MAGAThread XIV: All persons born or naturalized ...

[NPCA]

There's nothing wrong with religiously derived governance, what the establishment clause prevents is the foundation of an official state religion in the United States. There's a fine difference.

Oh really? Where is that established?

I mean, it's pretty clear at the conclusion of the Constitution our founding fathers intended us to be Christian. :/

[Washington Resistance Army]

There's nothing wrong with religiously derived governance, what the establishment clause prevents is the foundation of an official state religion in the United States. There's a fine difference.

Oh really? Where is that established?

The Federalist Papers lol, you really ought to give them a read if you're gonna try and argue about the constitution. The meaning of pretty much everything is clearly laid out in them.

[Vassenor]

Oh really? Where is that established?

The Federalist Papers lol, you really ought to give them a read if you're gonna try and argue about the constitution. The meaning of pretty much everything is clearly laid out in them.

Would these be the same Federalist Papers that were generally against the enumeration of rights in the constitution?

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Federalist Papers lol, you really ought to give them a read if you're gonna try and argue about the constitution. The meaning of pretty much everything is clearly laid out in them.

Would these be the same Federalist Papers that were generally against the enumeration of rights in the constitution?

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a gotcha or something but yes, it is the same. Especially anything by Madison because he wrote the fucking thing lol.

[NPCA]

Still, we should abide by the laws of Christ. Simple.

[Vassenor]

Oh really? Where is that established?

I mean, it's pretty clear at the conclusion of the Constitution our founding fathers intended us to be Christian. :/

...So one use of the term Anno Domini in the constitution makes the US a Christian Nation forever and ever?

[NPCA]

I mean, it's pretty clear at the conclusion of the Constitution our founding fathers intended us to be Christian. :/

...So one use of the term Anno Domini in the constitution makes the US a Christian Nation forever and ever?

I think so

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Still, we should abide by the laws of Christ. Simple.

Jesus was very pro adultery if I remember correctly.

[Vassenor]

...So one use of the term Anno Domini in the constitution makes the US a Christian Nation forever and ever?

I think so

Does the Geneva Convention cover torturing logic?

[NPCA]

Still, we should abide by the laws of Christ. Simple.

Jesus was very pro adultery if I remember correctly.

No he was not.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

There's nothing wrong with religiously derived governance, what the establishment clause prevents is the foundation of an official state religion in the United States. There's a fine difference.

Oh really? Where is that established? Since Everson v. Board of Education was pretty big on "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

The same founding fathers who explicitly wrote a ban on religiously derived governance into the Constitution?

There's nothing wrong with religiously derived governance, what the establishment clause prevents is the foundation of an official state religion in the United States. There's a fine difference.

I think you are talking about a different point altogether. What WRA says, if I interpret it correctly, is that you can have laws derived from the Bible (for example, thou shalt not kill), but you cannot establish one religion over the other, or make laws regarding religion. A Christian Congressman, for example, can bring forward a law that bans the wearing of two different materials as mandated in Leviticus. Such a law would be based on the Bible, but it would have to be voted on in Congress, and derive its power from that vote.

This is different from what Vass argues against, which is the contention that the US is a Christian nation and can be established as such. I think there was a slight misunderstanding about what was meant exactly with religious-derived laws.

Still, we should abide by the laws of Christ. Simple.

See, if you want to make a point, you should support that with evidence and claims. You cannot simply state 'the US should abide by the laws of Christ, period', because that is not an argument. That is a statement.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I think so

Does the Geneva Convention cover torturing logic?

Only in times of war.

[NPCA]

Oh really? Where is that established? Since Everson v. Board of Education was pretty big on "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

There's nothing wrong with religiously derived governance, what the establishment clause prevents is the foundation of an official state religion in the United States. There's a fine difference.

I think you are talking about a different point altogether. What WRA says, if I interpret it correctly, is that you can have laws derived from the Bible (for example, thou shalt not kill), but you cannot establish one religion over the other, or make laws regarding religion. A Christian Congressman, for example, can bring forward a law that bans the wearing of two different materials as mandated in Leviticus. Such a law would be based on the Bible, but it would have to be voted on in Congress, and derive its power from that vote.

This is different from what Vass argues against, which is the contention that the US is a Christian nation and can be established as such. I think there was a slight misunderstanding about what was meant exactly with religious-derived laws.

Still, we should abide by the laws of Christ. Simple.

See, if you want to make a point, you should support that with evidence and claims. You cannot simply state 'the US should abide by the laws of Christ, period', because that is not an argument. That is a statement.

Christ is our Lord and savior it doesn't matter if my arguments are bad or not. What matters is what Jesus said in the gospels

[Vassenor]

I think you are talking about a different point altogether. What WRA says, if I interpret it correctly, is that you can have laws derived from the Bible (for example, thou shalt not kill), but you cannot establish one religion over the other, or make laws regarding religion. A Christian Congressman, for example, can bring forward a law that bans the wearing of two different materials as mandated in Leviticus. Such a law would be based on the Bible, but it would have to be voted on in Congress, and derive its power from that vote.

This is different from what Vass argues against, which is the contention that the US is a Christian nation and can be established as such. I think there was a slight misunderstanding about what was meant exactly with religious-derived laws.


See, if you want to make a point, you should support that with evidence and claims. You cannot simply state 'the US should abide by the laws of Christ, period', because that is not an argument. That is a statement.

Christ is our Lord and savior it doesn't matter if my arguments are bad or not. What matters is what Jesus said in the gospels

Not when a government makes it plain that it does not derive its authority or its laws from religion.

[NPCA]

Christ is our Lord and savior it doesn't matter if my arguments are bad or not. What matters is what Jesus said in the gospels

Not when a government makes it plain that it does not derive its authority or its laws from religion.

Christ guided our founding fathers to write the Constitution.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Jesus was very pro adultery if I remember correctly.

No he was not.

But he liked prostitutes a lot.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I think you are talking about a different point altogether. What WRA says, if I interpret it correctly, is that you can have laws derived from the Bible (for example, thou shalt not kill), but you cannot establish one religion over the other, or make laws regarding religion. A Christian Congressman, for example, can bring forward a law that bans the wearing of two different materials as mandated in Leviticus. Such a law would be based on the Bible, but it would have to be voted on in Congress, and derive its power from that vote.

This is different from what Vass argues against, which is the contention that the US is a Christian nation and can be established as such. I think there was a slight misunderstanding about what was meant exactly with religious-derived laws.


See, if you want to make a point, you should support that with evidence and claims. You cannot simply state 'the US should abide by the laws of Christ, period', because that is not an argument. That is a statement.

Christ is our Lord and savior it doesn't matter if my arguments are bad or not. What matters is what Jesus said in the gospels

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

"Let him who has a purse take it, likewise also a bag; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
"And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said to them, It is enough."

The first is a defence of a separation of powers. The world has secular power, and the world has godly power, and the legitimacy of the worldly government is not vested in it because of its religious righteousness.

The second is the foundation of the doctrine of the two swords: there are two powers in the world, namely the worldly and the divine. In old doctrine, the Pope represented the divine governance of earth, while the Emperor (of the Holy Roman Empire) held the sword of wordly power. The Emperor was the vicar of Christ, and the Pope the vicar of Peter. The Christian world has always known a division between secular and worldly rule. After all, even in the Vatican, the position of Pope and King of the Vatican are seperate, even if they are vested in the same person.

[NPCA]

No he was not.

But he liked prostitutes a lot.

He didn't have sex with them. It was to save them from Satan.

[Seangoli]

Still, we should abide by the laws of Christ. Simple.

Sure. You should. However compulsory obeyance to Christ's laws are not only against scripture, they are practically forbidden in the script itself.

Mark 12:17

Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him.

1 Peter 5:2

Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;

Matthew 6:1-34

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. ...

Revelation 22:11-12

Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.

It is not your place to force others to follow the bible, nor is it your place to construct a state for worship. Compulsory worship and laws garnered to enforce biblical law utterly misses the point. The choice to follow the teachings of Christ must be personal, or else it is not a choice at all. Forcing another to follow the laws of the Bible is an afront to the teachings themselves, missing the purpose of the Gospels and the teachings of christ.

[NPCA]

[background=][/background]

Still, we should abide by the laws of Christ. Simple.

Sure. You should. However compulsory obeyance to Christ's laws are not only against scripture, they are practically forbidden in the script itself.

Mark 12:17

Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him.

1 Peter 5:2

Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;

Matthew 6:1-34

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. ...

Revelation 22:11-12

Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.

It is not your place to force others to follow the bible, nor is it your place to construct a state for worship. Compulsory worship and laws garnered to enforce biblical law utterly misses the point. The choice to follow the teachings of Christ must be personal, or else it is not a choice at all. Forcing another to follow the laws of the Bible is an afront to the teachings themselves, missing the purpose of the Gospels and the teachings of christ.

All I'm doing is spreading love. Not hate. Not forcing anything on anyone. Just stating facts.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Not when a government makes it plain that it does not derive its authority or its laws from religion.

Christ guided our founding fathers to write the Constitution.

So, when Christ made the Founding Fathers write the Constitution, did he not also inspire them to write:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

[NPCA]

Christ guided our founding fathers to write the Constitution.

So, when Christ made the Founding Fathers write the Constitution, did he not also inspire them to write:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Christ isn't forceful on people.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So, when Christ made the Founding Fathers write the Constitution, did he not also inspire them to write:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Christ isn't forceful on people.

So, when Christ inspired the Founding Fathers to write the Constitution, did he not also inspire them to write:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

[Trumptonium1]

So your semantics is all about whether or not Kushner had an axe in his hand and was in Turkey on that day?

Let me be more clear "he was the murderer" =/= "he was partially responsible for the murder of"

The latter is way more accurate, the former is complete bullshit. It's not semantics when you literally used the word "murderer" which I expect you know the connotations and definitions of.

So you object to people saying "Hitler murdered 6 million Jews"?

Just wondering how far your principles go.

[Valrifell]

Let me be more clear "he was the murderer" =/= "he was partially responsible for the murder of"

The latter is way more accurate, the former is complete bullshit. It's not semantics when you literally used the word "murderer" which I expect you know the connotations and definitions of.

So you object to people saying "Hitler murdered 6 million Jews"?

Just wondering how far your principles go.

It's still incorrect to say that, technically, but people know more about the historical background to understand what is meant. Here you sprung new information phrased in such a way that leads us to a wrong conclusion. Presumably deliberately since you most definitely know what "murderer" means.

Just admit you were arguing in bad faith and move on. Wouldn't be the first time you've been caught doing that.