Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[Katzndogz]

Some denominations have been performing same sex marriages which might account for the decline in membership and the rise in membership in more traditional denominations.

Evangelical Churches Still Growing Mainline Protestantism In Decline

Mainline Protestant churches that have seen a fall in membership since the 1970s continued their decline; the Presbyterian Church (USA) reported the greatest membership drop (2.6 percent) of the 25 largest denominations.
Other denominations reporting declines include the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church as well as the more evangelical Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

All these are churches that perform same sex marriage ceremonies.

All growth is in the evangelical churches.

Why Conservative Churches Are Growing David Brooks and the Limits of Sociology ndash AlbertMohler.com
With amazing insight and candor, Kelley spoke for mainline Protestantism when he noted that it had been generally assumed that churches, “if they want to succeed, will be reasonable, rational, courteous, responsible, restrained, and receptive to outside criticism.” These churches would be highly concerned with preserving “a good image in the world” — and that meant especially within the world of the cultural elites. These churches, intending to grow, would be “democratic and gentle in their internal affairs” — as the larger world defines those qualities. These churches will intend to be cooperative with other religious groups in order to meet common goals, and thus “will not let dogmatism, judgmental moralism, or obsessions with cultic purity stand in the way of such cooperation and service.”
Then, Kelley dropped his bomb: “These expectations are a recipe for the failure of the religious enterprise, and arise from a mistaken view of what success in religion is and how it should be fostered and measured.”

The churches that become more liberal will fail. They are failing right now. They can continue to pander to 2% of the population and end up with 2% of the congregation.

 

[bodecea]

Some denominations have been performing same sex marriages which might account for the decline in membership and the rise in membership in more traditional denominations.

Evangelical Churches Still Growing Mainline Protestantism In Decline

Mainline Protestant churches that have seen a fall in membership since the 1970s continued their decline; the Presbyterian Church (USA) reported the greatest membership drop (2.6 percent) of the 25 largest denominations.
Other denominations reporting declines include the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church as well as the more evangelical Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

All these are churches that perform same sex marriage ceremonies.

All growth is in the evangelical churches.

Why Conservative Churches Are Growing David Brooks and the Limits of Sociology ndash AlbertMohler.com
With amazing insight and candor, Kelley spoke for mainline Protestantism when he noted that it had been generally assumed that churches, “if they want to succeed, will be reasonable, rational, courteous, responsible, restrained, and receptive to outside criticism.” These churches would be highly concerned with preserving “a good image in the world” — and that meant especially within the world of the cultural elites. These churches, intending to grow, would be “democratic and gentle in their internal affairs” — as the larger world defines those qualities. These churches will intend to be cooperative with other religious groups in order to meet common goals, and thus “will not let dogmatism, judgmental moralism, or obsessions with cultic purity stand in the way of such cooperation and service.”
Then, Kelley dropped his bomb: “These expectations are a recipe for the failure of the religious enterprise, and arise from a mistaken view of what success in religion is and how it should be fostered and measured.”

The churches that become more liberal will fail. They are failing right now. They can continue to pander to 2% of the population and end up with 2% of the congregation.

Prove causality, please.

 

[Katzndogz]

Some denominations have been performing same sex marriages which might account for the decline in membership and the rise in membership in more traditional denominations.

Evangelical Churches Still Growing Mainline Protestantism In Decline

Mainline Protestant churches that have seen a fall in membership since the 1970s continued their decline; the Presbyterian Church (USA) reported the greatest membership drop (2.6 percent) of the 25 largest denominations.
Other denominations reporting declines include the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church as well as the more evangelical Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

All these are churches that perform same sex marriage ceremonies.

All growth is in the evangelical churches.

Why Conservative Churches Are Growing David Brooks and the Limits of Sociology ndash AlbertMohler.com
With amazing insight and candor, Kelley spoke for mainline Protestantism when he noted that it had been generally assumed that churches, “if they want to succeed, will be reasonable, rational, courteous, responsible, restrained, and receptive to outside criticism.” These churches would be highly concerned with preserving “a good image in the world” — and that meant especially within the world of the cultural elites. These churches, intending to grow, would be “democratic and gentle in their internal affairs” — as the larger world defines those qualities. These churches will intend to be cooperative with other religious groups in order to meet common goals, and thus “will not let dogmatism, judgmental moralism, or obsessions with cultic purity stand in the way of such cooperation and service.”
Then, Kelley dropped his bomb: “These expectations are a recipe for the failure of the religious enterprise, and arise from a mistaken view of what success in religion is and how it should be fostered and measured.”

The churches that become more liberal will fail. They are failing right now. They can continue to pander to 2% of the population and end up with 2% of the congregation.

Prove causality, please.

Why? I want liberal churches to fail. Pointing out what they are doing wrong, like David Kelley did, will serve what purpose? Will it make these churches throw off liberalism and be successful? Let them lose.

 

[bodecea]

Some denominations have been performing same sex marriages which might account for the decline in membership and the rise in membership in more traditional denominations.

Evangelical Churches Still Growing Mainline Protestantism In Decline

Mainline Protestant churches that have seen a fall in membership since the 1970s continued their decline; the Presbyterian Church (USA) reported the greatest membership drop (2.6 percent) of the 25 largest denominations.
Other denominations reporting declines include the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church as well as the more evangelical Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

All these are churches that perform same sex marriage ceremonies.

All growth is in the evangelical churches.

Why Conservative Churches Are Growing David Brooks and the Limits of Sociology ndash AlbertMohler.com
With amazing insight and candor, Kelley spoke for mainline Protestantism when he noted that it had been generally assumed that churches, “if they want to succeed, will be reasonable, rational, courteous, responsible, restrained, and receptive to outside criticism.” These churches would be highly concerned with preserving “a good image in the world” — and that meant especially within the world of the cultural elites. These churches, intending to grow, would be “democratic and gentle in their internal affairs” — as the larger world defines those qualities. These churches will intend to be cooperative with other religious groups in order to meet common goals, and thus “will not let dogmatism, judgmental moralism, or obsessions with cultic purity stand in the way of such cooperation and service.”
Then, Kelley dropped his bomb: “These expectations are a recipe for the failure of the religious enterprise, and arise from a mistaken view of what success in religion is and how it should be fostered and measured.”

The churches that become more liberal will fail. They are failing right now. They can continue to pander to 2% of the population and end up with 2% of the congregation.

Prove causality, please.

Why? I want liberal churches to fail. Pointing out what they are doing wrong, like David Kelley did, will serve what purpose? Will it make these churches throw off liberalism and be successful? Let them lose.

So you can't prove causality. Ok.

 

[Silhouette]

Why Conservative Churches Are Growing David Brooks and the Limits of Sociology ndash AlbertMohler.com
With amazing insight and candor, Kelley spoke for mainline Protestantism when he noted that it had been generally assumed that churches, “if they want to succeed, will be reasonable, rational, courteous, responsible, restrained, and receptive to outside criticism.” These churches would be highly concerned with preserving “a good image in the world” — and that meant especially within the world of the cultural elites. These churches, intending to grow, would be “democratic and gentle in their internal affairs” — as the larger world defines those qualities. These churches will intend to be cooperative with other religious groups in order to meet common goals, and thus “will not let dogmatism, judgmental moralism, or obsessions with cultic purity stand in the way of such cooperation and service.”
Then, Kelley dropped his bomb: “These expectations are a recipe for the failure of the religious enterprise, and arise from a mistaken view of what success in religion is and how it should be fostered and measured.”

The churches that become more liberal will fail. They are failing right now. They can continue to pander to 2% of the population and end up with 2% of the congregation.

Prove causality, please.

The causality is underlined above. People realize that church is not a social event where rules are bent to accomodate "a sell to the public". A church is a place where people come to straighten their shit up, not "let it all hang out". It's like going to a bakery and expecting it to also provide auto body work. You don't go to a bakery to get a fender bender fixed.

There is an instinctive revulsion to the idea of changing the place you go to for guidance and discipline into a bacchanal.

 

[bodecea]

Why Conservative Churches Are Growing David Brooks and the Limits of Sociology ndash AlbertMohler.com
With amazing insight and candor, Kelley spoke for mainline Protestantism when he noted that it had been generally assumed that churches, “if they want to succeed, will be reasonable, rational, courteous, responsible, restrained, and receptive to outside criticism.” These churches would be highly concerned with preserving “a good image in the world” — and that meant especially within the world of the cultural elites. These churches, intending to grow, would be “democratic and gentle in their internal affairs” — as the larger world defines those qualities. These churches will intend to be cooperative with other religious groups in order to meet common goals, and thus “will not let dogmatism, judgmental moralism, or obsessions with cultic purity stand in the way of such cooperation and service.”
Then, Kelley dropped his bomb: “These expectations are a recipe for the failure of the religious enterprise, and arise from a mistaken view of what success in religion is and how it should be fostered and measured.”

The churches that become more liberal will fail. They are failing right now. They can continue to pander to 2% of the population and end up with 2% of the congregation.

Prove causality, please.

The causality is underlined above. People realize that church is not a social event where rules are bent to accomodate "a sell to the public". A church is a place where people come to straighten their shit up, not "let it all hang out". It's like going to a bakery and expecting it to also provide auto body work. You don't go to a bakery to get a fender bender fixed.

There is an instinctive revulsion to the idea of changing the place you go to for guidance and discipline into a bacchanal.

Where does that prove that a decline in church attendance is due to acceptance of gay marriage? That was the point K&D was attempting (weakly) to make.

Tho I do get a chuckle out of all the things gays get blamed for.....like when we got blamed for the rise in out-of-wedlock births.

 

[Silhouette]

The causality is underlined above. People realize that church is not a social event where rules are bent to accomodate "a sell to the public". A church is a place where people come to straighten their shit up, not "let it all hang out". It's like going to a bakery and expecting it to also provide auto body work. You don't go to a bakery to get a fender bender fixed.

There is an instinctive revulsion to the idea of changing the place you go to for guidance and discipline into a bacchanal.

Where does that prove that a decline in church attendance is due to acceptance of gay marriage? That was the point K&D was attempting (weakly) to make.

Tho I do get a chuckle out of all the things gays get blamed for.....like when we got blamed for the rise in out-of-wedlock births.

The decline was already underway. The numbers in this poll would suggest that gay marriage was the final straw.
[83% is impressive] It indicates a massive trend towards conservative thinking in churches: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[bodecea]

The causality is underlined above. People realize that church is not a social event where rules are bent to accomodate "a sell to the public". A church is a place where people come to straighten their shit up, not "let it all hang out". It's like going to a bakery and expecting it to also provide auto body work. You don't go to a bakery to get a fender bender fixed.

There is an instinctive revulsion to the idea of changing the place you go to for guidance and discipline into a bacchanal.

Where does that prove that a decline in church attendance is due to acceptance of gay marriage? That was the point K&D was attempting (weakly) to make.

Tho I do get a chuckle out of all the things gays get blamed for.....like when we got blamed for the rise in out-of-wedlock births.

The decline was already underway. The numbers in this poll would suggest that gay marriage was the final straw.
[83% is impressive] It indicates a massive trend towards conservative thinking in churches: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Suggest? Suggest? Since when is that proof?

 

[1776]

Gay people want to join your private 4th of July party for the neighborhood.....I'm sure liberal scum would rule for them in court.

 

[Silhouette]

The causality is underlined above. People realize that church is not a social event where rules are bent to accomodate "a sell to the public". A church is a place where people come to straighten their shit up, not "let it all hang out". It's like going to a bakery and expecting it to also provide auto body work. You don't go to a bakery to get a fender bender fixed.

There is an instinctive revulsion to the idea of changing the place you go to for guidance and discipline into a bacchanal.

Where does that prove that a decline in church attendance is due to acceptance of gay marriage? That was the point K&D was attempting (weakly) to make.

Tho I do get a chuckle out of all the things gays get blamed for.....like when we got blamed for the rise in out-of-wedlock births.

The decline was already underway. The numbers in this poll would suggest that gay marriage was the final straw.
[83% is impressive] It indicates a massive trend towards conservative thinking in churches: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Suggest? Suggest? Since when is that proof?

At the same time "polls indicate most Americans support gay marriage" was proof. Don't be a hypocrite bodecea.

 

[Vandalshandle]

...and here you have it folks, the GOP platform, from the grass roots. Want to marginalize a significant portion of the population by blocking their civil right to same sex marriage. Vote R! Want to take away health insurance from millions of people? Vote R! Close down the government? Deny women their reproductive rights? Legislate morality and Christian dogma? Encourage every law abiding citizen to carry an AR-15 to McDonalds? Allow ranchers to steal the use of land from the government? Abandon Hispanics the constitutional right to a trial? End Medicare and Social Security? End food stamps for kids of unemployed single mothers? End minimum wage? Open national parks to All Terrain Vehicles? End regulation of banks and financial institutions? End separation of church and state? We are the GOP, and we will give you this, plus anything else that the tea party can come up with, including Palin for VP!

Vote Republican! We see the future! Onward to the 20th century!

 

[Silhouette]

...and here you have it folks, the GOP platform, from the grass roots. Want to marginalize a significant portion of the population by blocking their civil right to same sex marriage. Vote R! Want to take away health insurance from millions of people? Vote R! Close down the government? Deny women their reproductive rights? Legislate morality and Christian dogma? Encourage every law abiding citizen to carry an AR-15 to McDonalds? Allow ranchers to steal the use of land from the government? Abandon Hispanics the constitutional right to a trial? End Medicare and Social Security? End food stamps for kids of unemployed single mothers? End minimum wage? Open national parks to All Terrain Vehicles? End regulation of banks and financial institutions? End separation of church and state? We are the GOP, and we will give you this, plus anything else that the tea party can come up with, including Palin for VP!

Vote Republican! We see the future! Onward to the 20th century!

And here VAndalshandle points out the unfortunate sacrafices the dems will be making by tagging the gay albatross onto their overall decent and good platform. Quite the sacrafice indeed. Dem leaders being mainly cloistered in the looney West, have lost perspective on how weak support for gay marriage is in its middle ranks where most of them are [millions]. Let me illuminate the "strong support for gay marriage" in dems [surely not all who voted were republican posters here]: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

83%. Impressive.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yep. And in fact, public accommodation laws for religion have the potential of being problematical too.

And yet nobody is trying to repeal them are they? Nope...you only recently began hearing about how terrible PA laws are when they started protecting gays from discrimination.

These "problematic" laws have been on the books since the 60s.

Nonsense. Make up your mind. Leftists called classical liberals who opposed Public Accommodation on the basis of religious affiliation bigots in the 60s, as Lefty insisted on asserting "protections" based on things beyond benign physiological traits. It was an all or nothing affair. Lefty lied about the classical liberal's real concern and "demagogued" it through, and your still not being honest about what Public Accommodation based on sexual orientation really is.

Take it up with your people. They're the social engineers of lies and hypocrisy.

Doesn't look like you have much of a point there.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And the voters of many great states in the South voted down interracial marriage for a long time too. Doesn't make that right.

Would you accept it if the voters of a state voted to make gun ownership illegal?

It makes it right for those states. No, that would be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

As originally written the 2nd Amendment only applied to the Federal government (seeing as how the Constitution was limiting on the federal government not the States), it wasn't until the 14th Amendment that actions would have applied to the States.

So you acknowledge that with the 14th Amendment the Federal government then is involved with protecting the rights of citizens from state intrusion, right?


>>>>

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Translation:

"I don't care what the COTUS actually says when it suits me to ignore it"

the federal government expressly is NOT supposed to have implied powers under the COTUS. I mean my God man the document contains those exact words.

Translation:

“I don't care what Constitutional case law actually says when it suits me to ignore it.”

The Constitution in fact affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument,' where there's no validity to Constitutional literalism – the Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-Americans judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II. The doctrine of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts was well-established in Colonial America during the century before the advent of the Foundation Era, where Americans fully expected the Federal courts and Supreme Court to review state laws and acts of Congress and invalidate those repugnant to the Constitution, as in fact the courts are authorized to do by Articles III and VI; efforts by those hostile to Constitutional case law because that jurisprudence conflicts with their political dogma are devoid of merit and completely unsupported by the facts and history of the Constitution and Anglo-American judicial practice.

The emboldened parts of your post are the red-headed step children of the ill-conceived construct of the "living Constitution," which is, ultimately, in spite of your claims here and elsewhere to the contrary, the stuff of mobocracy or judicial oligarchy. That is to say, not the rule of law, but the rule of man.

Baseline:

And right you would be . . . sort of. But in addition to the enumerated powers of the three branches of government, what other powers are specifically given to the USG? Answer: The powers of the general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause. Only the federal government can attend to unforeseeable contingencies impacting the entire nation that if left unattended could have catastrophic effects on the security and the liberty of the people. And we have had such contingencies arise. That's the purpose of the implied powers, and in theory they may not contradict the spirit of either the rest of the Constitution proper or the Bill of Rights, and they are subject to judicial review. --M.D. Rawlings

Indeed, STTAB fails to appreciate the fact that the implied powers are specifically granted to Congress in the Constitution, but then you go on to say something very curious: "[W]here there is no validity of Constitutional literalism"?!

Are the implied powers specifically granted in the Constitution or not? Recall what you wrote and rightly so: "The Constitution in fact affords Congress powers both expressed and implied."

The answer is: they are!

So constitutional literalism does not stall out at any time . . . ever.

They are implied in the sense that they are of a distinctly different nature than the emphatically enumerated powers, as they pertain to reality's unforeseeable contingencies. They're specifically granted in the general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause.

Now while you're apparently aware of the fact that their reality was underscored by Hamilton and the Court in the "National Bank Case," it does not follow that "the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law."

The problem with that relativistic rendering of constitutional law is that it would invariably lead to the destruction of the constitutional limits of legitimate governmental power, as it divorces the Constitution from the universal and absolute imperatives of natural law and the law of nature's God! Further, it defies logic and the realities of human nature, i.e., the natural inclinations of self-interest and -preservation, which are in turn limited by the concerns of the life, the liberty and the property of others.

Hence, STTAB is perfectly correct to insist that he not give a damn what the Court says should it say something that is contrary to the imperatives of the peoples' inalienable rights.

Check?

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


You guys understand that this is not a Federal issue as to whether the Federal government can regulate commerce within a state...


........................ This is an application of State law regulating commerce within the State?


.........................................Right?



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

>


You guys understand that this is not a Federal issue as to whether the Federal government can regulate commerce within a state...


........................ This is an application of State law regulating commerce within the State?


.........................................Right?



>>>>

You've heard of
1. Hobby Lobby and

2. Legal precedent

Right?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

>


You guys understand that this is not a Federal issue as to whether the Federal government can regulate commerce within a state...


........................ This is an application of State law regulating commerce within the State?


.........................................Right?



>>>>

Yeah. And by the way, you're also right about the fact that, especially under what I have come to affectionately call the World Watcher Solution, the historically religious distinction between the terms marriage and civil union is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant.

But what's happening here is that we are trying to hammer out, or at least I am, the basis by which we may know what does or does not constitute the legitimately defensible governmental concerns regarding the current reality of Public Accommodation.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Bodecea, did you ever come up with proof that Christians were using the Bible to justify slavery?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Also, allow me to put a finer point on the point of post #815.

That is how one nips the reeking flower of the construct of the "living Constitution" in the bud.

Also, for those who do not believe in God or even in the reality of natural law, though why anyone would fail to grasp the practical realities of it is odd: make no mistake about it, we all necessarily believe in and must necessarily live the reality of self-interest and -preservation. I will not entertain any silly relativistic exceptions to that rule, given the fact that any potential exception would necessarily be deviant to any reasonably sane human being beyond all . . . may I say dispute?