- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
.
I didn't say that The Constitution isn't compatible with Christianity, because clearly the only references within The Constitution to religion of any sort are exclusionary, and only limit the government.
The 1st Amendment’s says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .” and in Article VI, Section 3, “. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
I said that Christianity is not compatible with The Constitution.
It is the principles of Christianity that have to be violated for The Constitution.
I'm pretty sure that the nepotistic County Clerk Kim Davis places "God's Law" above the Constitution. I've observed that many other Christians believe the same.
On so many levels, the Kim Davis situation illustrates the statist thinking already within our government. The fuss about Carson's remarks is nothing compared to the Liberal and Conservative comrades currently shredding the Constitution.
At no point was there a refusal to issue or stop the issue of the licensing. The one contentious act stated was if she had to sign or have her name on the license she would add by direct order of the ....court of....judge etc. which was after all the truth. I still think it was a continuation of the original Massachusetts case and the fault lay with government itself for getting involved in religious matter where they had no business.
By taking advantage of the situation and interjecting the government in a religious matter they clearly at all levels violated the First Amendment which does not say separation of Church and State but violates setting up a State Religion by demanding a voice, a legal voice in how religions are operated. Shaaria Law US Style. with that Judge and others before him putting licensing fees ahead of of the First Amendment. A secular theocracy at worst. The proper conduct IF they have an interest is in civil matters such as wills, insurance and the like. Which only required defining such pairings as contract between partners etc etc etc.
Kim Davis herself took advantage of the situation and exposed the whole ugly mess. The suit that should go forward is one demanding all government agencies get their nose out of religion and stick to their own job which is stealing money from the citizens. The temple secular temple of Washington DC is exactly the right place for those the Prophet Jesus Christ drove out of the churches.
Now we'll see if I've started another argument. I did it on purpose because I'm in a button pushing mood for some reason this evening.
As for putting God's Law above the Constitution the government has already put some other entities law above that document so that's no excuse. Let he or she who is without ....cast the last stone ...
Deism
The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct.
Rand's objectivism was not present at the birth of the United States. Reason and a healthy respect for God most certainly was. We can be thankful for that mixture since it provided for the environment that fostered Rand to come to the US and develop objectivism.
I many not be versed entirely in Rand but I do know my history.
But he should not have said the President should be “sworn in on a stack of Bibles, not a Koran". This isn't supposed to be about competing religions vying for the White House.
Dr. Ben Carson is getting slammed across the nation by liberal newspapers like The Washington Post and TV hosts for simply telling the truth.
What did Ben Carson say?
When asked if he believes if Sharia Law is consistent with the Constitution, Carson said, “No, I do not.”
Ben Carson was also asked if he would have any objection to a Muslim serving as president. Assuming that a practicing Muslim would submit to Sharia Law, he answered...
“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”
The media has totally and intentionally distorted what Dr. Carson said in an effort to drive him out of the race for president. You and I must not let them succeed!
Ben Carson has doubled down on his courageous stand against radical Islam. As he explained it on Fox News Channel on Monday night...
"We don't put people at the head of our country whose faith might interfere with them carrying out the duties of the Constitution. If you're a Christian and you're running for president and you want to make this [country] into a theocracy, I'm not going to support you. I'm not going to advocate you being the president."
"Now, if someone has a Muslim background, and they’re willing to reject those tenets [of Sharia Law] and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then of course they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them."
That is precisely what he told Chuck Todd of NBC News, but NBC carefully took Carson’s statement out of context and twisted it into a pretzel to make him look like a bigot.
And then, all the other mainstream news media jumped on board, trying to make it look like Ben Carson said something he did not say. And, that he did not understand the Constitution. As if the left has ever cared about the Constitution."
Puts Carson on my list of top tier candidates along with Jindal. Both of them have stood up for the nation against the liberal M2M spinners and the the federal government in it's current form. The difference between saying and doing counts is readily apparent.
A - Ben Carson's Support
B - Muslim
C - Not renounced religious law replacing secular law
B AND C --> /A
I suspect he would also agree to C --> /A, i.e. that he wouldn't support religious law regardless of religion. Someone should ask him to be sure.
If so, B is superfluous. In this case he just picks an incidiary B so he can say, "I really never would vote for a [insert group here] who supports religious based law."
He's playing a pointless rhetorical game.
The jury is still out on Carson for me. Like with Trump there is far too much time to solidly get behind anyone yet.
In all the time I have worked and known people of various backgrounds, I have not known a single one who believes in this group stuff. It seems like it's only people who write articles. Maybe I serve on boards with people who actually do see people as religious identity gorups and they keep it to themselves. I suspect, though, it's mostly a question of if you get money for power from getting people mad at their neighbors, then you see this. The actual people doing other jobs, not comentators or relgioius/political figures, don't get this stuff. To most of us, it doesn't even ring remotely true.
These days??? There is an article in townhall.com in two parts why Christians should no longer support progressives.
Easy answer is the two are completely at odds with each other. Put the names together its an oxymoron.
There i an