Would you support a presidential candidate who held that biblical law superceded the Constitution?

[IsaacNewton]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

 

[browsing deer]

Anybody who says that has about 6 supporters, so your question is moot. It is like giving citizenship to refugees from alpha Venturi or Beetlgues.

 

[thanatos144]

Hey dummy since christians made the constitution I would say it is a moot question.....

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[IsaacNewton]

Its a simple question, if you can't answer move along to the flamer forum.

Thanks for playing.

 

[pinqy]

Anybody who says that has about 6 supporters, so your question is moot. It is like giving citizenship to refugees from alpha Venturi or Beetlgues.

Oh? Huckabee: ‘amend the Constitution’ to ‘God’s standards.’ While not a serious contender, Huckabee has more than 6 supporters.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

This was already asked in a thread...was it you?

 

[thanatos144]

Its a simple question, if you can't answer move along to the flamer forum.

Thanks for playing.

Dip shit the constitution already follows the bible ..... unlike the Quran

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[IsaacNewton]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Commandment says you can't have any other gods other than the God of the Bible.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Its a simple question, if you can't answer move along to the flamer forum.

Thanks for playing.

Dip shit the constitution already follows the bible ..... unlike the Quran

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No it doesn't.

 

[Pogo]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

Excellent.

Anybody who says that has about 6 supporters, so your question is moot. It is like giving citizenship to refugees from alpha Venturi or Beetlgues.

Would that that number were accurate...

 

[Pogo]

Anybody who says that has about 6 supporters, so your question is moot. It is like giving citizenship to refugees from alpha Venturi or Beetlgues.

Oh? Huckabee: ‘amend the Constitution’ to ‘God’s standards.’ While not a serious contender, Huckabee has more than 6 supporters.

As does Pat Robertson.

 

[Toro]

Anybody who says that has about 6 supporters, so your question is moot. It is like giving citizenship to refugees from alpha Venturi or Beetlgues.

There's certainly more people in America by many, many multitudes who would believe that than who believe the same for sharia law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anybody who says that has about 6 supporters, so your question is moot. It is like giving citizenship to refugees from alpha Venturi or Beetlgues.

So you'd agree that the RWnuts ranting about those who want to replace the Constitution with Sharia Law are ranting about imaginary boogeymen too.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I probably should have included a poll.

I'm asking for direct answers, would you support a candidate for president, or any office, who held that biblical law supercedes the Constitution? There is another thread about sharia and you can start one on Hinduism if you like. This one is about biblical law.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"Would you support a presidential candidate who held that biblical law superceded the Constitution"

As a matter of personal belief? No problem.

As an intent of practical application? No, I would not support one, nor could such a belief be applied anyway.

 

[the_human_being]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

I would simply appreciate having a President that upholds the Constitution for a change.

 

[thanatos144]

Its a simple question, if you can't answer move along to the flamer forum.

Thanks for playing.

Dip shit the constitution already follows the bible ..... unlike the Quran

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No it doesn't.

Yes it does...

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[martybegan]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

Considering we have one now that holds that "whatever I feel is good" supersedes the constitution, what would be the difference?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

I agree.

Of course, many Christian religious mores are matched by language of the Constitution. Don't murder, don't steal, don't lie etc. It turns out that people who adhere to Christian religions, are already more than halfway to supporting the Constitution - a far better proportion than is found in adherents to Sharia law.

How about people who believe that the religion of Modern Liberalism should supersede the Constitution? They support taxation to transfer funds directly to various special interest groups (forbidden by the Const), and govt getting involved in workplace conditions, land zoning, local environmental conditions, medical insurance, retirement funding, unemployment compensation in various forms, and even the size of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we can buy - all functions forbidden to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and reserved instead to the States and the People.

Modern liberalism is a religion, of course: There is no proof that it works (and plenty of evidence to show it doesn't), it is perceived as different things by different people in different places, it requires absolute faith and devotion to its ideals without question, and seeks to destroy anyone who doesn't unquestioningly obey and proselytize it requirements. Its devotees dare not mention its name, and regularly castigate anyone who applied ANY spoken name to it ("We're NOT socialists! We're NOT communists! Don't you DARE call us that! We're NOT....", etc.). And they can tolerate no other religion except Modern Liberalism. They regard anyone who disagrees, as not only wrong but evil.

Does your view that "there is no religion that supercedes[sic] the Constitution", include the religion of Modern Liberalism? What do you propose we should to with the people already in office, who are clearly fanatical devotees to that religion and regularly violate the Constitution to make laws implementing their religion in its place?