Another win for Religious Liberty

Repeating blatant lies does not make them true, no matter how many times you repeat them.

Illegal immigrants are not "foreign invaders"…

By definition, yes, they most certainly are. They are foreigners, engaged in a hostile and illegal invasion of our country, and a violation of our country's sovereignty. Words mean things, and you cannot make a valid argument based on denying the clear meaning of words.

…nor is it treason to provide them with food or water.

I already posted the definition of treason, as explicitly stated in our Constitution. Giving any kind of aid, comfort, or support to these foreign invaders exactly and undeniably meets this definition.


The Bible says it's our Christian duty.

The Bible says no such thing.
 
The Bible says no such thing.

Pretty much word for word actually..

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[f] you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
 
Are you expecting me to approve of or defend adultery?
You voted for Trump didn’t you?

Yes, I did. That does not mean that I approve of some very bad things he has done in his life. I fully admit that in some ways, he is a reprehensible person, who has engage in behavior that I cannot condone or defend.

Would you have preferred that I instead vote for a woman who was a knowing and willing accessory to several instances of violent sexual abuse perpetrated by the subhuman piece of shit to whom she is married, as well as an accessory and participant in several instances of blatant political corruption?
 
The Bible says no such thing.
Pretty much word for word actually..

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[f] you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Like I am going to give any credence to someone who openly despised Christianity, when he blatantly twists scripture to try to make it mean something that it very clearly does not.

Nothing anywhere in that passage, nor elsewhere in the Bible, speaks against the right of a sovereign nation to defend itself against hostile foreign invaders, nor urges citizens of any such nation to treasonously aid and support such invaders.
 
Are you expecting me to approve of or defend adultery?
You voted for Trump didn’t you?

Yes, I did. That does not mean that I approve of some very bad things he has done in his life. I fully admit that in some ways, he is a reprehensible person, who has engage in behavior that I cannot condone or defend.

Would you have preferred that I instead vote for a woman who was a knowing and willing accessory to several instances of violent sexual abuse perpetrated by the subhuman piece of shit to whom she is married, as well as an accessory and participant in several instances of blatant political corruption?
One is supported by fact. Trump’s adultery.

The other opinion.

Not mention numerous claims of sexual assault leveled at Trump certainly bears mentioning.
 
Repeating blatant lies does not make them true, no matter how many times you repeat them.

Illegal immigrants are not "foreign invaders"…

By definition, yes, they most certainly are. They are foreigners, engaged in a hostile and illegal invasion of our country, and a violation of our country's sovereignty. Words mean things, and you cannot make a valid argument based on denying the clear meaning of words.

…nor is it treason to provide them with food or water.

I already posted the definition of treason, as explicitly stated in our Constitution. Giving any kind of aid, comfort, or support to these foreign invaders exactly and undeniably meets this definition.


The Bible says it's our Christian duty.

The Bible says no such thing.

You are truly too stupid to be one person:

The didn't use the complete definition of "treason" in the Constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy "in a time of war, declared by Congress", so illegal immigration in no way meets the Constitutional definition of treason.

It most certainly is in the Bible. In the parable of the Good Smaratan, Jesus was very clear that the Pharisee who passed by on the other side of the road would not be welcomed into the Kingdom of God, even though he was a priest, and a teacher of God's words, because he refused to help the injured man, but that the Samaratan would be welcome because he held the spirit of God within him, even if he was a Gentile.

I've bolded the most direct and applicable lines about helping these people in the Bible. That you have no idea that this passage exists, shows me that you are no kind of Christian, at all. It is one of the most famous and often quote passages Jesus spoke: That which "you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me".

Matthew 25:40-45 New International Version (NIV)
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’


44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
 
One is supported by fact. Trump’s adultery.

The other opinion.

Not mention numerous claims of sexual assault leveled at Trump certainly bears mentioning.

The evidence of Bill Clinton's violent sexual predatory behavior, and of Hillary Clinton's role as an accessory thereto, is far more abundant, and far more damning, than evidence of any similar behavior on Donald Trump's part.

No doubt, Trump is an adulterer. One day, he will stand before God, and be held to answer for that, and for other things he has done.

Last election, I was presented with a choice between two evils, and I picked the far lesser evil—The one for whom evidence of sexual misconduct was less abundant, and less damning, and who, by the way, also gave me much less reason to believe that he would seriously abuse the power of the office he was seeking to promote his own interests, to the detriment of the those of the country that he was to serve.

I already knew enough about Hillary Clinton's character, and her history of blatantly abusing the power to which she was previously entrusted, to know that I do not want her anywhere near any position of power and authority. Sometimes, the devil you do not know is preferable to the devil that you do know. In this case, that turns out to have been true. Whatever you may think of Trump's moral character, it is undeniable that he has, while in office, truly put the interests of this country and its people ahead of all other interests, including his own, to a degree that is very rare to see these days in any politician, and which we certainly never saw at all from either of the Clintons.
 
You are truly too stupid to be one person:

The didn't use the complete definition of "treason" in the Constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy "in a time of war, declared by Congress", so illegal immigration in no way meets the Constitutional definition of treason.

I posted the whole of Article III, Section 3 of of the Constitution. It does not say that we have to be in an official state of war, for treason to be treason.

And official or not, we are at war. The invasion taking place across our southern border is a blatant act of war against the United States, and against the people thereof, whether we recognize and treat it as such or not. And those who are citizens of this country, who are complicit in aiding and supporting that invasion are, as a matter of objective fact, guilty of treason, as explicitly defined in the Constitution.
 
Like I am going to give any credence to someone who openly despised Christianity, when he blatantly twists scripture to try to make it mean something that it very clearly does not.

Nothing anywhere in that passage, nor elsewhere in the Bible, speaks against the right of a sovereign nation to defend itself against hostile foreign invaders, nor urges citizens of any such nation to treasonously aid and support such invaders.

I do not despise Christianity at all, what I despise are fake Christians like you that give Christianity a bad name. Being a Christian means being Christ-like, you could not be any less Christ-like if you had horns and a pitchfork.

The good news is that the Bible tells us there is a special punishment for fake Christians like you.
 
You are truly too stupid to be one person:

The didn't use the complete definition of "treason" in the Constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy "in a time of war, declared by Congress", so illegal immigration in no way meets the Constitutional definition of treason.

I posted the whole of Article III, Section 3 of of the Constitution. It does not say that we have to be in an official state of war, for treason to be treason.

And official or not, we are at war. The invasion taking place across our southern border is a blatant act of war against the United States, and against the people thereof, whether we recognize and treat it as such or not. And those who are citizens of this country, who are complicit in aiding and supporting that invasion are, as a matter of objective fact, guilty of treason, as explicitly defined in the Constitution.

If it were an act of war then we would be allowed to use the military to stop it.
 
You are truly too stupid to be one person:

The didn't use the complete definition of "treason" in the Constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy "in a time of war, declared by Congress", so illegal immigration in no way meets the Constitutional definition of treason.

I posted the whole of Article III, Section 3 of of the Constitution. It does not say that we have to be in an official state of war, for treason to be treason.

And official or not, we are at war. The invasion taking place across our southern border is a blatant act of war against the United States, and against the people thereof, whether we recognize and treat it as such or not. And those who are citizens of this country, who are complicit in aiding and supporting that invasion are, as a matter of objective fact, guilty of treason, as explicitly defined in the Constitution.

If you read the Constitution you would know we aren’t at war and the hogwash about treason is just that.
 
The Bible says no such thing.

Pretty much word for word actually..

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[f] you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Nothing in this scripture urges people to assist criminals in breaking the law.
 
You know damn well, that in the vast majority of cases, that's not going to happen.

Correct. If foreigners want to apply for asylum, they should visit their local American embassy and do it there, in my view. If they illegally cross the border, they should be marched back to the border and sent back on their way.
 
There is certainly something wrong with celebrating evil and immorality, which undermines this divine plan, and degrades society.
.

Like adultery?
Is someone asking you to give food or water to adulterers while they are in the act of adultery?
If they were dying of thirst? Which is the greater sin?
Littering sensitive ecological areas is the greater sin. We aren't bringing people here and then dumping them in the middle of the desert. They are voluntarily assuming the risk of these dangers. We have no obligation to make their trip safe.
 
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.

Our legal system does not see them as foreign invaders, thus your point is not valid.
so are you saying crossing our border without going through the proper legal channels is legal ?? maybe they should camp out in your front yard .... better yet PEOPLE WEARING MAGA HATS SHOULD CAMP OUT IN YOUR YARD !
 
There is certainly something wrong with celebrating evil and immorality, which undermines this divine plan, and degrades society.
.

Like adultery?
Is someone asking you to give food or water to adulterers while they are in the act of adultery?
If they were dying of thirst? Which is the greater sin?
Littering sensitive ecological areas is the greater sin. We aren't bringing people here and then dumping them in the middle of the desert. They are voluntarily assuming the risk of these dangers. We have no obligation to make their trip safe.

They weren't crossing the desert before Trump stopped letting refugee claimants in at the ports of entry. Trump did this on purpose. This way he could arrest them for illegally crossing the border, detain them until their court cases are heard, and separate them from their children as "criminals". He could also claim that the numbers of people crossing the border illegally (which were at their lowest numbers in 50 years when he took office), were going up.

And the "for-profit" prison companies which donated generously to his "inauguration fund", which still hasn't released its financial records, are reaping millions detaining the refugees in filthy and unsafe conditions at $700 per head, per night.
 

Forum List

Back
Top