Mixing Religion and Politics

4/20/2017 6:10:30 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
fellowforyou New York, NY 67, joined Jan. 2010	The right has many participants who would mix their religion with the politics. Should there be a division between church and state? Some don't believe the state should act in an immoral way, abortion offends the right. The left seeks to disengage from the religious right's belief that the fetus is an unborn child. Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
4/20/2017 6:17:20 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
reginamc Las Vegas, NV 61, joined Mar. 2011	You don't have to be "religious" to understand that a fetus is an unborn child. And many Democrats are offended by abortion. Where do you get this crap from.
4/20/2017 6:42:14 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
61falcon New Hope, PA 76, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	I believe our CONSTITUTION forbids foisting ones religious beliefs on others??
4/20/2017 6:44:31 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
stellar007 Plymouth, MI 41, joined Dec. 2013 online now!	It's always a Democrat they find dead from chasing the dragon...
4/20/2017 8:27:36 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
testsignup Springfield, VA 63, joined Sep. 2009	The people who want to mix religion into government never want to mix it ALL in, just the little bits that they think will let them take a dump on the people they don't like.
4/20/2017 8:36:08 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
rocky_dennis Mechanicsburg, PA 39, joined Nov. 2013	Great trade, separation of Church and State and separation of Politics and Secondary Education?
4/20/2017 10:08:43 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
kraven_morehed Greenwood, LA 96, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from fellowforyou: The right has many participants who would mix their religion with the politics. Should there be a division between church and state? Some don't believe the state should act in an immoral way, abortion offends the right. The left seeks to disengage from the religious right's belief that the fetus is an unborn child. the people who want to mix religion and politics only want to be able to mix THEIR religion into politics!!! they always start whining like little b*tches whenever somebody that believes in a DIFFERENT fairy tale then theirs tries to do it!! personally,i think that ALL religion should be outlawed as a public health danger!!!!
4/20/2017 10:13:30 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
stellar007 Plymouth, MI 41, joined Dec. 2013 online now!	Only 45 minutes left of Hitlers birthday! Smoke em' if you got em!
4/20/2017 10:14:51 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
kraven_morehed Greenwood, LA 96, joined Jul. 2014	this country was not really founded on the principle of freedom OF religion,though.... it was founded by a bunch of people who had to flee their country be=cause of religious persecution,so it was founded on the principle of freedom FROM religion!!! except NOW you have a bunch of self entitled Christians who don't even understand what 'religious freedom' means,but feel that their 'religious freedom' trumps everybody else's civil rights,and that they should be given free reign to religiously persecute anybody who doesn't believe in their ridiculous fairy tale.
4/22/2017 12:15:30 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
testsignup Springfield, VA 63, joined Sep. 2009	Quote from kraven_morehed: this country was not really founded on the principle of freedom OF religion,though.... it was founded by a bunch of people who had to flee their country because of religious persecution,so it was founded on the principle of freedom FROM religion!!! except NOW you have a bunch of self entitled Christians who don't even understand what 'religious freedom' means,but feel that their 'religious freedom' trumps everybody else's civil rights,and that they should be given free reign to religiously persecute anybody who doesn't believe in their ridiculous fairy tale. I almost agree with that, with a slight disagreement about the history behind it. There was a very strong opposition to having an official State Religion for the US, but all indications are that there was more practicality than anti-religion to it all. We had to build a united nation from a lot of colonies which were almost all founded for different reasons, some religious (the whole New England Pilgrims myth), some purely profit motive (most of the southern colonies) and a few personal fiefdoms (Maryland and Pennsylvania). In order to get everyone to sign on, and in recognition of how much fights over religion had messed up Britain, we got a Constitution that tried to prevent a State sponsored religion from being either directly or indirectly foisted on us, while at the same time, trying to avoid directly attacking religion (for the sake of unity, again). After the fact, a lot of mythology was built up, saying that America was ALWAYS all about people seeking Freedom and Liberty for All, but that's really hogwash. Actually, we were very lucky that BECAUSE we couldn't agree on a single religion, AND we needed to unite for safety from foreign conquest, we established a no-state religion concept. And people have been trying to sneak in religion anyway, ever since. Hence the Pledge, with it's addition of the "under god" phrase, and so forth. It's a battle that we will probably always have to re-fight, again and again, mainly because there are so many people who just don't understand what religious freedom really is. As you did say well.
4/22/2017 12:19:05 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
loving91390 Santa Clarita, CA 97, joined Apr. 2013	Quote from testsignup: I almost agree with that, with a slight disagreement about the history behind it. There was a very strong opposition to having an official State Religion for the US, but all indications are that there was more practicality than anti-religion to it all. We had to build a united nation from a lot of colonies which were almost all founded for different reasons, some religious (the whole New England Pilgrims myth), some purely profit motive (most of the southern colonies) and a few personal fiefdoms (Maryland and Pennsylvania). In order to get everyone to sign on, and in recognition of how much fights over religion had messed up Britain, we got a Constitution that tried to prevent a State sponsored religion from being either directly or indirectly foisted on us, while at the same time, trying to avoid directly attacking religion (for the sake of unity, again). After the fact, a lot of mythology was built up, saying that America was ALWAYS all about people seeking Freedom and Liberty for All, but that's really hogwash. Actually, we were very lucky that BECAUSE we couldn't agree on a single religion, AND we needed to unite for safety from foreign conquest, we established a no-state religion concept. And people have been trying to sneak in religion anyway, ever since. Hence the Pledge, with it's addition of the "under god" phrase, and so forth. It's a battle that we will probably always have to re-fight, again and again, mainly because there are so many people who just don't understand what religious freedom really is. As you did say well. Can a blowhard .... Blow any harder ? I don't think so ....
4/22/2017 6:02:02 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
fellowforyou New York, NY 67, joined Jan. 2010	Religious tolerance is fine and dandy. Though those who are religious don't seem to return the favor. Ignorance and intolerance with the believer would seem to be wide spread.
4/22/2017 7:39:04 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
kraven_morehed Greenwood, LA 96, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from loving91390: Can a blowhard .... Blow any harder ? I don't think so .... you can always tell when somebody doesn't have a valid argument,and is just talking out their a** for the sake of talking... [It sounds just like THAT!] lol
4/22/2017 9:23:52 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
clarity101 Aurora, CO 66, joined Oct. 2008	i love how the succinct wording of the constitution is always misrepresented by the altleft. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an ... The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States A careful reading of the First Amendment reveals that it protects several basic liberties — freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly. Interpretation of the amendment is far from easy, as court case after court case has tried to define the limits of these freedoms. freedom of religion definition. The right to choose a religion (or no religion) without interference by the government. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. A wall of separation between church and state. This is a very strong statement, very clear in meaning. First of all, it means that the government cannot make laws that favor one religion over any other, because it cannot make laws related to the establishment of a religion or the free expression of religious beliefs.Jan 1, 2016
4/22/2017 9:27:44 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
progrocknic Mount Arlington, NJ 33, joined Dec. 2012	Quote from clarity101: i love how the succinct wording of the constitution is always misrepresented by the altleft. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an ... The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States A careful reading of the First Amendment reveals that it protects several basic liberties — freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly. Interpretation of the amendment is far from easy, as court case after court case has tried to define the limits of these freedoms. freedom of religion definition. The right to choose a religion (or no religion) without interference by the government. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. A wall of separation between church and state. This is a very strong statement, very clear in meaning. First of all, it means that the government cannot make laws that favor one religion over any other, because it cannot make laws related to the establishment of a religion or the free expression of religious beliefs.Jan 1, 2016 What's interesting is that the government is constantly violating the constitution. In order for your religious Institute to be recognized as an official religion, the government has to agree that the religion is valid and the religion in question has to meet certain criteria to be considered a religion. That's a violation right there. If I want to start a tax free church that worships lollipop Gods, I wouldn't be able to. That is a clear breech of freedom of religion. Tax free churches are a violation of the first ammendment.
4/22/2017 10:33:40 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
clarity101 Aurora, CO 66, joined Oct. 2008	i think you kinda missed the point there prognosticator! but i understand where the confusion seeps in. according to my understanding and imo..... as soon as i invite the government in to make a judgement for me or to exempt me from something.... i have given up my right to 'separation' of church and state.
4/22/2017 10:34:25 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
progrocknic Mount Arlington, NJ 33, joined Dec. 2012	Quote from clarity101: i think you kinda missed the point there prognosticator! but i understand where the confusion seeps in. according to my understanding and imo..... as soon as i invite the government in to make a judgement for me or to exempt me from something.... i have given up my right to 'separation' of church and state. That's basically what I just said.
4/22/2017 11:04:45 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
clarity101 Aurora, CO 66, joined Oct. 2008	on the other hand.... there are those who try to force their choice or their intolerance upon others, ie.... forcing a christian baker to make a cake for their gay wedding or a christian photographer to photograph their gay wedding or force me to pay for your girlfriends abortion (via taxes or subsidies which are funded through taxation). THAT is an infringement on my rights.
4/22/2017 12:01:47 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
louie6332 Falkville, AL 75, joined Nov. 2011	Progro, you say: “Tax free churches are a violation of the first ammendment.” No, Progro, you have that a** backwards. Taxing churches is a violation of the Constitution, which is, as you know, the law of the land: the Federal Government cannot “make laws related to the free exercise of religion and the free expression of religious beliefs.” Taxing Churches is an infringement on this right. The Federal government cannot tax any of the rights listed in the bill of rights, including the freedom of speech, the freedom to publically practice your religion, and the right to bear arms. The whole business of taxing churches arose from the Federal Government’s intent to limit what preachers could say from the pulpit, which is a violation of both the freedom of speech and the freedom of the free exercise of religion. The Constitution insures that the Federal Government cannot tell preachers what they can and cannot preach, and when the Federal Government does this, they are stomping all over the Constitution. Louie
4/22/2017 1:03:40 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
fellowforyou New York, NY 67, joined Jan. 2010	How homophobia seems to attract the intolerant. It's a shameful thing to turn against a whole immense group just because of their sexual preference.
4/22/2017 1:04:18 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
kraven_morehed Greenwood, LA 96, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from clarity101: i love how the succinct wording of the constitution is always misrepresented by the altleft. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an ... The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States A careful reading of the First Amendment reveals that it protects several basic liberties — freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly. Interpretation of the amendment is far from easy, as court case after court case has tried to define the limits of these freedoms. freedom of religion definition. The right to choose a religion (or no religion) without interference by the government. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. A wall of separation between church and state. This is a very strong statement, very clear in meaning. First of all, it means that the government cannot make laws that favor one religion over any other, because it cannot make laws related to the establishment of a religion or the free expression of religious beliefs.Jan 1, 2016 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I love how ignorant people who don't understand the basic tenets of the constitution try to use it to prove their own misguided viewpoints!! this has been legally addressed MANY times,but the people who want to try to use this argument never seem to actually do the homework to get their facts straight,and prefer to just spout off ill informed nonsense to try to support their own positions to other ill informed people,but if they ever had to argue their claim in a REAL venue,their argument would be torn apart like a pack of dogs going through a plate of pork chops!! here is a little bit of an article that explains why that argument is invalid! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Perhaps nothing is more important to American politics than a well-reasoned debate. Unfortunately, far too many people are ill-informed to make such discussions possible. It seems that to some people, if the words don’t explicitly appear in the constitution then the idea they refer to isn’t constitutionally guaranteed. Viewing it in these simplistic terms is meant to dismiss the entire argument; as if every decision based on the separation of church and state is somehow invalid because the term separation of church and state doesn’t appear in the constitution. Of course the problems with this assertion are many. First and most basic is the fact that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of federal constitutional law. This means that while the term “separation of Church and State” may never appear in the constitution itself, the Court ruling in the case of Everson v. Board of Education stated “the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’” A quarter century later, the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman further defined this separation when it established the Lemon Test to determine if a law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Every ruling since has confirmed that, in the view of the highest court in the land the Constitution created a separation of church and state. Having said that, the separation of church and state is hardly the first unwritten concept that is protected by the constitution. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established a women’s constitutional right to have an abortion despite the word abortion never appearing in the constitution. In the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court established that laws against same sex marriage were unconstitutional despite the word marriage never appearing in the constitution. In the 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright the Supreme Court established that the constitution guarantees the right to an attorney despite the words public defender never appearing in the constitution. In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court established that the second amendment right to bear arms included the right to bear arms for self-defense despite the words self-defense never appearing in the constitution. The reality is that the constitution was never meant to be a stagnant document that was rigidly adherent to the words on the page. As Thomas Jefferson said “The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.” Over the past 200 years the Supreme Court has shaped the constitution to contain a clear separation of church and state that protects every religion equally. If only those who argue against this separation could see how they benefit from it instead of inappropriately interpreting it as an attack on Christianity. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ there you go... an article that explains why your argument is invalid,complete with court rulings to back it up! but,somehow,i get the feeling that you are not someone who cares about something as trivial as 'facts',and will continue to try to use your invalid argument as if it was legitimate,even though you NOW know why it is invalid,because I bet that for some reason,you feel that you know more about the constitution than the scholars who wrote this article,and who have actually studied the law,and how it is supposed to be interpreted,dont you? so,where exactly did you go to law school??? [Edited 4/22/2017 1:07:48 PM ]
4/22/2017 1:34:37 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
progrocknic Mount Arlington, NJ 33, joined Dec. 2012	Quote from louie6332: Progro, you say: “Tax free churches are a violation of the first ammendment.” the Federal Government cannot “make laws related to the free exercise of religion Right, and they made a law that established religions don't have to pay taxes for their churches. They've not only made a law to cater to religions, they've established what those religions are. Clear violation right there.
4/22/2017 1:45:08 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
stellar007 Plymouth, MI 41, joined Dec. 2013 online now!	Recently my kid come home and said his school had a special assembly to draw attention to the Middle East! Of course, the vice principal is apparently Middle Eastern... Apparently I found out that these poor kids have been subjected to this indoctrination for the entire 7 years she has been there! In these discussions topics like the Koran, Islam, and the Middle East are discussed. Apparently our Middle School's teacher is upset with the fact that since she wasn't native born she can't run for President, but given the fact they send home permissions slips for any and all assemblies regardless if they are a magic show, animal exhibit or seasonal holiday celebration they have felt for the past 7 years that such a special assembly outside of the regular social studies curriculum did not merit parent notification. I was sure to send a strongly wondered letter to both the Principal and Vice Principal about my feelings on this issue. This is exactly what I am talking about... Give someone and inch and they will take a mile! In all my years in school here from 1980-1993 we have never had any assemblies to draw attention to any particular religion, race or region! It's outrageous! It's the very definition of indoctrination! I'm pissed! It's been going on for 7 years! I asked my oldest if he got the Muslim "Indoctrination" and he said "ah, yeah it's just something you have to deal with"! WHAT!? No wonder he was wearing Trump hats and T-Shirts to school all the time back then! What a crock of $hit! Anyone else think I am wrong for speaking up!?
4/22/2017 1:58:13 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
testsignup Springfield, VA 63, joined Sep. 2009	Quote from louie6332: Progro, you say: “Tax free churches are a violation of the first ammendment.” No, Progro, you have that a** backwards. Taxing churches is a violation of the Constitution, which is, as you know, the law of the land: the Federal Government cannot “make laws related to the free exercise of religion and the free expression of religious beliefs.” Taxing Churches is an infringement on this right. The Federal government cannot tax any of the rights listed in the bill of rights, including the freedom of speech, the freedom to publically practice your religion, and the right to bear arms. The whole business of taxing churches arose from the Federal Government’s intent to limit what preachers could say from the pulpit, which is a violation of both the freedom of speech and the freedom of the free exercise of religion. The Constitution insures that the Federal Government cannot tell preachers what they can and cannot preach, and when the Federal Government does this, they are stomping all over the Constitution. Louie Well, no, the trouble with following YOUR reasoning, is that, while you are right that the ability to tax one person or entity differently from another CAN allow government interference with one religion by taxing it more than another... ....by allowing some churches to avoid all taxes and others not, we have exactly the ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL INTERFERENCE. What we probably should have, is ALL churches being taxed equally, rather than some getting a free ride and others not.
4/22/2017 2:01:51 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
clarity101 Aurora, CO 66, joined Oct. 2008	Quote from kraven_morehed: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I love how ignorant people who don't understand the basic tenets of the constitution try to use it to prove their own misguided viewpoints!! this has been legally addressed MANY times,but the people who want to try to use this argument never seem to actually do the homework to get their facts straight,and prefer to just spout off ill informed nonsense to try to support their own positions to other ill informed people,but if they ever had to argue their claim in a REAL venue,their argument would be torn apart like a pack of dogs going through a plate of pork chops!! here is a little bit of an article that explains why that argument is invalid! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ your 'article' is just what it says...an argument or and opinion but not fact. and oh btw.... you forgot to post your source for that 'argument' Perhaps nothing is more important to American politics than a well-reasoned debate. Unfortunately, far too many people are ill-informed to make such discussions possible. It seems that to some people, if the words don’t explicitly appear in the constitution then the idea they refer to isn’t constitutionally guaranteed. Viewing it in these simplistic terms is meant to dismiss the entire argument; as if every decision based on the separation of church and state is somehow invalid because the term separation of church and state doesn’t appear in the constitution. Of course the problems with this assertion are many. First and most basic is the fact that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of federal constitutional law. This means that while the term “separation of Church and State” may never appear in the constitution itself, the Court ruling in the case of Everson v. Board of Education stated “the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’” A quarter century later, the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman further defined this separation when it established the Lemon Test to determine if a law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Every ruling since has confirmed that, in the view of the highest court in the land the Constitution created a separation of church and state. Having said that, the separation of church and state is hardly the first unwritten concept that is protected by the constitution. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established a women’s constitutional right to have an abortion despite the word abortion never appearing in the constitution. In the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court established that laws against same sex marriage were unconstitutional despite the word marriage never appearing in the constitution. In the 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright the Supreme Court established that the constitution guarantees the right to an attorney despite the words public defender never appearing in the constitution. In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court established that the second amendment right to bear arms included the right to bear arms for self-defense despite the words self-defense never appearing in the constitution. The reality is that the constitution was never meant to be a stagnant document that was rigidly adherent to the words on the page. As Thomas Jefferson said “The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.” Over the past 200 years the Supreme Court has shaped the constitution to contain a clear separation of church and state that protects every religion equally. If only those who argue against this separation could see how they benefit from it instead of inappropriately interpreting it as an attack on Christianity. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ there you go... an article that explains why your argument is invalid,complete with court rulings to back it up! but,somehow,i get the feeling that you are not someone who cares about something as trivial as 'facts',and will continue to try to use your invalid argument as if it was legitimate,even though you NOW know why it is invalid,because I bet that for some reason,you feel that you know more about the constitution than the scholars who wrote this article,and who have actually studied the law,and how it is supposed to be interpreted,dont you? so,where exactly did you go to law school??? i went to the school of life and hard knocks....how 'bout you??? and again i understand that YOUR opinion is your opinion and your welcome to it but i disagree. Is the U.S. Constitution a fixed document or a work in progress? From a historical perspective, our Founding Fathers were technically “state-sponsored terrorists” (France) in rebellion (“treason”) against our ruler, George III, who derived his authority from God (“divine right of kings”). We established a new, radical form of government, deriving its powers from “the consent of the governed” (“We the People”) — “God” is not in our Constitution. The Preamble gives the purposes of our government “in Order to form a more perfect Union … and secure the Blessings of Liberty …” Republicans tend to view government as the “problem,” doing as little as possible, focusing on the “insure domestic Tranquility” (police) and “provide for the common defence” (military) portions. Democrats tend to view government as the “solution,” placing equal weight on the “establish Justice” (fairness for all) and “promote the general Welfare“ (including public health) aspects. Generally, Republicans have a limited view of government: conservative, negative, reactionary, looking backward in time, embracing the status quo. Whereas Democrats have an expansive view: liberal, progressive, proactive, looking forward in time, embracing change. The Constitution can be viewed as either a fixed, stagnant document or as a living, breathing work in progress. Which ideal works best “in Order to form a more perfect Union”? Kurt Montgomery, Los Osos Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article144879134.html#storylink=cpy and btw... the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as i understand it, is a democratic constitutional republic, not socialist or communist. if you prefer that (socialism or communism)....... move!
4/22/2017 2:12:56 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
kraven_morehed Greenwood, LA 96, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from clarity101: i went to the school of life and hard knocks....how 'bout you??? and again i understand that YOUR opinion is your opinion and your welcome to it but i disagree. Is the U.S. Constitution a fixed document or a work in progress? From a historical perspective, our Founding Fathers were technically “state-sponsored terrorists” (France) in rebellion (“treason”) against our ruler, George III, who derived his authority from God (“divine right of kings”). We established a new, radical form of government, deriving its powers from “the consent of the governed” (“We the People”) — “God” is not in our Constitution. The Preamble gives the purposes of our government “in Order to form a more perfect Union … and secure the Blessings of Liberty …” Republicans tend to view government as the “problem,” doing as little as possible, focusing on the “insure domestic Tranquility” (police) and “provide for the common defence” (military) portions. Democrats tend to view government as the “solution,” placing equal weight on the “establish Justice” (fairness for all) and “promote the general Welfare“ (including public health) aspects. Generally, Republicans have a limited view of government: conservative, negative, reactionary, looking backward in time, embracing the status quo. Whereas Democrats have an expansive view: liberal, progressive, proactive, looking forward in time, embracing change. The Constitution can be viewed as either a fixed, stagnant document or as a living, breathing work in progress. Which ideal works best “in Order to form a more perfect Union”? Kurt Montgomery, Los Osos Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article144879134.html#storylink=cpy and btw... the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as i understand it, is a democratic constitutional republic, not socialist or communist. if you prefer that (socialism or communism)....... move! sorry,but that is not just MY opinion... it is the opinion of constitutional scholars,who have been to legitimate,accredited law school and studied constitutional law in order to be able to properly interpret the meaning of the constitution. but,I am sure that you DO think that 'the school of hard knocks' qualifies you to be a constitutional scholar!!
4/22/2017 2:19:32 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
stellar007 Plymouth, MI 41, joined Dec. 2013 online now!	Kraven, you seemed to think you were a Doctor just because you read some medical article awhile back until the Napster pointed out your fictitious clinical term did not exist. But it's okay when you do it, right?
4/22/2017 2:30:01 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
kraven_morehed Greenwood, LA 96, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from stellar007: Kraven, you seemed to think you were a Doctor just because you read some medical article awhile back until the Napster pointed out your fictitious clinical term did not exist. But it's okay when you do it, right? silly wabbit!!! 'narcissism' is a legitimate medical condition that can be found in ANY medical manual pertaining to basic mental conditions!! 'malignant' is simply an adjective that I used to describe the stage of his narcissism. sorry if the use of basic english is beyond your grasp[in reaity,nobody REALLY expects anything out of you,so they weren't really very disappointed by your ignorance],and it confuses you if somebody uses an adjective in addition to a noun,but I cant dumb it down just for people like you,because my conversation is meant for adults,not whiny cry babies who are just looking for an imaginary loophole that they can pretend is legitimate,so that they can stick their head further up their a** to try to deny the obvious facts. but,keep swinging for the fences,slugger!!!! maybe some day,you will get the grasp of basic language comprehension skills,and be able to participate in conversations with the grown ups!
4/22/2017 2:35:17 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
muldoon1959 Vallejo, CA 58, joined Feb. 2008	Seems a good day for Neil quotes.
4/22/2017 2:36:36 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
clarity101 Aurora, CO 66, joined Oct. 2008	Quote from kraven_morehed: sorry,but that is not just MY opinion... it is the opinion of constitutional scholars,who have been to legitimate,accredited law school and studied constitutional law in order to be able to properly interpret the meaning of the constitution. but,I am sure that you DO think that 'the school of hard knocks' qualifies you to be a constitutional scholar!! when and where did i claim to be a constitutional scholar??? i learn something new everyday and im up for that. the written word rarely changes unless it is REwritten which many socialist and communist lovers try to do with the constitution that is was and always will be the foundation of our nation. our founding fathers did not come back a day later, a year later, or 20 years later and try to change the wording of the constitution. they did many times and still do today try to 'CLARIFY' it.
4/22/2017 9:28:24 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
louie6332 Falkville, AL 75, joined Nov. 2011	Muldoom, a message to you and to Tyson, the belief that no religions and belief systems are based on objective truths is, itself, a belief system based on faith and faith alone. This doctrine, itself, is not an objective truth. Atheism, upon which he is so arrogantly basing this belief (and who also arrogantly asserts that faith and reason are incompatible), is also a religion, the main tenant of which is “there is no God”. But since there is no way to prove an absolute negative, that belief is also based on faith and faith alone, and since there is no way to prove it by reason, it is incompatible with reason. Kraven, oh ye of the fake, “didn’t say”, purposeless profile who are just here to cause trouble in the forums (which, by the way, contributes nothing to the forums), the Constitution, believe it or not, provides for a legal way to amend the Constitution if anyone wants to amend it. It is NOT legal for a judge to amend it from the bench anymore than it is legal for him to legislate from the bench (which they also do). Once Federal Judges start amending it from the bench to say what they want it to say rather than ruling on what the Constitution actually says, they have broken their solemn oath to uphold the Constitution. Breaking a solemn oath, in the eyes of God--you know, the God who is going to judge you when you die, and we are all going to die one day and stand before him for judgment--is a grave sin that can send you to Hell if left un-repented by the time death seals your fate forever. Oh, I know, I know, you don’t give a damn about God, but you will once death seals your fate forever, but it will be too late then. You had better wise up while the sun still shines for you. As far as "mixing religion and politics" goes, a Christian is expected to practice his faith even in his politics. Christians, for example, who go to the ballot box to vote pro-abortion politicians into office, are making themselves a party to abortion and will be held accountable for that by God when they die. Politicians may think it is fun to wage war against Christianity by kicking God out of schools and teaching instead the Masonic religion of Secular Humanism, Situational Ethics, Marxism, and Atheism, and the Pagan religion of Mohammedanism, while trying to prevent Christians from practicing their religion in the public sphere, but it is no laughing matter. They are going to find that out the hard way when their actions bring the wrath of God down upon this nation.For it is revealed that if a Christian nations turns against God, it will be destroyed. And, no, you cannot have peace without God. Our Lord himself has said so. Without God, there is no peace. Louie
4/23/2017 8:09:15 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
kraven_morehed Greenwood, LA 96, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from louie6332: Politicians may think it is fun to wage war against Christianity by kicking God out of schools and teaching instead the Masonic religion of Secular Humanism, Situational Ethics, Marxism, and Atheism, and the Pagan religion of Mohammedanism, while trying to prevent Christians from practicing their religion in the public sphere, but it is no laughing matter. They are going to find that out the hard way when their actions bring the wrath of God down upon this nation.For it is revealed that if a Christian nations turns against God, it will be destroyed. And, no, you cannot have peace without God. Our Lord himself has said so. Without God, there is no peace. Louie i'll take my chances!!
4/23/2017 8:21:31 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
fellowforyou New York, NY 67, joined Jan. 2010	God seems to have fallen off his perch. That he died is self evident. What matters more than God is freedom. Freedom for many is God.
4/23/2017 11:10:24 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
muldoon1959 Vallejo, CA 58, joined Feb. 2008	Quote from louie6332: M Politicians may think it is fun to wage war against Christianity by kicking God out of schools and teaching instead the Masonic religion of Secular Humanism, Situational Ethics, Marxism, and Atheism, and the Pagan religion of Mohammedanism, while trying to prevent Christians from practicing their religion in the public sphere, but it is no laughing matter. They are going to find that out the hard way when their actions bring the wrath of God down upon this nation.For it is revealed that if a Christian nations turns against God, it will be destroyed. And, no, you cannot have peace without God. Our Lord himself has said so. Without God, there is no peace. Louie What you and people like can't seem to wrap your minds around is that yours isn't the only religion in this country. There are many belief systems here and no. It is not a "Christian" nation as much as you've lied yourself into believing. When the founders wrote in the constitutions that there would be no religions test for office or that there would be no laws respecting a single religion, there wasn't any "secret" code in there saying "what they really meant was....." What they really meant was to prevent you and people like you from turning this county into a theocracy. We know that's what they really meat because that's what they wrote down.
4/23/2017 11:58:32 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
louie6332 Falkville, AL 75, joined Nov. 2011	Look Muldoom, the establishment IS teaching religion in schools, can’t you get through your thick skull? After kicking God out of schools in the name of separation of Church and State, a phrase that is not in the Constitution, they are now teaching the Masonic religion of secular humanism, situational ethics, Marxism, and Atheism (and, yes, Atheism IS a religion), and, now, God forbid, also the religion of Mohamed. Don’t you get it? This is a carefully planned out war directed by the partisans of Satan, the Satan worshiping Illuminati, against God and his Church and his people. Thanks to the Satan worshiping Secret Compact against God and his Church, which recently bragged to it controls the governments of Europe and America, we can’t pray to God the Father, the Creator, who has said he will have no other gods before him, in schools and public places, but we can, and MUST, now learn the Koran and pray to and submit to the Pagan god Allah, a demon, a major general of Satan, the ancient arch enemy of God the Father, in schools. Can’t you see that the Liberal mantra “separation of Church and State” has nothing to do with religion? It has to do with Christianity: it is a war on Christianity. Christians today are the most persecuted group in the world. We must not put up crosses in honor of our fallen war heroes, must not put up manger scenes in public places or even in our own front yards on Christ’s birthday, must not even mention the name of Jesus on his birthday. No, no, no, hell no! We must have freedom from the Christian religion. This was foretold in the Catholic prophecies, and that, when it occurs, it would be a sign that the Great, Great war, the Third World War would be near, during which civilization as we know it would be destroyed, and half of humanity, deep drenched in blood, would die. God would punish the Christian nations for having left the path marked out for them. God reveals that the greatness of a Christian nation would depend on its loyalty to God, and that it abandons God, it would be destroyed. Without God, is it revealed, there is no peace. There is no peace under Satan and his general Allah. If you are wise, Muldoom, oh ye who glorify and honor Atheists, you will hearken to God’s warnings. Louie
4/23/2017 12:00:40 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
progrocknic Mount Arlington, NJ 33, joined Dec. 2012	War on Christanity. What a crock of shit. Anyone who thinks there's a war on Christianity in this country must have also believed in one or more of the apocolypse predictions from nut jobs. Oh, hey Louie.
4/23/2017 12:06:55 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
muldoon1959 Vallejo, CA 58, joined Feb. 2008	Quote from louie6332: Look Muldoom, the establishment IS teaching religion in schools, Louie No. It isn't.
4/23/2017 12:58:52 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
kraven_morehed Greenwood, LA 96, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from muldoon1959: No. It isn't.
4/23/2017 2:42:28 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
louie6332 Falkville, AL 75, joined Nov. 2011	Let me get this straight Kraven, the Muslim religion, which is being taught in many public schools today, is NOT “intolerant, hate filled, and oppressive”. Did I get that right? Get real!! What world do you live in? And pay attention Muldoofus, there IS a war on Christianity in both Europe and America today, note the word “Christianity”. If you did not depend solely on the Major News Media, you know, the Government’s Ministry of Propaganda, for your news, you would know that. There is no Government war on Paganism, Mohammedanism, Secular Humanism, or Atheism, which are all anti-Christian religions that are being promoted by Government in Europe and America today. Obama’s infamous Common Core Curriculum, which he was trying to force on all students, including home schooled students, is a case in point, it was sponsored by the Satan worshiping Illuminati and the Muslims to help de-Christianize America. For the history and details see the links: http://www.wbdaily.com/blog/muslim-talat-othman-is-key-to-understanding-why-republican-establishment-protects-muslim-brotherhood/ http://www.wbdaily.com/uncategorized/iran-contras-chickens-coming-home-to-roost/ Or you can just go read Clarity’s posts on the thread "Conservatism wins yet again" at: https://DateHookup.dating/forums.aspx?p=REPLY&forumthreadID=1463162&startat=2146"e=1"eforumpostID=71479216 https://DateHookup.dating/forums.aspx?p=REPLY&forumthreadID=1463162&startat=2146"e=1"eforumpostID=71479217 https://DateHookup.dating/forums.aspx?p=REPLY&forumthreadID=1463162&startat=2146"e=1"eforumpostID=71479763 Go read it, you will be horrified.The Illuminati, which recently bragged that it controls the government of Europe and America, and its Saudi allies are working to destroy Christianity in Europe and America. This is all documented. Anyone who sends their children to public schools today is guilty of child abuse. I can't put it any plainer than that. And to the title of this thread, "mixing religion and politics", that is happening right now right under your eyes, only the religions being pushed anti-Christian religion. It is a wholesale war on Christianity, on God and his Church and his people.But I get what you Godless Liberals are saying, you are saying that Satanism and Paganism in general is just fine, but Christianity is not.I hear you loud and clear--and so does God, who will judge you will you stand before his throne for judgment. Louie [Edited 4/23/2017 2:44:00 PM ]
4/23/2017 6:59:01 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
ultrabrat007 Crescent City, CA 41, joined Dec. 2016	Quote from fellowforyou: The right has many participants who would mix their religion with the politics. Should there be a division between church and state? Some don't believe the state should act in an immoral way, abortion offends the right. The left seeks to disengage from the religious right's belief that the fetus is an unborn child. So, if I went and stuffed abunch of aborted fetuses and gave them suction cups to hang all over my vehicle...you wouldn't have any problem with that, right?
4/23/2017 7:00:54 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
stellar007 Plymouth, MI 41, joined Dec. 2013 online now!	Don't give anyone any ideas.
4/23/2017 7:08:48 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
ultrabrat007 Crescent City, CA 41, joined Dec. 2016	Quote from stellar007: Don't give anyone any ideas. Good point.. OP..exactly where does a "fetus" magically become a human being? What is the process or reasoning of it?Aside the fact of whether or not its wanted.
4/23/2017 7:22:08 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
muldoon1959 Vallejo, CA 58, joined Feb. 2008
4/23/2017 7:25:39 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
reginamc Las Vegas, NV 61, joined Mar. 2011	Quote from ultrabrat007: Good point.. OP..exactly where does a "fetus" magically become a human being? What is the process or reasoning of it?Aside the fact of whether or not its wanted. Whether it's wanted is the only criteria - if you want to be pregnant it is your baby from the second you find out, if you don't it's a growth to be removed. That's how the pro-abortion crowd rolls. Any questions.
4/23/2017 7:26:15 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
nole_89 Loganville, GA 54, joined May. 2010	Our founding fathers saw the danger in mixing the two from Europes endless religious wars. Thus the first amendment. One thing to remember. Your rights end where someone else's nose begins.
4/23/2017 7:45:31 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
ultrabrat007 Crescent City, CA 41, joined Dec. 2016	Quote from reginamc: Whether it's wanted is the only criteria - if you want to be pregnant it is your baby from the second you find out, if you don't it's a growth to be removed. That's how the pro-abortion crowd rolls. Any questions. Thanks for response. My views on this subject is not even religion inspired. Its just at certain standpoint the site of the growing activity, not the mentioning of a profitting from it makes current culture look like abunch of lost, self devouring cannibals or heathens. If the fetus endorsers cared so much about reducing abortion wouldnt it make more sense to keep the perspective of it being a baby or human being...I mean, if its reduced down to the impression removing a wart then how can one ever expect the acivity to reduce in coming generations.
4/23/2017 7:47:36 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
pastmybedtime Huntingdon, TN 41, joined Apr. 2015	The faith people have in government is basically a religious belief system within itself.
4/23/2017 8:15:20 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
reginamc Las Vegas, NV 61, joined Mar. 2011	Quote from ultrabrat007: Thanks for response. My views on this subject is not even religion inspired. Its just at certain standpoint the site of the growing activity, not the mentioning of a profitting from it makes current culture look like abunch of lost, self devouring cannibals or heathens. If the fetus endorsers cared so much about reducing abortion wouldnt it make more sense to keep the perspective of it being a baby or human being...I mean, if its reduced down to the impression removing a wart then how can one ever expect the acivity to reduce in coming generations. "Fetus endorsers" Gonna put that with my new word "plantational". That's the fundamental divide - baby or wart. Depends if you want it. That's the cruel reality of it.
4/24/2017 1:46:53 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
fellowforyou New York, NY 67, joined Jan. 2010	Religion would seem to be a form of fakery when it comes to supporting the woman's birth rights.
4/24/2017 6:29:27 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
waltree Newton, NC 57, joined Oct. 2013	Religion: IS POLITICS! Religion Drives The Emotions of our "ELECTED" Lawyers! So we get Religion written Into OUR LAWS!
4/24/2017 6:53:53 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
mr_bad_robot Cincinnati, OH 42, joined Jul. 2014	From what I hear the OP say is. Only Christian Conservatives support pro-life. The new DC Chair got his @ss handed to him for saying something very similar by his own party.
4/24/2017 6:58:09 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
reginamc Las Vegas, NV 61, joined Mar. 2011	Tom Perez says no place for pro-life Democrats. Get in line with abortion or get out. This is their idea of diversity. http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/23/dnc-chair-declares-no-place-pro-life-democrats-todays-party/
4/24/2017 7:15:29 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
shawnee_b Edmonton, KY 62, joined Apr. 2010	Perez is the epitome of dems. Loser. He can't even talk without cussing and we all know what that means, He doesn't have the intelligence to talk otherwise.
4/24/2017 7:42:05 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
fellowforyou New York, NY 67, joined Jan. 2010	It's good celebrate women's right to choose. Too many right-wingers seek to diminish women and their rights to control their bodies.
4/24/2017 9:00:58 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
louie6332 Falkville, AL 75, joined Nov. 2011	Fellowfornobody, a fetus is NOT a part of a woman’s body, it has its own body, its own set of organs, and its own DNA, which is a unique mixture of DNA from Mother AND Father. Just because the Mother carries it does not make it part of the woman’s body.It is in the woman's body and it depends on her, but it is not part of the woman's body. But you know that already. The Woman’s choice is whether to have sexual intercourse or not. Once she is pregnant, the baby is here, and she and its Father brought it here. If you don’t want a baby, then don’t engage in sexual intercourse. Once it’s here, you do not have the right, in the eyes of God, to murder it, any more than you have the right to murder your other children. Nor do you have that right under the Constitution. The Judges who took a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution broke that oath when they amended the Constitution from the bench to include that right. The preamble of the Constitution says Americans have the right to life, liberty, and happiness (note the word “life”. It did not say you have no right to life if you are a baby. It is so ironic that roughly half of all babies are female. Are we to believe that women have no right to life till they are old enough to grow and murder their own babies? But, of course, this is not a right to life issue, it is a right to murder issue, but the two are mirror images of each other. The right to life implies that you have no right to murder, even if you are a woman. Women who murder their babies are mixing the Constitution with politics. And, yes, abortion is murder. Murder, by definition, is the unjustified killing of another human being. Killing a baby because you don't want to be bothered it it is never justified, for it is innocent, it did nothing to deserve the death penalty. But if the Mother deliberately murders it, that makes HER a murderer who IS worthy of the death penalty. Now Fellowfornobody, go to your safe space...and cry. Louie
4/24/2017 9:08:05 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
sdgncalix3 Palm Bay, FL 44, joined Dec. 2012	Goteborg, Sweden A psychiatrist and social worker followed children born after denied abortion until they were 35 years old. After the Swedish laws were liberalized in 1939, a hospital committee reviewed women’s requests for abortion. Overall, 197 abortions were declined by the local hospital committee. Of note, 68 of these pregnancies ended in abortion, mostly illegal, which shows the determination of the women not to continue their pregnancies. Sixty-six boys and 54 girls were followed as they grew up. For comparison, the investigators chose the next-born child of the same sex at the hospital. Children born after denied abortion fared worse than their peers in many respects. Psychiatric hospitalization was twice as common. Delinquency was twice as common, and criminal activity was three times higher. Registration for public drunkenness was 50 percent higher. The likelihood of receiving public assistance between ages of 16 and 21 years was six times higher and of having learning disorders two times higher. In all dimensions, children born after denied abortion fared less well than their peers.
4/25/2017 8:37:14 AM	Mixing Religion and Politics
mr_bad_robot Cincinnati, OH 42, joined Jul. 2014	Currently in America 50 percent of all prenatal care, child births and postnatal care are paid through Medicaid. It's dead even across all states so this is not one of those red vs blue debates. The average cost just for the childbirth without complications is $30,000 the average cost for an abortion is around $1,200. A savings of $28,800 on average per childbirth. Now I'm not a supporter of abortion but my question is this. Does a woman that is living on welfare someone that can't afford to live without it have the right to choose if she keeps the baby? Should the government step in and force an abortion? Now Dimms have already determined that abortion is not murder.
4/25/2017 4:54:48 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
fellowforyou New York, NY 67, joined Jan. 2010	Quote from louie6332: Fellowfornobody, a fetus is NOT a part of a woman’s body, it has its own body, its own set of organs, and its own DNA, which is a unique mixture of DNA from Mother AND Father. Just because the Mother carries it does not make it part of the woman’s body.It is in the woman's body and it depends on her, but it is not part of the woman's body. But you know that already. The Woman’s choice is whether to have sexual intercourse or not. Once she is pregnant, the baby is here, and she and its Father brought it here. If you don’t want a baby, then don’t engage in sexual intercourse. Once it’s here, you do not have the right, in the eyes of God, to murder it, any more than you have the right to murder your other children. Louie We all weep for confusion as you state it. Ignorance accompanies the fool. The fetus is not a person. The mother decides the fate -- should it be an unwanted fetus she terminates the pregnancy. It's her choice. One can assume that she acts upon consultation with doctor and minister. The death of the fetus is her decision. She was been informed by God, religion and her doctor.
4/25/2017 8:03:47 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
masterweber Baton Rouge, LA 35, joined May. 2013	Religare definition meaning doubtful.. Religare an Latin American language word that translate into Canada British Republican English language word religion.. When the form mindset sound judgment of God/Gad traditional values through design course in obeying the motion ACT of YAHU eternal bondage tanakh law/Torah/Bible ,,of God/Gad demanding obedient through the process mandatory motion ACT of (((creating)))) an enforcement alah/accurse/holy/oath in following the Creator YAHU life manual instruction order terms over genders entitlement Right's/Grace's became an religion/religare ACT of motion??? How do we the people under God judicial system be politically correct in the pursuit of God justice for all happiness????? Bipartisan!!! I'm the Al alef atom entity Ba'al quintessence. What you talking about,,op??? [Edited 4/25/2017 8:04:53 PM ]
4/25/2017 8:59:54 PM	Mixing Religion and Politics
louie6332 Falkville, AL 75, joined Nov. 2011	Felowfornobody, you, in your infinite, insane wisdom, say: “The death of the fetus is her (the mother’s) decision. She was been informed by God, religion and her doctor.” Yes, that’s what God created Mothers for, they were created by God to brutally murder their infants, right nobody? God, who is going to judge you when you die, has nothing to say about it, and the baby’s father has nothing to say about it, and of course the baby, even if it is a baby girl, has nothing to say about it, right nobody? God has strictly forbidden murder, which is the unjustified killing of a human being. A mother who murder’s her infant is a murder, a grave sin that, if not repented before death seals your fate forever, is punished by damnation. And what crime did the infant commit to deserve the death penalty? Why, the crime of being inconvenient and unwanted, of course. Fellowfornobody, let me explain this to you--listen carefully. Freedoms and rights are two different things. Women in this life, thanks to the Satan worshiping Illuminati puppets who rule us today, currently have the freedom to brutally murder their helpless infants, because they must be tested, but they have no right to do so in the eyes of God, if they did, God would not punish them for it in the next world with damnation. Freedoms and rights are two different things. And those who defend this damnable sin and crime in this world make themselves a party to it and subject to damnation in the next world. And you say: “the fetus is not a person”. Who says so? It is a person one moment, but the next moment when it emerges from the womb, it is? Get real. Stop promoting lies. Researchers, by the way, have discovered that at the moment of conception, there is a flash of energy around the fertilizing egg, and this flash has been photographed. Some mothers, including one I personally know here in Alabama, say that they can feel this flash when it occurs, so they knows instantly when they become pregnant And since you, oh ye brave soul with the hidden profile, are an enemy of God, I will tell you this. Dozens of experiments have been performed around the world in which a dying man is sealed in a hermetically sealed container and placed upon a sensitive scale. At the moment of death, the container loses a slight weight, showing that something with a slight weight passed through the solid walls of the container at the moment of the death of body. And the fact that is was in motion showed that it was living. All we have to do to experimentally prove that an infant has a living soul is to perform this experiment on a mother with a dying fetus. This experiment, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been performed. If it were performed with the same results, would it change your mind about a fetus not being a living person? I venture to say it would not, because you are not a man of truth and justice. You are not a man of good will. You are walking on the road to Hell, and baring some catastrophic event, such as a life after death experience for example, you are likely to remain to remain on that road. Louie

craigslist louisville hookups

mega personal ad