Does America Need Be Saved From Theocracy?

[PoliticalChic]

 

[Ringtone]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

Behold the Orwellian think of the political left.

Thank you for affirming once again lefty's wont to empower the government to force the people to obey the tenets of his religion.

Ideological discrimination/dissent is the very essence of liberty, you drooling retard of a fascist bootlick!

The only thing leftists will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads. By the way, that's not a threat. That's an observation about the statist mindset of the political left, that of the useful idiots—the lemmings!—of the state schools and popular culture.

 

[Ringtone]

Up it affects because these same faux Christians have no concept of separation of church and state.

Says the leftist who despises the classical liberalism of the Lockean tradition of natural law on which this nation was founded.

 

[JoeB131]

All of the Democrat/Liberal elites have admitted the truth.....yet, here we find a petrified 'intellect' still fighting a battle already lost.

Um, no, it just shows the POUNDMeToo movement is LBJ's remark that the difference between Liberals and Cannibals is that Cannibals don't eat their friends.

If you can't handle a jerky guy, you shouldn't be go out of the house at night..

But as I said, most of these women were either liars or were lied about. (For instance, Poor Elizabeth Ward Gracen, who the right wing wouldn't leave alone.)

Ken Starr didn't believe most of these women, why should I?

 

[JoeB131]

It is nice. Like I said America is a wonderful country where people can be the captains of their own destiny unless we allow fascist asshats like you start making laws and breaking rules so they will get special considerations which are not specifically written into the constitution and bill of rights.

Actually, no. The Bill of Rights doesn't let you break the law.

You see, I had this great Idea. I could declare myself a devotee of Queztacoatl, the winged Serpent God of the Aztecs. And then because it was my religion, I could go around cutting out the hearts of my enemies, and ignore those pesky murder laws.

I would promise to use an authentic obsidian knife, just like the Aztecs did.

Of course, that sounds absurd. But no more absurd than being allowed to ignore the Public Accommedation laws because your sky pixie said so.

 

[easyt65]

'Does America Need Be Saved From Theocracy?'

No - just DEMOCRATS!

 

[JoeB131]

In 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did notassault her. In 1998, Broaddrick told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she was raped. Eventually, Broaddrick described the rape for several major news organizations.

End of the discussion, as far as I'm concerned. No prosecutor would go to court under such a circumstance.

Clinton Is Guilty: Broaddrick's initial denials indicate only that she shunned publicity. That's why she never reported the rape; rebuffed advances from Clinton's political enemies who, in 1992, urged her to go public; and lied to Paula Jones' lawyers. She eventually told the FBI the truth in 1998 only because her son--a lawyer--advised her against lying to federal investigators. (At the time, it was reasonable to suspect she'd be hauled before a grand jury.)

Okay. That's one theory. Here's another-

She had a consensual relationship with Clinton, lied about it for years, and along comes Kenny Starr, who had ALREADY thrown two women in prison for not testifying the way he wanted. Maybe she was a real chickenshit and would have accused Clinton of kidnapping the Lindberg Baby if Ken Starr told her to.

The problem is, when you change your story so often, there's a certain point where - we just don't believe you anymore.

She Told Friends:

And two of those friends were women who were upset with Clinton because he commuted the sentence of their father's killer. Other people in her life didn't believe her or she never told.

More to the point, she didn't remember some pretty clear details... like dates, room numbers... There was no record of her or Clinton ever being at the hotel that his supposedly happened in.

After the supposed rape, she continued to attend Clinton events and even accepted an appointment to a state board from Clinton. This is not the behavior of a rape victim.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, he lied about a consensual relationship to spare both the woman involved in his family embarrassment.

WHAT A MONSTER!!!!

 

[RodISHI]

It is nice. Like I said America is a wonderful country where people can be the captains of their own destiny unless we allow fascist asshats like you start making laws and breaking rules so they will get special considerations which are not specifically written into the constitution and bill of rights.

Actually, no. The Bill of Rights doesn't let you break the law.

You see, I had this great Idea. I could declare myself a devotee of Queztacoatl, the winged Serpent God of the Aztecs. And then because it was my religion, I could go around cutting out the hearts of my enemies, and ignore those pesky murder laws.

I would promise to use an authentic obsidian knife, just like the Aztecs did.

Of course, that sounds absurd. But no more absurd than being allowed to ignore the Public Accommedation laws because your sky pixie said so.

"Absurd" is when fascist like the Nazi were start making laws that are unlawful to begin with to cover their nasty asses. Your laws trying to over ride another persons faith and religious beliefs in this country are not lawful. Telling some nasty ass person to get lost is in no way compared to your bullshit hyperbole about a knife and murder from an Aztecs old cult system. Then again it does seem some of you leftist do want to infiltrate the whole country with people that still follow those old Azteca type beliefs.

 

[Ringtone]

Actually, no. The Bill of Rights doesn't let you break the law.

You see, I had this great Idea. I could declare myself a devotee of Queztacoatl, the winged Serpent God of the Aztecs. And then because it was my religion, I could go around cutting out the hearts of my enemies, and ignore those pesky murder laws.

I would promise to use an authentic obsidian knife, just like the Aztecs did.

Of course, that sounds absurd. But no more absurd than being allowed to ignore the Public Accommedation laws because your sky pixie said so.

What a total moron of a fascist, jackbooted thug of a statist bootlick. You're a cowardly, pathological liar and a rank sociopath who hasn't even the integrity to draw an intellectually honest analogy. No one has any inherent right to violate the life, liberty or property of another, and the inalienable rights of ideological dissent and free-association have absolutely nothing to do with religious affiliation as such. The government has absolutely no legitimate right to compel anyone to make expressions or engage in activities that are contrary to their ideological convictions. Period. You're a punk, and, once again, the only thing that fascist thugs like you will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at your stupid heads.

You're depraved,

 

[lennypartiv]

Our government is fine now, but if it ever looks like Muslims would be the majority, we'd need to quickly change the Constitution to completely separate religion from state.

 

[JoeB131]

"Absurd" is when fascist like the Nazi were start making laws that are unlawful to begin with to cover their nasty asses. Your laws trying to over ride another persons faith and religious beliefs in this country are not lawful. Telling some nasty ass person to get lost is in no way compared to your bullshit hyperbole about a knife and murder from an Aztecs old cult system. Then again it does seem some of you leftist do want to infiltrate the whole country with people that still follow those old Azteca type beliefs.

Public Accommedation laws were passed for a good reason. It was to keep bigots from denying service to people of color.

And somebody already tried the whole, "My religion says I don't have to serve you". It didn't work then. It won't work now.

 

[JoeB131]

What a total moron of a fascist, jackbooted thug of a statist bootlick. You're a cowardly, pathological liar and a rank sociopath who hasn't even the integrity to draw an intellectually honest analogy. No one has any inherent right to violate the life, liberty or property of another, and the inalienable rights of ideological dissent and free-association have absolutely nothing to do with religious affiliation as such. The government has absolutely no legitimate right to compel anyone to make expressions or engage in activities that are contrary to their ideological convictions. Period. You're a punk, and, once again, the only thing that fascist thugs like you will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at your stupid heads.

You're depraved,

Are you done throwing your little tantrum? Good.

This is settled law. The problem with the "My Religion means I don't have to serve you" doesn't stop with gays.

You could just as easily apply it to Jews or Mormons. You could apply it to blacks. Heck, you could even apply it to white Christians...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, no. The Bill of Rights doesn't let you break the law.

You see, I had this great Idea. I could declare myself a devotee of Queztacoatl, the winged Serpent God of the Aztecs. And then because it was my religion, I could go around cutting out the hearts of my enemies, and ignore those pesky murder laws.

I would promise to use an authentic obsidian knife, just like the Aztecs did.

Of course, that sounds absurd. But no more absurd than being allowed to ignore the Public Accommedation laws because your sky pixie said so.

What a total moron of a fascist, jackbooted thug of a statist bootlick. You're a cowardly, pathological liar and a rank sociopath who hasn't even the integrity to draw an intellectually honest analogy. No one has any inherent right to violate the life, liberty or property of another, and the inalienable rights of ideological dissent and free-association have absolutely nothing to do with religious affiliation as such. The government has absolutely no legitimate right to compel anyone to make expressions or engage in activities that are contrary to their ideological convictions. Period. You're a punk, and, once again, the only thing that fascist thugs like you will ever understand about the rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at your stupid heads.

You're depraved,

You are far too kind to ErroneousJoe.

 

[RodISHI]

"Absurd" is when fascist like the Nazi were start making laws that are unlawful to begin with to cover their nasty asses. Your laws trying to over ride another persons faith and religious beliefs in this country are not lawful. Telling some nasty ass person to get lost is in no way compared to your bullshit hyperbole about a knife and murder from an Aztecs old cult system. Then again it does seem some of you leftist do want to infiltrate the whole country with people that still follow those old Azteca type beliefs.

Public Accommedation laws were passed for a good reason. It was to keep bigots from denying service to people of color.

And somebody already tried the whole, "My religion says I don't have to serve you". It didn't work then. It won't work now.

Public accommodation laws do not mean that anyone who owns a private enterprise and private property has to embrace asshats such as you. They do not over ride anyone else's rights to refuse to embrace another person's sicknesses or their lusty and perverted natures either; nor does another person have to give up their rights to their personal religious beliefs or agree with you or anyone else. If they did that would mean when a sicko bar ask my son to bid a job to paint a big dick on their floor could sue him when he told them no he wasn't interested in even bidding on such a job. It would mean another could force someone to work for them whether they wanted to or not. Sorry you don't get to be a fascist in this country without a lot of resistance and the superior laws of the land to support those who refuse to be in agreement or accommodate you or any of your fascist buds..

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Last week, U.S. Attorney General William Barr told a University of Notre Dame Law School audience that attacks on religious liberty have contributed to a moral decline that's in part manifested by increases in suicides, mental illness and drug addiction. Barr said that our moral decline is not random but "organized destruction."

Namely that "Secularists and their allies have marshaled all the forces of mass communication, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values."

The attorney general is absolutely correct.
The left's attack on religion is just the tiny tip of the iceberg in our nation's moral decline.


Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to such use, do you believe that there should be the initiation of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions. "
US in Moral Decline

 

[Ringtone]

Are you done throwing your little tantrum? Good.

This is settled law. The problem with the "My Religion means I don't have to serve you" doesn't stop with gays.

You could just as easily apply it to Jews or Mormons. You could apply it to blacks. Heck, you could even apply it to white Christians...

What's settled law? Homofascism? Where? When? In Arizona? Florida? Utah? The Twilight Zone? Civil law? Case law?

What are you babbling about?

In any event, the pertinent principle of natural and constitutional law at issue has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation. Gays are not being denied service, you idiot, because they're gay.

 

[JoeB131]

What's settled law? Homofascism? Where? When? In Arizona? Florida? Utah? The Twilight Zone? Civil law? Case law?

What are you babbling about?

In any event, the pertinent principle of natural and constitutional law at issue has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation. Gays are not being denied service, you idiot, because they're gay.

If they can't get a service straight people can, then yes, they are being denied service because they are gay.

Now, if they walked into a butcher's shop and asked for a cake, the butcher could say, "This is a butcher's shop". Wouldn't have a case.

But if they walk into a bakery, and they can't get a cake and a straight person can... that's discrimination... This isn't complicated, buddy.

"Last week, U.S. Attorney General William Barr told a University of Notre Dame Law School audience that attacks on religious liberty have contributed to a moral decline that's in part manifested by increases in suicides, mental illness and drug addiction. Barr said that our moral decline is not random but "organized destruction."

THis just in.. Bob Barr is retarded.

The reason we are in such trouble now is the Right has spent the last 40 years hollowing out the Middle Class, with the help of the religious right. Jesus don't put food on the table, a good paycheck does.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Bill Barr’s Point About Religion Is Underscored by His Critics

The backlash against Attorney General William Barr’s call for religious freedom now includes a demand that his remarks on the subject be scrubbed from the Justice Department Web site. The demand, according to Indiana Public Media, is being made by a group that reckons Mr. Barr violated his constitutional oath when he delivered the other day at Notre Dame University a speech on the importance of religion and religious liberty.

We hope that the Justice Department stands its ground. The attorney general’s remarks at Notre Dame are one of the most important statements of support that religious Americans have had at a time when a campaign is underway to cast religion as a cover for bigotry. We are in a time when the left seeks to intimidate those who would cast religion as an inherently good thing for America."
Bill Barr's Point About Religion Is Underscored by His Critics