For those who assume supporting a Trump presidency over a Biden one means being a MAGA Trumper....

[ll74]

I didn't say theocracy. I said LEGITIMATE theocracy.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are legitimate theocracies

And I used past tense. As in it was at its founding as the literal Glory and Physical Manifesting of God's Presence was among them and the Priests and Judges delivered His verdict. Even then people rebelled. Because we don't want to be accountable to God.

And that is the reason, the real issue that keeps you from seeing the truth. You don't want to. So your religion becomes humanism, your God, self, your worship, sex, your rite, abortion, your creed, "No God". Because if you acknowledge Him, acknowledge there is a Creator and He holds mankind accountable, you are in trouble. And since you don't like the terms of His Mercy, and want to just live without any accountability, you just pretend He isn't there, that creation itself isn't shouting His Existence and His Glory. Problem is, He is still there, still real, His Law still reigns supreme, and like any Just Judge, you will be accountable before Him

That is your religious belief. It has no bearing on me except in your religious perspective, which has nothing to do with me.

You want a theocracy. To you, my religion (or lack of) should not be considered in governmental law and yours should actually define it

You are delusional

 

[SmokingFap]

As I have always maintained on this board - I stand for the law. Even when I disagree with it, I stand for the law.

Unless and until it's applied to Trump, your orange Lord and savior.

 

[JaySecrets]

Do you know else is not in the Constitution? God or any divinity for that matter. The "creator" (by the way, there is no clarification that this is YOUR creator...it could very well be Gandalf for all we know) was mentioned in the declaration of independence, which has no rule of law. It may have been an inspiration for many lawmakers, but it is nothing more than a cease and desist sent to the King.

That is because the document is a list of governing principles. The founders, though, openly stated they based the document largely on the Bible and on the writings of Blackstone, an English Law philosopher whose books were required reading in US law schools until recent history. His law books actually read like biblical commentary on legal principle, and Scripture is constantly quoted in them. Furthermore, there are early Supreme Court cases (since you so love to cite them as ultimate authority) that explicitly stated that the Bible is the foundation of our founding documents. So again, you are wrong on this topic.

 

[HisArpy]

I have a new suggestion. I propose the following law. Much less invasive to all involved and will certainly cause the old men who wish to rule over women's bodies some pause.

- All men are required to submit their DNA at some point in their childhood, prior to puberty.
- Women are required to carry all pregnancies to term
- When the child is born, a DNA test is performed and if the baby daddy is unknown, reference the DNA database.
- Baby daddy is required by law to care for the child for the first 40 weeks post birth and can be charged with criminal child abuse, abandonment, etc. should he not perform all duties as a parent.
- After the 80-ish weeks after conception, the parents can choose whether to put the child up for adoption or continue to raise them.

The old men who wish to rule over women's bodies will rush legislation to protect themselves from every having to take any responsibility. Problem solved.

This entire idea violates the 4th and 5th Amendments. Which may not apply in foreign nations but the idea that someone must be forced to supply DNA to determine paternity is repugnant.

 

[SmokingFap]

I didn't say theocracy. I said LEGITIMATE theocracy. And I used past tense. As in it was at its founding as the literal Glory and Physical Manifesting of God's Presence was among them and the Priests and Judges delivered His verdict. Even then people rebelled. Because we don't want to be accountable to God.

And that is the reason, the real issue that keeps you from seeing the truth. You don't want to. So your religion becomes humanism, your God, self, your worship, sex, your rite, abortion, your creed, "No God". Because if you acknowledge Him, acknowledge there is a Creator and He holds mankind accountable, you are in trouble. And since you don't like the terms of His Mercy, and want to just live without any accountability, you just pretend He isn't there, that creation itself isn't shouting His Existence and His Glory. Problem is, He is still there, still real, His Law still reigns supreme, and like any Just Judge, you will be accountable before Him

Go jerk off on your Trump Bible somewhere else. This is a respectable establishment.

 

[HisArpy]

Unless and until it's applied to Trump, your orange Lord and savior.

Oh lookie, yet another strawman.

 

[InThe312]

The Founders disagree. Read what they said. You lose that round.

Well, they're all dead and buried, so I don't think they disagree with anything that has happened in the past century or so.

 

[HisArpy]

If they're below the age of "consent", then every teen pregnancy from someone older is statutory rape. Although it's not a legal term, molestation would seem to apply in those cases, as well.

Not every teen pregnancy is statutory rape.

 

[HisArpy]

You ARE kidding, right?

No.

If you think you have the power to force me to tell you who I voted for, just trot it out and we'll see how she looks under the lights.

Otherwise, good luck with that idea.

 

[InThe312]

That is because the document is a list of governing principles. The founders, though, openly stated they based the document largely on the Bible and on the writings of Blackstone, an English Law philosopher whose books were required reading in US law schools until recent history. His law books actually read like biblical commentary on legal principle, and Scripture is constantly quoted in them. Furthermore, there are early Supreme Court cases (since you so love to cite them as ultimate authority) that explicitly stated that the Bible is the foundation of our founding documents. So again, you are wrong on this topic.

Except they had the common sense to not put those patently religious terms and ideas in the actual laws that govern the nation. Congress constantly debates legislation, their opinions that are said aloud or recorded in meeting minutes do not apply to law.

 

[ll74]

The Founders disagree. Read what they said. You lose that round.

They absolutely created a system by the people and for the people. So citizens decide, not religion.

This isn't a contest....it's already in documents for you to read. Laws can be made based on Buddhism if the people garner enough support.

 

[JaySecrets]

Maybe you should go back and reread all that stuff. Half of them were deists who believed in a vague Supreme Being, not the God of the Bible, and certainly not Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. And I think the whole thing about not letting Congress pass a law respecting any religion made it pretty clear that ultimately they decided America should have a secular government.

You conveniently ignored the second half of the quote there. And it was never about the church or Christian morality staying out of government. It was about the government not dictating to the churches. That's the intent. That's what the founders explicitly said the intent was. And that is clearly the intent based on what they did next as a government.

As for their theology, some were Deists, yes. But even they recognized the moral authority of the Bible. They said so. The rest explicitly wrote of their Christian faith and its application to the founding. You are wrong again.

 

[SmokingFap]

That is because the document is a list of governing principles. The founders, though, openly stated they based the document largely on the Bible and on the writings of Blackstone, an English Law philosopher whose books were required reading in US law schools until recent history. His law books actually read like biblical commentary on legal principle, and Scripture is constantly quoted in them. Furthermore, there are early Supreme Court cases (since you so love to cite them as ultimate authority) that explicitly stated that the Bible is the foundation of our founding documents. So again, you are wrong on this topic.

The Bible contains a number of principles and philosophies that are shared by other religions and just plain secular societies around the world. Thou shalt not kill? Yeah, that's pretty much a universal principle. Stealing? Frowned upon by tribes in Africa. Coveting thy neighbor's ass? Well, that one might be unique to the Bible, but since so many of you all disregard that one, it's virtually irrelevant. Ever wonder why the word God never appeared in or on anything until the 1950s? "Creator", maybe once or twice, but never God, until the Eisenhower Administration, I believe. And Jesus Christ himself isn't mentioned anywhere in any of our founding documents, or any other foundational legal documents. If the god of the Bible and his only begotten son our Lord and savior were so important to the founders, why didn't they ever mention those two in anything that governs us?

Oh, that's right! Because many of them came to America to escape a state-mandated religion!

I don't be grudge you your a religious beliefs. But neither you nor the government are constitutionally authorized to force your fairy tales and fables onto the rest of us.

You're wrong, I'm right. Now don't get that Trump Bible any stickier than it already was.

 

[JaySecrets]

Except they had the common sense to not put those patently religious terms and ideas in the actual laws that govern the nation. Congress constantly debates legislation, their opinions that are said aloud or recorded in meeting minutes do not apply to law.

No, it is because, in the time it was written, they didn't need to. One of the signers actually stated that the Constitution is written for a Christian people! And that wasn't a shocker then. It got nods of agreement. You, today, are not more wise than they were.

 

[InThe312]

This entire idea violates the 4th and 5th Amendments. Which may not apply in foreign nations but the idea that someone must be forced to supply DNA to determine paternity is repugnant.

Jesus, ever heard of satire?

Fine, we allow the mother to assign paternity to whomever she wishes and the baby daddy can fight it in court by submitting to the paternity test (which is essentially how it works now). Are you happy now?

 

[HisArpy]

Hey, dipshit, I'm talking about children. Not teen pregnancy.

I pointed that out earlier.

Please demonstrate further your skills of observation and comprehension so we can experience the proper amount of awe.

Should I quote you? It's not our fault you can't keep up with the class.

On script.

 

[ll74]

I decline to tell you who I voted for. You asking me also violates all kinds of privacy and election laws.

Someone asking you who you voted for does not violate the law unless they force or coerce you to answer. No one on this site has the ability to do that in any meaningful way

You declining to answer is also your right.

 

[HisArpy]

Jesus, ever heard of satire?

Fine, we allow the mother to assign paternity to whomever she wishes and the baby daddy can fight it in court by submitting to the paternity test (which is essentially how it works now). Are you happy now?

A child's parent is the one who steps up, DNA only shows progeny. Which is relevant only when someone is demanding money.

 

[JaySecrets]

They absolutely created a system by the people and for the people. So citizens decide, not religion.

This isn't a contest....it's already in documents for you to read. Laws can be made based on Buddhism if the people garner enough support.

What the founders said ABOUT the documents has direct bearing on intent. If you and your wife speak to each other in a goofy way because that is your love language, and another reads the letter, they have no right to interpret that language aside from its intent as understood by you and your wife. So your statements about the language are as important in a court of law as the letter itself.

The same applies here. The founders said what they meant by what they said. You are wrong.

 

[SmokingFap]

No.

If you think you have the power to force me to tell you who I voted for, just trot it out and we'll see how she looks under the lights.

Otherwise, good luck with that idea.

Obviously, I can't force you to do anything, fuckwad. But the idea that I was breaking some law by ASKING you who you voted for is beyond ridiculously laughable.

 

[ll74]

What the founders said ABOUT the documents has direct bearing on intent.

The Intent is to give the people the choice. Christians don't get multiple votes because the founders liked their religion.

If you and your wife speak to each other in a goofy way because that is your love language, and another reads the letter, they have no right to interpret that language aside from its intent as understood by you and your wife. So your statements about the language are as important in a court of law as the letter itself.

Dumb take

The same applies here. The founders said what they meant by what they said. You are wrong.

The Constitution says otherwise. Keep trying to make us a theocracy and (for some reason) denying that theocracies exist.)

 

[HisArpy]

Obviously, I can't force you to do anything, fuckwad. But the idea that I was breaking some law by ASKING you who you voted for is beyond ridiculously laughable.

What a shame that you don't know the law you disregard so blithely in your zeal to deny reality.

 

[SmokingFap]

What the founders said ABOUT the documents has direct bearing on intent. If you and your wife speak to each other in a goofy way because that is your love language, and another reads the letter, they have no right to interpret that language aside from its intent as understood by you and your wife. So your statements about the language are as important in a court of law as the letter itself.

The same applies here. The founders said what they meant by what they said. You are wrong.

Pomp and circumstance signifying nothing. The USA not a "Christian nation", no matter what you wish.

 

[JaySecrets]

The Bible contains a number of principles and philosophies that are shared by other religions and just plain secular societies around the world. Thou shalt not kill? Yeah, that's pretty much a universal principle. Stealing? Frowned upon by tribes in Africa. Coveting thy neighbor's ass? Well, that one might be unique to the Bible, but since so many of you all disregard that one, it's virtually irrelevant. Ever wonder why the word God never appeared in or on anything until the 1950s? "Creator", maybe once or twice, but never God, until the Eisenhower Administration, I believe. And Jesus Christ himself isn't mentioned anywhere in any of our founding documents, or any other foundational legal documents. If the god of the Bible and his only begotten son our Lord and savior were so important to the founders, why didn't they ever mention those two in anything that governs us?

Oh, that's right! Because many of them came to America to escape a state-mandated religion!

I don't be grudge you your a religious beliefs. But neither you nor the government are constitutionally authorized to force your fairy tales and fables onto the rest of us.

You're wrong, I'm right. Now don't get that Trump Bible any stickier than it already was.

Read their quotes.

And what you point out about morality is my exact point. There are moral laws God imprints on the human conscience. We can warp it, but it's originally there in a pretty pure form. One of those moral laws.... Don't murder babies in the womb.

 

[SmokingFap]

What a shame that you don't know the law you disregard so blithely in your zeal to deny reality.

Goddamn, you're retarded. Show me a statute that even implies it's illegal to ask someone else a question. ANY question. Or have you completely forgotten about the First Amendment? Fuck, you are impossible.