58 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0
"Cruz Lies To America!"
PsyCop you should keep your misunderstanding of the Englaish language out of religious considerations. Astonishingly you began by imagining me to be a Christian, "one of those guys", and then astonishingly proceeded to try and tell me what the Bible says.
NO, that Matthew 6 passage you cited does not indicate that Christians has to hide their faith. What it indicates is a caution ("Beware") against them showing displaying their faith to others for showmanship, "to be noticed by them", The reason being is that such overt displays of ones righteousness under the pretense of being devoutk is to falsely elevate oneself, and comes from only a desire to be "honored by men". It does not tell them to hide their faith.
Yes, those are Jesus' words, but they do not have anything to do with a "prohibition", nor to do with "public piety", but rather a caution against displaying righteousness for personal gain.
You know, it's kind of funny how a cynical godless agnostic heathen imagines himself a Gnostic on a wide array of things, even while clearly demonstrating his ignorance. But you add to this ignorance by compounding it with arrogance, pontificating on things you do not know, and do not revere, such as the Bible, and the Constitution. Your statist hypocrisy extends to professing a desire freedom, even while denying others their own. I'm reasonably certain that you dismiss religion even while being a fervent adherent to the pseudo-science of Global Warming. .
Allow me to give you a clue: I am not like any con you've ever met. To progressives, I am the exception that violates their every rule. Assuming stereotypes with me will only put your wazoo out on a limb.
Re: "So you're saying the entire concept of "civil rights" is a fabrication? That no one has any? Really!? "
I am saying that the post Civil War fabrication of Civil Rights, and the assumption of s federal authority to police those (civil) rights, is nothing but a corrupt fabrication of by government of an authority deliberately PROHIBITED to government by the Constitution. RIGHTS are specifically recognized, both in this country and historically, to prohibit government from acting to their denial. Specifically in this country, Rights are recognized as not originating from any grant by government, and therefore the government has no business awarding, recognizing or policing those rights.
Civil Rights are nothing more than the government selectively choosing whose rights it will recognize and whose rights it will violate, a direct violation of rights themselves. I.e. when government claims there's a right to integrated schools, the government then forcibly violates the right of one person to freedom of assembly by forcing them to bus to another school, while allegedly recognizing a non-existent fabricated right of another to racial integration.
Civil Rights are invariably a corruption. The exercise of real rights do not involve a compulsion upon any other individual.
Re: Freedom of religion vs Freedom From Rellgion.
No, freedom of religion only involves freedom of faith, the ablity to freely choose, nor not choose one's faith. There's no "of course it does" even associated with it. Freedom of faith is not freedom from Religion, which implies a person's ability to not be subjected to religion. Sorry, but that's not a freedom recognized in this country, nor provided by the Constitution. Under freedom of religion, you're entitled to be non religious. You' are not entitled to be free of religion in public.
Re: "So you willfully reject Jesus' own teachings to you. Got it."
No, moron. You said I was "one of THOSE people", an obvious indication to people of faith, most probably Christians. To which I replied with nothing to indicate that I was Christian at all, and in fact indicated that I have run out of cheeks. Your indicationg now that I reject Jesus' teachings shows only that you don't know those teachings. While Jesus' teachings indicate turning the other cheek, those teachings do not indicate doing so incessantly, and certainly not to the point of winning the Darwin Award. You might want to remember that the next time you seek to corner a Christian. What you've "got" is the mental capacity of the white rock at the end of the driveway.
Re: "I see, by virtue of you accusing me of "dramatics" that you didn't get my point ... which I clearly and unambiguously spelled out. Which is that you've just admitted there IS, in fact, "freedom from religion" in the US because you are, yourself, not willing to force your religion on me.
I did not admit admit to any such thing! There is no sort of "freedom from religion" -- no one is entitled to not be faced with or witness religious exercise.or expression in public. There is freedom of religion. Obviously you engage in false discussion tactics, or you have a very limited understanding.
That's not what the first Amendment indicates, and "using the authority of government" can be, and has been, abused to assume a prohibition nowhere in existence. The Constitution explicitly cites "Congress" (which is interpreted to include the States) no one else, from establishing religion, and specifies this establishment is done by writing laws. The football coach is not Congress, and he's not writing laws. He is merely exercising his protected right to express his faith,
Re: Roger Williams & "separation of church and state".
You're wrong. My original statement was that people were quoting from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. You then claimed the phrase originates from Roger Williams, which could not be more irrelevant and people are not quoting from. When people reference "separation of church and state" it's irrelevant what Roger Williams said, who died in 1683m more than a century before the Constitution was written . I'm sure I could find reference to separation of church and state in British literature even before Willaims, but I wouldn't bother to do so because it's irrelevant to our terms of government.
"Factually" people are not referencing Roger Williams, because factually he has no bearing on this country, and they're not as irrational as you are.
Re: Madison and 1st Amendment.
No, I'm saing that Madison's own words regarding separation of church and state, the very words that YOU cited, do not support YOUR claims about the exclusion of religious expression from government. Furthermore, it's irrelevant that Madison condemned congressional chaplains, for whatever reason! Additionally you use the word "lying" wioth all the intelligence of a playground juvenile delinquent. Your disagreement with me does not constitute my having lied, particularly when you're misrepresenting Madison's position. "Lying" is the deliberate, knowing misrepresentation of fact, not merely just your disagreement with that representation.
Re: "As coach, he's a government employee doing government work and does so under the oversight of his school district and the state of Georgia. "
It's irrelevant that he's a governemnt employee, and the State of Georgia and School district have no authority in this situation either, As an Americvan citizen the coach is entitled to freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Neither the federal government, Congress, the Supeme Court, the State of Georgia nor the school district are able to deprive him of that freedom, and by your own recognition, the federal government and State are explicitly prohibited from writing any law infringing on those freedoms. By virtue of being an employ at a state school, the Coach does not and cannot be expected to reliinquish those unalienable rights. The Coach is not Congress, and people submersing themselves in water of their free will, prior to practice, is not anyone making any sort of law.
Re: Incorporation doctrine.
The incorporation doctrine is irrelevant, because neither myself or the coach is claiming any immunity from the 1st Amendment as a result of being in a State! Your reference to that incorporation doctrine is ENTIRELY irrelevant.
ReL incorporation doctrine having the force of law.
No, in incorpoation doctrine does not have the force of law, as it has no applicability of law, and is only yet an other judicial philosophy to compensate for a previously mistaken judicial philosophy. In this country, what the Supreme Court rationalizes does not, and was never intended, to have the force of law. The Supreme Court does not have any authority to write law, which resides only with Congress and that lawmaking authority of Congress, does not legitimately extend by the Constitution to the people of the States. What the Supreme Court pontificates is not law, and the Court is not any sort of "black robed supremacy". The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over cases having to do with the Constitution, which applies ot the States.
As previously indicated, the incorporation doctrine is irrelevant to this consideration because no one is claiming the coach was immune to the first Amendment by virtue of being in a State.
It means that the federal government has no legitimate authority in the Constitution to write laws, ANY laws, applicable to the people of the several States. That claimed authority by the federal government is illegitimate, nowhere provided even by any amendment, and is therefore null ab initio.
Re: "The federal government has authority to police civil rights."
No, actually true Rights are specifically recognized in the Constitution to entirely prohibit ANY AND ALL action and authority by the federal over those rights. The purpose of that recognition of those rights is to prohibit the federal government, period.
The corrupt more contemporary fabrication of "civil rights" is only the intent of the federal government to wrongly insert itself into the provision, policing, and selective recognition of rights. Even those amendments that seem to encourage such an authority, do not actually provide the federal government that authority, and therefore it does not exist.
For instance, while the 14th Amendment (and other amendments) concludes with the provision, " The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article," there is no actual provision of a new authority, Specifically, the dictate of laws to the States remains prohibited to Congress, and therefore inappropriate. It is this limitation to Congress to "appropriate legislation" that limited action by Congress regarding the the 15th Amendment's voting rights, to only diminishing in the State's representation in the House.
Re; "Ah. You're one of those people. I see. Well, if you're convinced there's no "freedom from religion" in the US, then you just go right ahead, track me down, and force this insolent, cynical, godless agnostic heathen to join a religion.:
"Freedom of Religion" does not involve the ability to dictate religion to anyone, with that being the point of the 1st Amendment. By the Georgia Coach having baptism on the football field, he was not forcing religion upon anyone. None of those so baptized were being forcibly dunked against their will Contrary to your amusing drama-queen claim, that baptism did not force any non-believer to be a believer. Your "rights" have no authority to limit the free expression of others. There is no "freedom from religion" anywhere recognized by the Constitution.
As far as your belief I am "one of those people", If I am any sort of christian at all, it is the Christian that ate the damn lion, and who has no further cheeks to turn. While I am already locked and loaded, I have no desire to see you forcibly participate in any religion at all, much less one I myself do not participate in, so you can stow your ridiculous dramatics -- no one gives a damn except fringe radicals such as yourself. As far as my having the courage, I am almost tempted to give it a try, even violating the precepts of this country, only because you're so very loathsome.
News flash, Skippy: You can in fact remain a non-believer, and nothing is threatening your non-belief unless your resistance to religion is so minuscule that you are tempted to become a believer, only for the opportunity share the same bathwater with a series of other guys on an open football field.
I do "accept that there are people in the world who don't believe as I do", however YOU need to accept the fact that your beliefs are not able to infringe upon the beliefs and free expressions of others. Grow up yourself.
Oh .. and the reason the baptism occurred on a football field, rather than in a church or someone's home, is that it is easier to bring "Muhammad to the Mountain", than the visa versa, but then I'm certain this mix of both metaphor and religion is deeply disturbing and emotionally harmful to you, not to mention confusing for you,. Your best remedy is to get the ACLU to support a class action suit, and thereby leverage the full force and tyranny of the federal government to dictate your terms to ALL of society. That's a brilliant means to protect your freedoms. Those football players and coach do not need to hide their faith in the shadows, and in no way by attending a public school have they relinquished that which is unalienable.
PsiCOP, if you spent more time policing yourself, rather than others, you might have better luck next time.
No, we don't have the exclusion of religion at all, much less "nonetheless". It is a modern fabrication from the corruption a progressive judiciary, with those same founders even intending to prohibit that judiciary from stating 'what the law is". even as indicated by the 7th Amendment. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government, and not at all to limit individual liberties and expression. And there's always something one can do, such as what the individuals did on that football field in Georgia. But that's just a "fucking" start. You will have to deal with what is coming, as Americans are no longer content to have a few abuse the color of law and authority to dictate terms that are nowhere within their legitimate authority.
Re: "This is commonly thought, but is not true. The phrase actually originated over a century "
That's missing the point. When common people quote the "separation of church and state", they are quoting from Jefferson's Baptist letter, and not Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, who did so as a reaction to the church and state being one and the same in Britain. Even Williams own quotation promotes religious liberty, not freedom from religion, with the only limitation on Religion being it not be "established" in laws by the state", which is the same point Jefferson made. Your own reference refutes your claim.
Re: "The First Amendment actually explicitly prohibits Congress from making ANY LAW 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof'." Correct, but the implications of that were explained by the Amendment's author, who said there is a "separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States"
Unfortunately the Amendment's author, Madison, and Roger Williams, and the 1st Amendment itself, all do not support your claim that the "wall" of separation is intended to exclude religious expression in society. In fact the only concern by all of these sources is the maintenance of religious freedom by limiting only the state itself, and not by limiting religion. Fortunately we don't have the state dictating the earth is 5,000 years old, or mandating that we adhere directly to the 10 commandments, so you can calm your melodramatic self down. Nothing Madison expressed supports your position.
Re: "True, however, the incorporation doctrine, brought into play by the Fourteenth Amendment, imposes Constitutional limits on levels of government other than just Congress. "
No one was arguing that the Coach was baptizing people on the football field as a result of license by the State of Georgia. Members of the U.S. Congress might similarly baptize individuals on their own field of play, without offense to the Constitution.
The incorporation doctrine is irrelevant, as neither I nor anyone else were arguing that there is an immunity for the State(s) allowing the individuals in those states to freely exercise religious freedom. On the contrary, the argument and evidence, even by Madison and Roger Williams, is that the prohibition of religious expression is nowhere the intent of the 1st Amendment, and therefore not the authority of the federal government..
Beyond that, the "incorporation doctrine" was a fabricated rationale by the Supreme Court which was only needed as a result of the Court's preceding erroneous rationalization (and then precedent) that the Bill of Rights do not apply to the States themselves. The fact is that Bill of Rights only references rights that are unalienable by all forms of government, and then phrases those rights relative to the federal government, which was the business of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not provide those rights, and their expression in the Constitution does not limit the broader recognition of those rights to only the federal government, nor did it ever by implication provide an exemption for the States themselves. .
The First Amendment actually explicitly prohibits Congress from making ANY LAW " prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The only prohibition established by the Constitution is to the State, prohibiting the establishment of religion, which that Amendment recognizes as Congress making any law establishing any religion. A coach's exercise of a baptism before practice is not establishing a religion by Congress enacting a law.
Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides the federal government no authority whatsoever to write laws directly applicable to the people of the several States. This would also prohibit the Supreme Court from dictating 'what the law is" when the federal government has no such authority. The only authority in the Enumerated Powers provided the federal government to enact laws directly applicable to the people of the several States is to in unconsolidated territories, and the 100 mile square area we know today as the District of Columbia itself.
The only interest acting contrary to the law, and Law of the Land, is the federal government itself.
The Constitution provides for "freedom of religion" and nowhere provides any sort of guarantee for "freedom from religion."
And it is my opinion that you have unrequited liasons with a snorkel.
What piece of documentation do you imagine might EVEN POSSIBLY be more of an 'original document" than the hospital application for a birth certificate that has been bound in a journal? Seriously, there is not possibly any more "original" source documentation than that! But you want to talk about "farcical"! Is the problem here that you really do not understand this stuff?
No his site does not declare he is not an NBC. It says nothing about NBC. Obama's Fight the Smears site indicated that he was "native (born) American" with the intention being to distort the meaning of natural born to being the same as native born, when it is not.
Some of your other writings would appear to agree that Obama is not an NBC. Yet in your "FACT 2" you appear to declare Obama is an NBC."
If that's how Fact 2 appears, then you need to get both your eyessight and mind checked. Fact 2 simply indicates that NBC has nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship under the law. and that whatever Obama might do with his citizenship later on in life, does not possibly change whatever NBC status he might have had at birth. I do not say that Obama was a natural born citizen, but rather was getting across the the fact that the Indonesia citizenship argument is an thoroughly ignorant argument that does not possibly have anything to do with Obama's at-birth status.
Your "FACT 3" is simply nonsense. Maintaining a fraud to retain and sustain a position of power is a high crime while in office.
The nonsense is assuming absolute proof of identity fraud has been established, when all that has been claimed in public and even in a courtroom already, are a bunch of murky claims that don't establish anything in absolutely,, do not prove any crime regarding identity fraud, and doesn't have anything to do with his time in office. This is the same high caliber of ediocy as looking at the multi-layered birth certificate with a chad-inspecting mangifying lense and pronouncing it forgery AND fraud!
Of all the crap that this guy has engaged in since DAY ONE while in office, all of which are high crimes against the country and the American people, the big thing to impeach him on near the end of two terms in office is a screwball claim a la Orly Taitz regarding Identity fraud? Are you flippin' kidding me?! And you have the nerve to tell me that I am thje one speaking nonsense?
I don't see why or how any efforts expended to go after Obama credentials detract from efforts to educate others of what being an NBC means in the context of the US Constitution.
I have never indicated that going after Obama's credentials detracts from the terms of NBC. I said that going after the birth certificate has detracted from the actual terms of NBC, and beyond that it makes anyone talking about those terms look like an idiot
The actual problem here, for some odd reason, is that you have trouble following straightforward arguments which have already been painstakingly detailed for you because it was apparent you did not understand the underlying issues. Instead you draw conclusions that have no basis in anything I indicated, Next time you feel like critiquing something I've written, save us both valuable time and instead reread what I wrote a second and third time.