Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then why are two of conservative Christians' most prominent issues those of trying to amend the Constitution to outlaw all abortion, and trying to amend the Constitution to restrict marriage to one man one woman?
Why were Christian conservatives as much as anyone else at the forefront of the campaign against the so-called grouind zero mosque?
Why do Christian conservatives want abstinence ONLY programs taught in school?
In fact, what is so tolerant, as you claim, about Christianity? Perhaps I'm wrong in this regard...
...maybe the conservative Christians of the sort I referenced above are simply perverting the religion in the manner you said the believers in divine right were.
all good questions......but let me first ask....
do you believe all cultures are equal or not....?
These are good questions. I know they weren't directed at me, but let me take a stab at one of them for now.
The first question contains an error. Orthodox Christians or, for that matter, anyone who understands and embraces the concerns of the original terms of the social contract of the Republic, before the Court in Roe v. Wade arbitrarily amended the Constitution in violation of the constitutional provisions of emendation, would that the federal government be prohibited from imposing abortion on demand as a means of birth control for the sake of mere convenience against the prerogatives of the several states and the people thereof to uphold the principle of the sanctity of human life.
In many cases, abortion is a legitimate and necessary medical procedure, and as such has always been legal in the United States. Think. No credible person is arguing that all abortions be banned.
See links:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/345437-a-culture-of-intolerance-14.html#post8788655
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/345437-a-culture-of-intolerance-18.html#post8790959
To understand what actually happened in this case, one must analyze the Court's decision in the light of our nation's system of federalism, as Uncensored2008 aptly points out in the above: "[t]hose powers not enumerated and thus delegated to the federal government, are reserved to the states, and the people."
In Roe v. Wade, the Court created out of whole cloth a previously nonexistent principle of reproductive privacy as a means of usurping power not delegated to it and, thereby, ran roughshod over the interests of the several states and the people thereof to uphold the principle of the sanctity of human life against those who would destroy human life at whim or against any action on the part of the federal government to destroy human life where there exists no criminal provocation or to destroy the same in absence of due process.
If the federal government can arbitrarily grant a right of privacy to kill an unborn human being for no legitimately defensible medical or moral reason because the latter is not a person in terms of constitutional law as divorced from the imperatives of natural law, what would stop the federal government from concocting yet another principle in the name of the collective good to kill an unborn human being against it's mother's will because, after all, it's not a person in terms of constitutional law?
"That could never happen," you say, "as the mother is indisputably a person according to constitutional and case law!"
Well, expanding on that precedent, prominent secular progressives in this country and abroad have proposed a number of legal justifications for allowing that very thing in the name of the collective good. It's just a matter of time and social conditioning. The first targets will be the poor and unfit, i.e., the defenseless, then it will be the ideological undesirables, the nonconformists . . . the haters or domestic terrorists.
You don't think we're headed there? Think again. How did the right of privacy to destroy human life become the federal government's right to compel me to fund abortions of mere convenience in violation of the imperatives of the First Amendment in this country?
So a governmentally enforced civil right dreamt up by the Court now trumps an inalienable right of natural law endowed by the Creator.
Who's actually violating the rights of others, imposing on the prerogatives of others, in this instance? The Christian or the statist progressive?
We are debating PC's unequivocal claim that the states have complete sovereignty. If you want to contribute to that debate, pick a side and defend it:
No, we are pointing out the fact that you have no grasp of federalism. You don't understand distributed powers.
a. the states have complete sovereignty
b. the states have partial sovereignty, but are limited by the powers held by the Federal Government.
The delegation of powers is explicitly defined in the U.S. Constitution. Those powers not enumerated and thus delegated to the federal government, are reserved to the states, and the people.
Christianity did not have any role in the foundation of the US Constitution.
When did Jesus advocate slavery?
False. You simply don't know the pertinent history of ideas and events that shaped the character of our Republic, and after this, you could only continue to assert this out of willful ignorance.
This nation was founded on the sociopolitical theory extrapolated from the Judeo-Christian ethical system of thought, the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition, a tradition of natural law harking back to Augustine and systematically propounded by Locke in his Two Treatises of Civil Government, in which he extensively cites scripture as the ontological justification for limited government relative to the inalienable rights of mankind in nature and under the terms of a legitimate social contract, including the right of revolt against tyranny.
See link for more information: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/343647-the-gay-agenda-6.html#post8732955
That's why the peculiar institution of slavery was destined to die out in this country one way or another, and the Framers knew that, hoping all the while that this could be accomplished without civil war.
Honestly,
If conservatives converted to islam it advance conservatism big time as the left is scared of Muslim. They know that Muslims will bomb and kill and they aren't going to be scared by being called a name or two.
Think about it...
Islam hates gays
Islams doesn't want to invest in their countries
Islam wants to be at war at all times
Islam bans freedom of speech and thought that they don't like
Islam teaches religion to their children over science!
What's to like?
all good questions......but let me first ask....
do you believe all cultures are equal or not....?
These are good questions. I know they weren't directed at me, but let me take a stab at one of them for now.
The first question contains an error. Orthodox Christians or, for that matter, anyone who understands and embraces the concerns of the original terms of the social contract of the Republic, before the Court in Roe v. Wade arbitrarily amended the Constitution in violation of the constitutional provisions of emendation, would that the federal government be prohibited from imposing abortion on demand as a means of birth control for the sake of mere convenience against the prerogatives of the several states and the people thereof to uphold the principle of the sanctity of human life.
In many cases, abortion is a legitimate and necessary medical procedure, and as such has always been legal in the United States. Think. No credible person is arguing that all abortions be banned.
See links:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/345437-a-culture-of-intolerance-14.html#post8788655
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/345437-a-culture-of-intolerance-18.html#post8790959
To understand what actually happened in this case, one must analyze the Court's decision in the light of our nation's system of federalism, as Uncensored2008 aptly points out in the above: "[t]hose powers not enumerated and thus delegated to the federal government, are reserved to the states, and the people."
In Roe v. Wade, the Court created out of whole cloth a previously nonexistent principle of reproductive privacy as a means of usurping power not delegated to it and, thereby, ran roughshod over the interests of the several states and the people thereof to uphold the principle of the sanctity of human life against those who would destroy human life at whim or against any action on the part of the federal government to destroy human life where there exists no criminal provocation or to destroy the same in absence of due process.
If the federal government can arbitrarily grant a right of privacy to kill an unborn human being for no legitimately defensible medical or moral reason because the latter is not a person in terms of constitutional law as divorced from the imperatives of natural law, what would stop the federal government from concocting yet another principle in the name of the collective good to kill an unborn human being against it's mother's will because, after all, it's not a person in terms of constitutional law?
"That could never happen," you say, "as the mother is indisputably a person according to constitutional and case law!"
Well, expanding on that precedent, prominent secular progressives in this country and abroad have proposed a number of legal justifications for allowing that very thing in the name of the collective good. It's just a matter of time and social conditioning. The first targets will be the poor and unfit, i.e., the defenseless, then it will be the ideological undesirables, the nonconformists . . . the haters or domestic terrorists.
You don't think we're headed there? Think again. How did the right of privacy to destroy human life become the federal government's right to compel me to fund abortions of mere convenience in violation of the imperatives of the First Amendment in this country?
So a governmentally enforced civil right dreamt up by the Court now trumps an inalienable right of natural law endowed by the Creator.
Who's actually violating the rights of others, imposing on the prerogatives of others, in this instance? The Christian or the statist progressive?
There is absolutely no personhood protection for a fetus in the Constitution, therefore the Court could not have 'amended' the Constitution by deciding in favor of a woman's right to an abortion.
The only amending involved here is the need for the pro-lifers to amend the Constitution.
Until Roe v. Wade, the constitutional imperative that the government protect and promote the political rights of all persons never precluded the right of the several states and the people thereof to protect the lives of prenatal human beings and prevent the federal government from subverting the underlying justification of the social contract and thereby elevate itself above the authority of the Creator, Who is the only legitimate Source and Guarantor of human life and liberty. In Roe v. Wade, the federal government grabbed power and declared itself to be the giver or arbiter of human rights. Hocus pocus. Now you see it, or maybe you still don't.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/345437-a-culture-of-intolerance-14.html#post8788655
Christianity did not have any role in the foundation of the US Constitution.
When did Jesus advocate slavery?
False. You simply don't know the pertinent history of ideas and events that shaped the character of our Republic, and after this, you could only continue to assert this out of willful ignorance.
This nation was founded on the sociopolitical theory extrapolated from the Judeo-Christian ethical system of thought, the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition, a tradition of natural law harking back to Augustine and systematically propounded by Locke in his Two Treatises of Civil Government, in which he extensively cites scripture as the ontological justification for limited government relative to the inalienable rights of mankind in nature and under the terms of a legitimate social contract, including the right of revolt against tyranny.
See link for more information: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/343647-the-gay-agenda-6.html#post8732955
That's why the peculiar institution of slavery was destined to die out in this country one way or another, and the Framers knew that, hoping all the while that this could be accomplished without civil war.
When did apartheid end in South Africa?
Honestly,
If conservatives converted to islam it advance conservatism big time as the left is scared of Muslim. They know that Muslims will bomb and kill and they aren't going to be scared by being called a name or two.
Think about it...
Islam hates gays
Islams doesn't want to invest in their countries
Islam wants to be at war at all times
Islam bans freedom of speech and thought that they don't like
Islam teaches religion to their children over science!
What's to like?
An acquaintance of mine, who was from South Dakota, once remarked, quite matter-of-factly -
'Where I grew up in South Dakota, there weren't any black people...
...so we had to hate the Indians.'
That symbolizes modern American conservatism perfectly.
An acquaintance of mine, who was from South Dakota, once remarked, quite matter-of-factly -
'Where I grew up in South Dakota, there weren't any black people...
...so we had to hate the Indians.'
That symbolizes modern American conservatism perfectly.
Another over the top claim made by an abortion fanatic: Baby murder clinic that was firebombed is broken into and vandalized - Page 4 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
An acquaintance of mine, who was from South Dakota, once remarked, quite matter-of-factly -
'Where I grew up in South Dakota, there weren't any black people...
...so we had to hate the Indians.'
That symbolizes modern American conservatism perfectly.
The story you tell validates the aphorism "birds of a feather flock together."
These are good questions. I know they weren't directed at me, but let me take a stab at one of them for now.
The first question contains an error. Orthodox Christians or, for that matter, anyone who understands and embraces the concerns of the original terms of the social contract of the Republic, before the Court in Roe v. Wade arbitrarily amended the Constitution in violation of the constitutional provisions of emendation, would that the federal government be prohibited from imposing abortion on demand as a means of birth control for the sake of mere convenience against the prerogatives of the several states and the people thereof to uphold the principle of the sanctity of human life.
In many cases, abortion is a legitimate and necessary medical procedure, and as such has always been legal in the United States. Think. No credible person is arguing that all abortions be banned.
See links:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/345437-a-culture-of-intolerance-14.html#post8788655
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/345437-a-culture-of-intolerance-18.html#post8790959
To understand what actually happened in this case, one must analyze the Court's decision in the light of our nation's system of federalism, as Uncensored2008 aptly points out in the above: "[t]hose powers not enumerated and thus delegated to the federal government, are reserved to the states, and the people."
In Roe v. Wade, the Court created out of whole cloth a previously nonexistent principle of reproductive privacy as a means of usurping power not delegated to it and, thereby, ran roughshod over the interests of the several states and the people thereof to uphold the principle of the sanctity of human life against those who would destroy human life at whim or against any action on the part of the federal government to destroy human life where there exists no criminal provocation or to destroy the same in absence of due process.
If the federal government can arbitrarily grant a right of privacy to kill an unborn human being for no legitimately defensible medical or moral reason because the latter is not a person in terms of constitutional law as divorced from the imperatives of natural law, what would stop the federal government from concocting yet another principle in the name of the collective good to kill an unborn human being against it's mother's will because, after all, it's not a person in terms of constitutional law?
"That could never happen," you say, "as the mother is indisputably a person according to constitutional and case law!"
Well, expanding on that precedent, prominent secular progressives in this country and abroad have proposed a number of legal justifications for allowing that very thing in the name of the collective good. It's just a matter of time and social conditioning. The first targets will be the poor and unfit, i.e., the defenseless, then it will be the ideological undesirables, the nonconformists . . . the haters or domestic terrorists.
You don't think we're headed there? Think again. How did the right of privacy to destroy human life become the federal government's right to compel me to fund abortions of mere convenience in violation of the imperatives of the First Amendment in this country?
So a governmentally enforced civil right dreamt up by the Court now trumps an inalienable right of natural law endowed by the Creator.
Who's actually violating the rights of others, imposing on the prerogatives of others, in this instance? The Christian or the statist progressive?
There is absolutely no personhood protection for a fetus in the Constitution, therefore the Court could not have 'amended' the Constitution by deciding in favor of a woman's right to an abortion.
The only amending involved here is the need for the pro-lifers to amend the Constitution.
So you didn't bother to read the posts at the end of the links provided, eh?
I know the law on which I opine. Though not a lawyer by training, I'm an expert on a significant number of lines of stare decisis in constitutional case law, particularly on those which pertain to civil rights and liberties, and nationality and citizenship. You don't have the historical background or the training in sociopolitical theory or the reading in common, constitutional and case law (let alone grasp the surviving legal remnants of the several states' authority or the legal subtleties attesting of the nefarious nature of the Court's decision in this case) that I have under my belt.
The Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was predicated on an entirely new principle of jurisprudence, i.e., the right of privacy [Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)] , essentially, post-fertilization privacy, affording the right of abortion on demand for the sake of mere convenience, coupled with the fact that the Constitution only recognizes the political rights and protections of the several states and the people thereof, not the rights or protections of fetuses. That was the ratio decidendi, i.e., the reason for the decision, as divorced from the ontological justification for constitutional and subsequent case law: namely, natural and divine law, under which fetuses are persons, albeit, subordinately subject to the exigencies of nature.
By the way, that's why there are still laws on the books in virtually every state of the Union whereby one may be imprisoned for double manslaughter or double homicide should the person whom one kills by negligence or with malicious premeditation be a pregnant woman: remnants of the several states' authority in this wise in spite of Roe v. Wade.
You see, the principle of the sanctity of human life is not contingent upon the principle of constitutional personhood!
Had you read the posts at the end of the links provided and carefully read the post in the above, you would have noted that nowhere do I claim that fetuses are persons under the aegis of constitutional or case law.
They are not! And I emphatically stated that very thing . . . more than once.
There are instances in which abortion is a medically and morally defensible procedure, absolutely necessary to save a mother's life. Under constitutional law, therefore, and rightly so, the destruction of the life of fetuses in such instances has never constituted an act of murder in this country. Indeed, it would not be murder under natural or divine law either, just one more precious soul welcomed by the loving arms of the eternal Father in heaven to no fault of anyone. The failure to perform this procedure in these rare instances would constitute medical negligence, though, of course, any mother should have the right to risk her life for the sake of her child should circumstances sensibly warrant it.
The Court in Roe v. Wade asserted nothing new in that regard. The Framers were cognizant of the ramifications of biological reproduction and gestation relative to the term person. What? You thought they weren't? LOL!
The issue is that nowhere in the Constitution are the several states and the people thereof prohibited to uphold the sanctity of human life and protect fetuses from being aborted on demand for the sake of mere convenience, and nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to undermine the principle of the sanctity of human life by condoning the destruction of human life in the absence of criminal provocation, due process or a legitimately defensible medical reason.
As I write here, after acknowledging that fetuses are not persons under constitutional or case law:
Until Roe v. Wade, the constitutional imperative that the government protect and promote the political rights of all persons never precluded the right of the several states and the people thereof to protect the lives of prenatal human beings and prevent the federal government from subverting the underlying justification of the social contract and thereby elevate itself above the authority of the Creator, Who is the only legitimate Source and Guarantor of human life and liberty. In Roe v. Wade, the federal government grabbed power and declared itself to be the giver or arbiter of human rights. Hocus pocus. Now you see it, or maybe you still don't.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/345437-a-culture-of-intolerance-14.html#post8788655
Save for the exigencies of nature, the constitutional principle of personhood does not directly impinge upon the principle of the sanctity of human life, and even in that sense, the sanctity of human life is consistently upheld as the first, underlying principle for the sake of the mother. If she dies before the baby is developmentally viable. . . .
The point you think you're making is an illusion.
And from the time of the ratification of the Constitution to the time of Roe v. Wade (1973), the several states and the people thereof did not permit abortion on demand for the sake of mere convenience, and it was well understood that they did not require the federal government's seal of approval to do so, as the latter had no say.
Yeah.
By way of the previously nonexistent principle of reproductive privacy, the Court most certainly did amend the Constitution via judicial activism in violation of the constitutional provisions of emendation and in violation of the constitutional system of federalism regarding the delegation of powers.
Your assertion is both historically and theoretically ass backwards: the principle of the sanctity of human life doesn't rest on any legal document or pronouncement contrived by men; it obtains by the decree of Providence. That's not subject to any writ of emendation, and those who arrogantly undermine it or take pleasure in those who do will be held accountable for their actions by Providence.
Abortion on demand is not a legitimate right; it's an abomination of license and perversion that can only serve to undermine legitimate civil rights and liberties.
The state is not the Source and Guarantor of human life and liberty, God is. Woe unto the people who forget that and fail to defend the ontological justification on which their lives and their liberty depend.
God is not mocked by anyone. He has woven the consequences of rebellion against Him into the fabric of reality. See my signature. Classical liberals worth their salt have always understood this and wisely feared God.
An acquaintance of mine, who was from South Dakota, once remarked, quite matter-of-factly -
'Where I grew up in South Dakota, there weren't any black people...
...so we had to hate the Indians.'
That symbolizes modern American conservatism perfectly.
Apostasy is the rejection of faith and is considered a very serious offense in Islam for which the punishment is death.....
That symbolizes modern American liberalism perfectly....
An acquaintance of mine, who was from South Dakota, once remarked, quite matter-of-factly -
'Where I grew up in South Dakota, there weren't any black people...
...so we had to hate the Indians.'
That symbolizes modern American conservatism perfectly.
The story you tell validates the aphorism "birds of a feather flock together."
No. That symbolizes modern American conservatism perfectly. They will always find a minority to hate, even if, as in your case, they have to hate themselves.
There is absolutely no personhood protection for a fetus in the Constitution, therefore the Court could not have 'amended' the Constitution by deciding in favor of a woman's right to an abortion.
The only amending involved here is the need for the pro-lifers to amend the Constitution.
So you didn't bother to read the posts at the end of the links provided, eh?
I know the law on which I opine. Though not a lawyer by training, I'm an expert on a significant number of lines of stare decisis in constitutional case law, particularly on those which pertain to civil rights and liberties, and nationality and citizenship. You don't have the historical background or the training in sociopolitical theory or the reading in common, constitutional and case law (let alone grasp the surviving legal remnants of the several states' authority or the legal subtleties attesting of the nefarious nature of the Court's decision in this case) that I have under my belt.
The Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was predicated on an entirely new principle of jurisprudence, i.e., the right of privacy [Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)] , essentially, post-fertilization privacy, affording the right of abortion on demand for the sake of mere convenience, coupled with the fact that the Constitution only recognizes the political rights and protections of the several states and the people thereof, not the rights or protections of fetuses. That was the ratio decidendi, i.e., the reason for the decision, as divorced from the ontological justification for constitutional and subsequent case law: namely, natural and divine law, under which fetuses are persons, albeit, subordinately subject to the exigencies of nature.
By the way, that's why there are still laws on the books in virtually every state of the Union whereby one may be imprisoned for double manslaughter or double homicide should the person whom one kills by negligence or with malicious premeditation be a pregnant woman: remnants of the several states' authority in this wise in spite of Roe v. Wade.
You see, the principle of the sanctity of human life is not contingent upon the principle of constitutional personhood!
Had you read the posts at the end of the links provided and carefully read the post in the above, you would have noted that nowhere do I claim that fetuses are persons under the aegis of constitutional or case law.
They are not! And I emphatically stated that very thing . . . more than once.
There are instances in which abortion is a medically and morally defensible procedure, absolutely necessary to save a mother's life. Under constitutional law, therefore, and rightly so, the destruction of the life of fetuses in such instances has never constituted an act of murder in this country. Indeed, it would not be murder under natural or divine law either, just one more precious soul welcomed by the loving arms of the eternal Father in heaven to no fault of anyone. The failure to perform this procedure in these rare instances would constitute medical negligence, though, of course, any mother should have the right to risk her life for the sake of her child should circumstances sensibly warrant it.
The Court in Roe v. Wade asserted nothing new in that regard. The Framers were cognizant of the ramifications of biological reproduction and gestation relative to the term person. What? You thought they weren't? LOL!
The issue is that nowhere in the Constitution are the several states and the people thereof prohibited to uphold the sanctity of human life and protect fetuses from being aborted on demand for the sake of mere convenience, and nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to undermine the principle of the sanctity of human life by condoning the destruction of human life in the absence of criminal provocation, due process or a legitimately defensible medical reason.
As I write here, after acknowledging that fetuses are not persons under constitutional or case law:
Until Roe v. Wade, the constitutional imperative that the government protect and promote the political rights of all persons never precluded the right of the several states and the people thereof to protect the lives of prenatal human beings and prevent the federal government from subverting the underlying justification of the social contract and thereby elevate itself above the authority of the Creator, Who is the only legitimate Source and Guarantor of human life and liberty. In Roe v. Wade, the federal government grabbed power and declared itself to be the giver or arbiter of human rights. Hocus pocus. Now you see it, or maybe you still don't.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/345437-a-culture-of-intolerance-14.html#post8788655
Save for the exigencies of nature, the constitutional principle of personhood does not directly impinge upon the principle of the sanctity of human life, and even in that sense, the sanctity of human life is consistently upheld as the first, underlying principle for the sake of the mother. If she dies before the baby is developmentally viable. . . .
The point you think you're making is an illusion.
And from the time of the ratification of the Constitution to the time of Roe v. Wade (1973), the several states and the people thereof did not permit abortion on demand for the sake of mere convenience, and it was well understood that they did not require the federal government's seal of approval to do so, as the latter had no say.
Yeah.
By way of the previously nonexistent principle of reproductive privacy, the Court most certainly did amend the Constitution via judicial activism in violation of the constitutional provisions of emendation and in violation of the constitutional system of federalism regarding the delegation of powers.
Your assertion is both historically and theoretically ass backwards: the principle of the sanctity of human life doesn't rest on any legal document or pronouncement contrived by men; it obtains by the decree of Providence. That's not subject to any writ of emendation, and those who arrogantly undermine it or take pleasure in those who do will be held accountable for their actions by Providence.
Abortion on demand is not a legitimate right; it's an abomination of license and perversion that can only serve to undermine legitimate civil rights and liberties.
The state is not the Source and Guarantor of human life and liberty, God is. Woe unto the people who forget that and fail to defend the ontological justification on which their lives and their liberty depend.
God is not mocked by anyone. He has woven the consequences of rebellion against Him into the fabric of reality. See my signature. Classical liberals worth their salt have always understood this and wisely feared God.
Early term abortion was legal in the colonies prior to the Constitution. Abortion up to time of quickening was acceptable, both by law and generally by the various Protestant religions.
[
During the 1800s, the several states began to prohibit abortion on demand. It was well understood that the federal government had no constitutional authority to prevent them from doing so.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
