Another win for Religious Liberty

[Andylusion]

No, I'm telling the truth, and its ticking you off. I can't help that. Truth hurts.

No, I'm telling the truth, and its ticking you off. I can't help that. Truth hurts.

Not mad or ticked off at all. I appreciate when you fake Christians show your true colors.

Says someone who is getting people killed.
Your statements about me, mean nothing when your actions are causing the death of innocent people.

Why do you keep lying about me? Name one action I have committed that has caused the death of innocent people.

I just did. Your actions, by leaving food and water in the desert, is encouraging more people to take an exceptionally risky trek into the desert. Instead of using your resources to discourage risky behavior and enter legally, you are causing more people to do out into the desert where people routinely die.... and I just posted an article of a 6-year-old girl killed by a path paved with good intentions.

If you are engaged in an action that causes more people to engage in risky behavior, you are as guilty as the guy who gives a drunk a drink and his car keys, or pays his heroin addict kids money so they don't get evicted.

Both of those actions, directly encourage risky behavior that results in death. So does leaving water out in the desert. The groups that I support, try and discourage risky desert treks, while helping those entering legally. We save lives. You end lives.

I'm not lying. You just don't like the truth.

I have never left food and water for anyone...you are a bold faced liar and if you were a real Christian you would ask for my forgiveness for bearing false witness against me.
All I have done is support the religious liberty of those who feel the passage from Jesus about giving water to the thirty leads them to this action.

I cannot believe you call yourself a Christian and spread such lies about me.

There is a special place in hell for people like you.

Then perhaps I have you confused with the person who said "My group...." does this and that.

If that was not you... which seems odd, I could have sworn it was... but if it was not you, then I stand corrected.

So you support people dumping food and water in the desert? If not, then somehow I mistakenly identified you with another poster, and that was my error.

 

[Andylusion]

The Bible says very little about "nation" to begin with, that's arguably quite a different topic altogether.

But it does say submit to authority, and follow the laws of the land. The only exception to that, is if the laws directly contradict Biblical teaching, with the famous example being the old testament story of shadrach meshach and abednego. But if the law does not directly require you to violate Christian faith, then you should not violate the law.

For example, when the Iron curtain prevented importing the Christian Bible, I know many pastors who as traveling hippies, smuggled Bibles into the Eastern Bloc

But that only applies to things that directly contradict faith. The Christian requirement to help the poor, feed the hungry, and clothe the naked, can be done in hundreds of ways. Denying one single method, does not contradict the religious freedom. If the local authorities closed down the soup kitchen down town, I would still feed the hungry, just a different way. I would not violate the law to keep the kitchen open illegally. I would just find another way to feed people.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Then perhaps I have you confused with the person who said "My group...." does this and that.

If that was not you... which seems odd, I could have sworn it was... but if it was not you, then I stand corrected.

So you support people dumping food and water in the desert? If not, then somehow I mistakenly identified you with another poster, and that was my error.

It would be a good 15 to 25 hour drive depending on which part of the desert I went to...seems a tad far to go for such a thing...so no...it was not me.

Now, I was stationed in Yuma Az and used to catch illegals pretty often crossing through our bombing ranges as they knew the BP would not follow them.

I support the right of people to leave food and water in the desert. I think it is a clear following of the words of Jesus from Matthew 25. I do not see how anyone can read that passage and say they are not following it. It is not something I would do myself, but I will support their right to do it.

It is no different than the baker that did not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I fully support their right to say no, even though I find their reasoning to be bullshit.

I am very big fan of liberty and people having the freedom to do things. Do not even get me started on anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Bible says very little about "nation" to begin with, that's arguably quite a different topic altogether.

But it does say submit to authority, and follow the laws of the land. The only exception to that, is if the laws directly contradict Biblical teaching, with the famous example being the old testament story of shadrach meshach and abednego. But if the law does not directly require you to violate Christian faith, then you should not violate the law.

For example, when the Iron curtain prevented importing the Christian Bible, I know many pastors who as traveling hippies, smuggled Bibles into the Eastern Bloc

But that only applies to things that directly contradict faith. The Christian requirement to help the poor, feed the hungry, and clothe the naked, can be done in hundreds of ways. Denying one single method, does not contradict the religious freedom. If the local authorities closed down the soup kitchen down town, I would still feed the hungry, just a different way. I would not violate the law to keep the kitchen open illegally. I would just find another way to feed people.

How do you feel about bakers refusing to bake a cake for a same sex wedding?

 

[Questioner]

Judge's Ruling Shows Religious Freedom Isn’t Just For The Christian Right

For Scott Warren, a 37-year-old geography teacher from Ajo, Arizona, freedom of religion means making sure migrants crossing a treacherous stretch of desert along the U.S.-Mexico border don’t die of dehydration.

What do you all think, does this fall under Religious Liberty?

Religious freedom is not a license to commit criminal acts.

Giving aid and comfort to foreign invaders is treason, one of the most serious criminal acts that an American citizen can commit. This should not stand, any more than it would stand for someone to claim a religious obligation to rob banks, or murder unbelievers.

Please show me a legal definition of treason.

It's generally just used as a buzzword for something or another, with no validity under law.

 

[Andylusion]

How do you feel about bakers refusing to bake a cake for a same sex wedding?

Generally, I am libertarian on business. I do not believe anyone, anywhere, has the right to demand that you work for them, whether you intend to pay them or not.

During slavery, there were in fact slaves that were paid. Being paid, didn't make it ok that they were forced into working.

Some years ago, almost 10 years now, through a really odd situation, I was asked to leave a business, where they decided they didn't want to serve me. It didn't bother me one bit. I simply went elsewhere. It never crossed my mind, that I was entitled to the labor of other people, and I had the right to demand they work to serve me.

So I don't believe in public accommodation laws at all. I think you are free to do with your own property, as you see fit. And if you own a business, and you don't want to serve people who wear tank tops, then I think it should entirely be your choice as to who you serve and who you don't.

As for the Christian view on whether a business owner should be involved with something unbiblical, there are two schools of thought on it, and I personally can see the pros and cons of both sides.

So first, there is no question whatsoever that homosexuality is a sin, and considered evil by G-d. That isn't a debatable point.
Second, there is no question whatsoever that same sex marriage is unbiblical. The Bible clearly says that G-d himself defined marriage as between a man and a women.

Therefore the only question is, are you yourself engaged in something evil (as a Christian), when you provide services to people engaged in something evil?

As I said, there are generally two schools of thought. One is simply, no it does not. Someone else engaging in something, does not reflect at all on you, and you should just serve people as best you can.

As long as you are not directly engaged in the act of evil, then it does not apply to you.

And generally I don't expect pagans, to live like Christians. Now if you say you are a Christian, and are doing something evil, then I have a problem. But if a Pagan, says they are a pagan (meaning: Non-christian), and they are doing something evil according to G-d, then what is that to me? Why would I expect non-christian people to follow Christians standards of a G-d they don't believe in?

So when I see Christians screaming at for example, a Victoria Secrets store, like they did some years ago, I think those Christians need to mind their own business.

The other school of thought is that your labor is directly being used to support an evil act. Yes, you might not be directly participating, but you are most certainly aiding the action.

This is like someone asking you to drive them to a quick mart, and then to a bar. The guy robs the quick mart, and then goes drinking. Are you guilty? Well it depends on if you know. If you know he intends to rob the quick mart, that makes you an accomplice. Your labor and effort, is being used in the commission of a crime.

Well to a Christian, homosexuality and same-sex marriage, are crimes in G-d law, and if you are knowingly allowing your labor to be used in the commission of a crime, then you could be guilty.

So I can see validity in both views. Both have arguments to be made in favor of each.

And by the way, the same is true in any other evil.

So when I was younger and going to my parents church, we had a lady there that had been going there for some years, and then she lost her mind. (at least to me, she lost her mind).

She married one guy, and then divorced him. I still don't know to this day, what the story was behind that.

However, she decided to marry a second guy, and the church leadership determined she really didn't have good grounds for marrying someone else. To make matters worse, the guy she wanted to marry was a divorcee, and he clearly didn't have grounds for divorcing his original wife. And then lastly, it turned out he really was not a Christian.

First they tried to hire the church to do the wedding, and the church leadership refused to marry them. Then they tried to rent the church, and just have a pastor of their own come and marry them. We had rented out the church numerous times before, but because we knew what they wanted to rent it for, and knew it was wrong, we denied them to rent the church.

They both left the church.... until a few years later when she ended up being beaten by the man, and divorced him.
We ended up asking her to leave later though, because she started dating her 17 year old daughter's boyfriend. Felt real bad for her daughter though. Sad sad situation.

Regardless, because we viewed what she intended to do as evil, we wouldn't allow her to rent the church for a wedding, which we had done numerous times before.

But back to the main point.... I can see both sides of the argument, and there are good points to be made for both. As for me personally, I don't know what I would do in that situation. It's like running a bed and breakfast. Do you rent a room out to people who don't have wedding bands on, and list different last names? I know a Christian bed and breakfast businesses, that if you are not wearing rings, and have the same last name, then you can't rent a room. And others that don't have a problem with it, obviously.

So I don't know what I would do. I suppose I would have to be in that situation, before I would have to make a choice on how I view it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Please show me a legal definition of treason.

It's generally just used as a buzzword for something or another, with no validity under law.

I posted it very early in this thread, some days ago. Here it is, again…

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America…

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.​

Giving any kind of aid, support, or comfort to foreign invaders exactly meets this definition. This certainly includes leaving out water and other supplies, in order to allow them to more safely and easily carry out their illegal invasion against our country.

 

[Questioner]

I posted it very early in this thread, some days ago. Here it is, again…

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America…

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be​

Giving any kind of aid, support, or comfort to foreign invaders exactly meets this definition.

Nope, unless there's a declaration of war against them, I don't believe that definition would apply.

So you seem legally illiterate, which is why most of these topics aren't worth replying to. Show my how the law defines an "enemy".

 

[Lysistrata]

Please show me a legal definition of treason.

It's generally just used as a buzzword for something or another, with no validity under law.

I posted it very early in this thread, some days ago. Here it is, again…

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America…

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.​

Giving any kind of aid, support, or comfort to foreign invaders exactly meets this definition. This certainly includes leaving out water and other supplies, in order to allow them to more safely and easily carry out their illegal invasion against our country.

However, these people are not "invaders." They come unarmed. They are refugees.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Nope, unless there's a declaration of war against them, I don't believe that definition would apply.

So you seem legally illiterate, which is why most of these topics aren't worth replying to. Show my how the law defines an "enemy".

Foreigners invading another country is an overt act of war. This country is under foreign attack, and we are in a state of war, whether we recognize and treat it as such or not.

And any American citizen who, in any way aids the invaders is, as a matter of objective fact, committing treason, as clearly defined in the Constitution.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

However, these people are not "invaders." They come unarmed. They are refugees.

Repeating a lie over and over again does not make it true.

They are invading our country. They are violating the sovereignty of their country. Armed or not, they are engaging in an overt act of war against this country. Calling them “refugees” is a blatant lie, which does not hide what they really are. Refugees would come her legally, in accordance with whatever process we, as a nation, choose to implement to admit whatever refugees we choose to admit.

 

[dblack]

However, these people are not "invaders." They come unarmed. They are refugees.

Repeating a lie over and over again does not make it true.

They are invading our country. They are violating the sovereignty of their country. Armed or not, they are engaging in an overt act of war against this country. Calling them “refugees” is a blatant lie, which does not hide what they really are. Refugees would come her legally, in accordance with whatever process we, as a nation, choose to implement to admit whatever refugees we choose to admit.

I wonder how you chickenshits would react if you ever faced a real invasion?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I wonder how you chickensh••s would react if you ever faced a real invasion?

This •IS• a real invasion.

 

[dblack]

I wonder how you chickensh••s would react if you ever faced a real invasion?

This •IS• a real invasion.

LOL. No, I'm talking about an invasion by a foreign army. You know, tanks and guns and the like. Not a bunch of people threatening to mow our lawns for cheap.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Sorry, Ram.but everything you suggested is illegal, and we do not do illegal acts. If we spot them, and they want to give themselves up, we radio the border patrol to pick them up.

I was under the impression that directly providing aid for illegal activity, was in fact a crime.

Now unless you can somehow suggest you are putting out water, for random US citizens that just wander out into the desert, I think you know you are aiding an people engaged in illegal activity.

That said.........

You actually made my point. You are doing this, which encourages people to make a dangerous trek into the desert, and then openly admit that anyone that arrives after the water is gone, is left to die. You know... because you are not going to engage in an illegal activity, even though you are encouraging others to, at the risk of their lives.

As far as I'm concerned, you just blew your ideological foot off with that post. Not that this isn't surprising. I knew I was dead on right about this from the start.

You know, I am coming to the conclusion that you actually believe your RW talking point that we are "encouraging people to make a dangerous trek in the desert". That is too fucking dumb to even debate. We are saving lives. In fact, more often than not, our only personal encounter with illegals is when they approach us and ask for help getting out of the desert. The help we provide is to radio Border patrol and tell them where to pick them up.

And, no. It is not against the law to leave clothing, medication, water, and food for illegals, or anybody else, unless some hard ass wants to send us to jail for littering. It is against the law to transport them, which we do not do. In fact, when they see us, they usually stay hidden until we are gone.

You have the right to be wrong. It's ok, I'm used to left-wingers being wrong.

Body of a 6-year-old girl from India is found in the Arizona desert - CNN

Pat yourself on the back dude. You are saving lives.... like this 6 year old girl. Well done jackass.

It isn't just Mexico. They come here from around the world. It has to stop.

Yeah. It's all over.

In fact, that story illustrates one of the big problems. If a 6-year-old from India can fly to Mexico, and trek through the desert to enter illegally... then of course terrorists can.

This is why we need a wall. You can't just have a wide open border.

Here we go, with the terroristic Muslims crossing the desert rhetoric again. Is there anything you guys are not afraid of?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Please show me a legal definition of treason.

It's generally just used as a buzzword for something or another, with no validity under law.

I posted it very early in this thread, some days ago. Here it is, again…

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America…

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.​

Giving any kind of aid, support, or comfort to foreign invaders exactly meets this definition. This certainly includes leaving out water and other supplies, in order to allow them to more safely and easily carry out their illegal invasion against our country.

Please don't turn me in to Trump's Gestapo!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Nope, unless there's a declaration of war against them, I don't believe that definition would apply.

So you seem legally illiterate, which is why most of these topics aren't worth replying to. Show my how the law defines an "enemy".

Foreigners invading another country is an overt act of war. This country is under foreign attack, and we are in a state of war, whether we recognize and treat it as such or not.

And any American citizen who, in any way aids the invaders is, as a matter of objective fact, committing treason, as clearly defined in the Constitution.

Don't give up your day job to practice law, Bob.

 

[Questioner]

Nope, unless there's a declaration of war against them, I don't believe that definition would apply.

So you seem legally illiterate, which is why most of these topics aren't worth replying to. Show my how the law defines an "enemy".

Foreigners invading another country is an overt act of war. This country is under foreign attack, and we are in a state of war, whether we recognize and treat it as such or not.

And any American citizen who, in any way aids the invaders is, as a matter of objective fact, committing treason, as clearly defined in the Constitution.

Your opinion versus the law - I'm not interested.

Show me how invaders are defined under the law.

 

[westwall]

Here you go. The first Journal article is particularly enlightening. Read and weep if you actually care about people. You progressive scum hit me with your laugh emojis. It's all you can do it seems.

Mexican Deaths in the Arizona Desert: The Culpability of Migrants, Humanitarian Workers, Governments, and Businesses

Mexican Deaths in the Arizona Desert: The Culpability of Migrants, Humanitarian Workers, Governments, and Businesses on JSTOR



Border crossers, and the desert that claims them

What happens when migrants die in the Arizona desert?

Illegal: Life and Death in Arizona's Immigration War Zone | Goucher College

Deaths in the Desert: The Human Rights Crisis on the U.S.—Mexico Border on JSTOR

 

[danielpalos]

Judge's Ruling Shows Religious Freedom Isn’t Just For The Christian Right

For Scott Warren, a 37-year-old geography teacher from Ajo, Arizona, freedom of religion means making sure migrants crossing a treacherous stretch of desert along the U.S.-Mexico border don’t die of dehydration.

What do you all think, does this fall under Religious Liberty?

Is he crossing to invade my country!?

No, he is not.

What’s he doing?

exercising natural rights.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

You would know that, but this is not an abortion thread.