they will carry out their duties faithfully have a RIGHT to break that OATH because of anything they might have an objection to may arise?
In that case, there are only two PROPER alternatives for a person of Faith to do. One is to either do it or resign. She did neither and she was dead wrong and so are you!
If I were a jaded character, I'd say she was looking to cash in for a book deal, movies rights or something of that nature. But of course I'm not like her!
She was charged with contempt of court because she refused to give marriage licenses to same sex couples which is her religious believe.
It should have been handled like it has been done in other States, where someone else could give them out not her being jailed.
Yup, that was an option, but she had ordered her staff NOT TO ISSUE licenses to same sex couples wishing to be married. She forced the issue and now she is paying the piper!
