The Left Loses Ground...

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Freedom of religion is in the constitution

So is freedom FROM religion.

Nope... That is literally NOT in the Constitution.

But ... Just to be cruel, you're invited to cite the specific section wherein you 'feel' the freedom from Religion is expressed IN the USC.

(Reader you'll find that this would-be 'contributor' is unable to demonstrate any validity of its claim. And the reality that it's claim is false... will in no way alter its feeling that what is not true... Is true.)

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows you to impose your religion on others.

Site anything I've ever said wherein I am seeking to impose my religion upon anyone.

Your mental disorder simply provides for you to be incapable of understanding that the United States is founded upon those things that are certain; which is to say self-evident truths... which you need to claim to be 'religious'. You then need to further claim that the U.S. Constitution precludes the means of individuals to convey those religious beliefs through law.

You do this because your mental disorder is a perversion of human reasoning. This perversion is widely known throughout human history as "evil".

So Gilligan, while such is not an epiphany, per se... it is good information nonetheless.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows you to impose your religion on others.

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows our government to force people to act against their faith or face financial ruination. Come on now, you can do it.

Court cases regarding claims that persons had the right under 1st Amendment religious protections to refuse to pay taxes:


United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260 (1982) – the Supreme Court held that the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such importance that religious beliefs in conflict with the payment of taxes provide no basis for refusing to pay, and stated that "[t]he tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief."

Jenkins v. Commissioner, 483 F.3d 90, 92 (2d Cir. 2007) – upholding the imposition of a $5,000 frivolous return penalty against the taxpayer, the court held that the collection of tax revenues for expenditures that offended the religious beliefs of individual taxpayers did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, or the Ninth Amendment.

United States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627, 629-31 (7th Cir. 2000) – the court rejected defendant’s Free Exercise challenge to the federal employment tax as those laws were not restricted to the defendant or other religion-related employers generally, and there was no indication that they were enacted for the purpose of burdening religious practices.

Adams v. Commissioner, 170 F.3d 173, 175-82 (3d Cir. 1999) – the court affirmed adjudged tax deficiencies and penalties for failure to file tax returns and pay tax, holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not require that the federal income tax accommodate Adams’ religious beliefs that payment of taxes to fund the military is against the will of God, and that her beliefs did not constitute reasonable cause for purposes of the penalties.

ROFLMNAO... Taxes.

I suppose it would be possible to find something less relevant... But I don't think it's fair to set such as a standard because such is so pitifully unlikely.

Hysterical Gilligan... You've out imbeciled yourself.

 

[Skylar]

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows you to impose your religion on others.

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows our government to force people to act against their faith or face financial ruination. Come on now, you can do it.

Court cases regarding claims that persons had the right under 1st Amendment religious protections to refuse to pay taxes:


United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260 (1982) – the Supreme Court held that the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such importance that religious beliefs in conflict with the payment of taxes provide no basis for refusing to pay, and stated that "[t]he tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief."

Jenkins v. Commissioner, 483 F.3d 90, 92 (2d Cir. 2007) – upholding the imposition of a $5,000 frivolous return penalty against the taxpayer, the court held that the collection of tax revenues for expenditures that offended the religious beliefs of individual taxpayers did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, or the Ninth Amendment.

United States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627, 629-31 (7th Cir. 2000) – the court rejected defendant’s Free Exercise challenge to the federal employment tax as those laws were not restricted to the defendant or other religion-related employers generally, and there was no indication that they were enacted for the purpose of burdening religious practices.

Adams v. Commissioner, 170 F.3d 173, 175-82 (3d Cir. 1999) – the court affirmed adjudged tax deficiencies and penalties for failure to file tax returns and pay tax, holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not require that the federal income tax accommodate Adams’ religious beliefs that payment of taxes to fund the military is against the will of God, and that her beliefs did not constitute reasonable cause for purposes of the penalties.

ROFLMNAO... Taxes.

I suppose it would be possible to find something less relevant... But I don't think it's fair to set such as a standard because such is so pitifully unlikely.

Hysterical Gilligan... You've out imbeciled yourself.

Actually, NY cited an example of exactly what you claimed the government can never do. Demonstrating that the first amendment doesn't exempt one from generally applicable law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows you to impose your religion on others.

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows our government to force people to act against their faith or face financial ruination. Come on now, you can do it.

You're just now finding out about the Civil Rights Act? It was signed in the 60s.

Yes... Yes it was.

And look at how such has improved the US Culture.

It turns out that the very Idea of Civil Rights is more than sufficient to sack neat entire RACES! Turning otherwise industrious people into disproportionately addled across every conceivable level.

Is unrestrained government WONDERFUL?

LOL! Those quaint Agrarians and their antiquated notions. Who wants viability and all the peace and prosperity that comes with it?

 

[Skylar]

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows you to impose your religion on others.

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows our government to force people to act against their faith or face financial ruination. Come on now, you can do it.

You're just now finding out about the Civil Rights Act? It was signed in the 60s.

Yes... Yes it was.

And look at how such has improved the US Culture.

It turns out that the very Idea of Civil Rights is more than sufficient to sack neat entire RACES! Turning otherwise industrious people into disproportionately addled across every conceivable level.

Is unrestrained government WONDERFUL?

LOL! Those quaint Agrarians and their antiquated notions. Who wants viability and all the peace and prosperity that comes with it?

And how does segregation and racial discrimination provide 'peace and prosperity'? How do civil rights cause crime?

You're presenting plenty of assumptions. But like so many of your arguments, you can't factully establish that your 'cause' has anything to do with your 'effect'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows you to impose your religion on others.

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows our government to force people to act against their faith or face financial ruination. Come on now, you can do it.

Court cases regarding claims that persons had the right under 1st Amendment religious protections to refuse to pay taxes:


United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260 (1982) – the Supreme Court held that the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such importance that religious beliefs in conflict with the payment of taxes provide no basis for refusing to pay, and stated that "[t]he tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief."

Jenkins v. Commissioner, 483 F.3d 90, 92 (2d Cir. 2007) – upholding the imposition of a $5,000 frivolous return penalty against the taxpayer, the court held that the collection of tax revenues for expenditures that offended the religious beliefs of individual taxpayers did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, or the Ninth Amendment.

United States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627, 629-31 (7th Cir. 2000) – the court rejected defendant’s Free Exercise challenge to the federal employment tax as those laws were not restricted to the defendant or other religion-related employers generally, and there was no indication that they were enacted for the purpose of burdening religious practices.

Adams v. Commissioner, 170 F.3d 173, 175-82 (3d Cir. 1999) – the court affirmed adjudged tax deficiencies and penalties for failure to file tax returns and pay tax, holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not require that the federal income tax accommodate Adams’ religious beliefs that payment of taxes to fund the military is against the will of God, and that her beliefs did not constitute reasonable cause for purposes of the penalties.

ROFLMNAO... Taxes.

I suppose it would be possible to find something less relevant... But I don't think it's fair to set such as a standard because such is so pitifully unlikely.

Hysterical Gilligan... You've out imbeciled yourself.

Actually, NY cited an example of exactly what you claimed the government can never do. Demonstrating that the first amendment doesn't exempt one from generally applicable law.

Did it?

What did I say the Government can never do?

Doesn't sound like me... And that is because I instinctively understand that government is power and power corrupts, thus the government 'can' do pretty much whatever government wants. Until a greater power rises up and smashes government in the mouth, knocks it on its governmental ass; so to speak and stops it, because government's use of power was unreasonable, irrational, immoral and otherwise indefensible as government used its power to usurp the means of the innocent from exercising their God-given rights.

So, I would have never claimed that government 'can't do this or that'... I would have said government 'can't rightly do this or that', or 'government can't justly do this or that'.

So, best check your facts... again.

.

.

.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows you to impose your religion on others.

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows our government to force people to act against their faith or face financial ruination. Come on now, you can do it.

You're just now finding out about the Civil Rights Act? It was signed in the 60s.

Yes... Yes it was.

And look at how such has improved the US Culture.

It turns out that the very Idea of Civil Rights is more than sufficient to sack neat entire RACES! Turning otherwise industrious people into disproportionately addled across every conceivable level.

Is unrestrained government WONDERFUL?

LOL! Those quaint Agrarians and their antiquated notions. Who wants viability and all the peace and prosperity that comes with it?

And how does segregation and racial discrimination provide 'peace and prosperity'? How do civil rights cause crime?

You're presenting plenty of assumptions. But like so many of your arguments, you can't factully establish that your 'cause' has anything to do with your 'effect'.

LOL!

Poor Skylar...

I tell ya folks, what a pity that the mentally disordered lack the means to reason soundly and what a crime against humanity that they have some means to influence government policy.

What Skylar is trying NOT to ask is, why one set of bad law, is preferred over another?

You see, just because there existed cultural prejudices which were set, unjustly into government policy, that in NO WAY justifies the establishment of far more egregious law.

Which is to say that while segregation was unjust, it did not lend the false premise that government can on any level: grant rights or justifiably confiscate money from one person and use those monies to subsidize another.

As such subsidies undermine positive human traits and promote the development of negative human traits. Such is true of sub-human species as well and this is demonstrated at every nature preserve in the United States, wherein one will find no end to the signs that inform the visitors to not feed the lower-species, as such cripples their means to provide for themselves..., as we've seen demosntrated throughout the Democrat; which is to say 'socialist' controlled population centers.

The Mentally Disordered; which is to say the Lower Species, or sub-species as it were, simply lack the means to understand these otherwise wholly elementary, fully objective, natural principles / Laws of Nature.

 

[Skylar]

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows you to impose your religion on others.

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows our government to force people to act against their faith or face financial ruination. Come on now, you can do it.

Court cases regarding claims that persons had the right under 1st Amendment religious protections to refuse to pay taxes:


United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260 (1982) – the Supreme Court held that the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such importance that religious beliefs in conflict with the payment of taxes provide no basis for refusing to pay, and stated that "[t]he tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief."

Jenkins v. Commissioner, 483 F.3d 90, 92 (2d Cir. 2007) – upholding the imposition of a $5,000 frivolous return penalty against the taxpayer, the court held that the collection of tax revenues for expenditures that offended the religious beliefs of individual taxpayers did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, or the Ninth Amendment.

United States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627, 629-31 (7th Cir. 2000) – the court rejected defendant’s Free Exercise challenge to the federal employment tax as those laws were not restricted to the defendant or other religion-related employers generally, and there was no indication that they were enacted for the purpose of burdening religious practices.

Adams v. Commissioner, 170 F.3d 173, 175-82 (3d Cir. 1999) – the court affirmed adjudged tax deficiencies and penalties for failure to file tax returns and pay tax, holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not require that the federal income tax accommodate Adams’ religious beliefs that payment of taxes to fund the military is against the will of God, and that her beliefs did not constitute reasonable cause for purposes of the penalties.

ROFLMNAO... Taxes.

I suppose it would be possible to find something less relevant... But I don't think it's fair to set such as a standard because such is so pitifully unlikely.

Hysterical Gilligan... You've out imbeciled yourself.

Actually, NY cited an example of exactly what you claimed the government can never do. Demonstrating that the first amendment doesn't exempt one from generally applicable law.

Did it?

What did I say the Government can never do?

Ah, so now the government *can* enforce laws that 'force people to act against their faith or face financial ruination.'

It seems we're all on the same page. The government can't target a particular religion with a law. But it can enforce generally applicable laws that some religious folks may object to.

 

[Skylar]

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows you to impose your religion on others.

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows our government to force people to act against their faith or face financial ruination. Come on now, you can do it.

You're just now finding out about the Civil Rights Act? It was signed in the 60s.

Yes... Yes it was.

And look at how such has improved the US Culture.

It turns out that the very Idea of Civil Rights is more than sufficient to sack neat entire RACES! Turning otherwise industrious people into disproportionately addled across every conceivable level.

Is unrestrained government WONDERFUL?

LOL! Those quaint Agrarians and their antiquated notions. Who wants viability and all the peace and prosperity that comes with it?

And how does segregation and racial discrimination provide 'peace and prosperity'? How do civil rights cause crime?

You're presenting plenty of assumptions. But like so many of your arguments, you can't factully establish that your 'cause' has anything to do with your 'effect'.

LOL!

Poor Skylar...

I tell ya folks, what a pity that the mentally disordered lack the means to reason soundly and what a crime against humanity that they have some means to influence government policy.

What Skylar is trying NOT to ask is, why one set of bad law, is preferred over another?

You see, just because there existed cultural prejudices which were set, unjustly into government policy, that in NO WAY justifies the establishment of far more egregious law.

And what 'far more egregious law' are you referring to?

Which is to say that while segregation was unjust, it did not lend the false premise that government can on any level: grant rights or justifiably confiscate money from one person and use those monies to subsidize another.

Confiscate money....You mean taxes? Because you just told us how irrelevant taxes were:

ROFLMNAO... Taxes.

I suppose it would be possible to find something less relevant... But I don't think it's fair to set such as a standard because such is so pitifully unlikely.

It seems even you don't take you seriously. And taxes are hardly 'egregious' in terms of the constitution. They've been around as long as a constitution has.

The Mentally Disordered; which is to say the Lower Species, or sub-species as it were, simply lack the means to understand these otherwise wholly elementary, fully objective, natural principles / Laws of Nature.

And by 'fully objective, natural principles / Laws of Nature', you mean your subjective opinion? Because that's all you're offering us.

Sorry, Keyes...but subjective isn't objective. No matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows our government to force people to act against their faith or face financial ruination. Come on now, you can do it.

Court cases regarding claims that persons had the right under 1st Amendment religious protections to refuse to pay taxes:


United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260 (1982) – the Supreme Court held that the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such importance that religious beliefs in conflict with the payment of taxes provide no basis for refusing to pay, and stated that "[t]he tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief."

Jenkins v. Commissioner, 483 F.3d 90, 92 (2d Cir. 2007) – upholding the imposition of a $5,000 frivolous return penalty against the taxpayer, the court held that the collection of tax revenues for expenditures that offended the religious beliefs of individual taxpayers did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, or the Ninth Amendment.

United States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627, 629-31 (7th Cir. 2000) – the court rejected defendant’s Free Exercise challenge to the federal employment tax as those laws were not restricted to the defendant or other religion-related employers generally, and there was no indication that they were enacted for the purpose of burdening religious practices.

Adams v. Commissioner, 170 F.3d 173, 175-82 (3d Cir. 1999) – the court affirmed adjudged tax deficiencies and penalties for failure to file tax returns and pay tax, holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not require that the federal income tax accommodate Adams’ religious beliefs that payment of taxes to fund the military is against the will of God, and that her beliefs did not constitute reasonable cause for purposes of the penalties.

ROFLMNAO... Taxes.

I suppose it would be possible to find something less relevant... But I don't think it's fair to set such as a standard because such is so pitifully unlikely.

Hysterical Gilligan... You've out imbeciled yourself.

Actually, NY cited an example of exactly what you claimed the government can never do. Demonstrating that the first amendment doesn't exempt one from generally applicable law.

Did it?

What did I say the Government can never do?

Ah, so now the government *can* enforce laws that 'force people to act against their faith or face financial ruination.'

It seems we're all on the same page. The government can't target a particular religion with a law. But it can enforce generally applicable laws that some religious folks may object to.

Government CAN do whatever its power provides the means to do.

Government was ruining Euro-Peon lives for hundreds of years throughout Europe, before people found a place to flee from such, which is when they came here... and summarily began to ruin lives here, through government.

Was there someone contesting that?

You seem intent upon demanding that POWER equates to LEGITIMACY.

Where'd you get that idea? Can you explain the basis of that disordered conclusion?

My guess is that in loose terms it makes sense to you, because at the moment your subjective needs require that such must be true. But that when you try to organize the premises toward a sound conclusion, you'll be unable to cobble together anything that serves any sense of sound reason.

Please, take your time... I wouldn't want you to prove my point without fully investing your disordered mind.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And what 'far more egregious law' are you referring to?

The Civil Rights Act.

How adorable that you felt the need to ask. As the point was obvious to the well ordered mind.

Hmm... I wonder what we should make of THAT ?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Confiscate money....You mean taxes? Because you just told us how irrelevant taxes were ....

... to the point, to which Gilligan was responding.

(Reader, how pitiful is it that the Mentally Disordered struggle so with such pedestrian issues as simple context?

Now, where an individual cannot navigate the plentiful depths of context, where is there room to consider them capable; let alone worthy of consideration, of governing themselves, thus qualified to participate in discussions regarding policy by which YOU are governed?)

 

[Lilah]

Really? Then who decided that the divine right of kings was not a legitimate Christian belief?

Did God?

You did. And as usual, you're wrong ... again.

You're lying. You're lying based on your own measure of what lying is. You said lying is claiming as truth something you cannot know to be true.

You cannot know God's view on what the nature of the governments of Men should be, therefore you are lying if you assert that any particular form of government is the right one in the eyes of God.

I actually can know God's view. And I absolutely DO know God's view.

Where did you get the idea that God's view was 'unknowable Gilligan?

What is God's view of you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And by 'fully objective, natural principles / Laws of Nature', you mean your subjective opinion?

​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Court cases regarding claims that persons had the right under 1st Amendment religious protections to refuse to pay taxes:


United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260 (1982) – the Supreme Court held that the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such importance that religious beliefs in conflict with the payment of taxes provide no basis for refusing to pay, and stated that "[t]he tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief."

Jenkins v. Commissioner, 483 F.3d 90, 92 (2d Cir. 2007) – upholding the imposition of a $5,000 frivolous return penalty against the taxpayer, the court held that the collection of tax revenues for expenditures that offended the religious beliefs of individual taxpayers did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, or the Ninth Amendment.

United States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627, 629-31 (7th Cir. 2000) – the court rejected defendant’s Free Exercise challenge to the federal employment tax as those laws were not restricted to the defendant or other religion-related employers generally, and there was no indication that they were enacted for the purpose of burdening religious practices.

Adams v. Commissioner, 170 F.3d 173, 175-82 (3d Cir. 1999) – the court affirmed adjudged tax deficiencies and penalties for failure to file tax returns and pay tax, holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not require that the federal income tax accommodate Adams’ religious beliefs that payment of taxes to fund the military is against the will of God, and that her beliefs did not constitute reasonable cause for purposes of the penalties.

ROFLMNAO... Taxes.

I suppose it would be possible to find something less relevant... But I don't think it's fair to set such as a standard because such is so pitifully unlikely.

Hysterical Gilligan... You've out imbeciled yourself.

Actually, NY cited an example of exactly what you claimed the government can never do. Demonstrating that the first amendment doesn't exempt one from generally applicable law.

Did it?

What did I say the Government can never do?

Ah, so now the government *can* enforce laws that 'force people to act against their faith or face financial ruination.'

It seems we're all on the same page. The government can't target a particular religion with a law. But it can enforce generally applicable laws that some religious folks may object to.

Government CAN do whatever its power provides the means to do.

Government was ruining Euro-Peon lives for hundreds of years throughout Europe, before people found a place to flee from such, which is when they came here... and summarily began to ruin lives here, through government.

Was there someone contesting that?

You seem intent upon demanding that POWER equates to LEGITIMACY.

Where'd you get that idea? Can you explain the basis of that disordered conclusion?

My guess is that in loose terms it makes sense to you, because at the moment your subjective needs require that such must be true. But that when you try to organize the premises toward a sound conclusion, you'll be unable to cobble together anything that serves any sense of sound reason.

Please, take your time... I wouldn't want you to prove my point without fully investing your disordered mind.

So what you believe to be the power of God does not equate to legitimacy. lol

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Really? Then who decided that the divine right of kings was not a legitimate Christian belief?

Did God?

You did. And as usual, you're wrong ... again.

You're lying. You're lying based on your own measure of what lying is. You said lying is claiming as truth something you cannot know to be true.

You cannot know God's view on what the nature of the governments of Men should be, therefore you are lying if you assert that any particular form of government is the right one in the eyes of God.

I actually can know God's view. And I absolutely DO know God's view.

Where did you get the idea that God's view was 'unknowable Gilligan?

What is God's view of you?

An expression of himself... The same as any parent views their children.

Are you actually trying to say that you do not instinctively understand that?

For that to be true, you would be claiming yourself as God-less... or a being absent kinship with God, thus lacking the elements essential to claim the status of humanity; lacking the trait that separates humanity from the lower species. I hope for your own sake that is not true.

Please tell me it was a rhetorical exercise...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Freedom of religion is in the constitution

So is freedom FROM religion.

Nope... That is literally NOT in the Constitution.

But ... Just to be cruel, you're invited to cite the specific section wherein you 'feel' the freedom from Religion is expressed IN the USC.

(Reader you'll find that this would-be 'contributor' is unable to demonstrate any validity of its claim. And the reality that it's claim is false... will in no way alter its feeling that what is not true... Is true.)

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows you to impose your religion on others.

Site anything I've ever said wherein I am seeking to impose my religion upon anyone.

Your mental disorder simply provides for you to be incapable of understanding that the United States is founded upon those things that are certain; which is to say self-evident truths... which you need to claim to be 'religious'. You then need to further claim that the U.S. Constitution precludes the means of individuals to convey those religious beliefs through law.

You do this because your mental disorder is a perversion of human reasoning. This perversion is widely known throughout human history as "evil".

So Gilligan, while such is not an epiphany, per se... it is good information nonetheless.

Are you stating for the record that you do not believe God's law should be supreme?

Do so to confirm that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO... Taxes.

I suppose it would be possible to find something less relevant... But I don't think it's fair to set such as a standard because such is so pitifully unlikely.

Hysterical Gilligan... You've out imbeciled yourself.

Actually, NY cited an example of exactly what you claimed the government can never do. Demonstrating that the first amendment doesn't exempt one from generally applicable law.

Did it?

What did I say the Government can never do?

Ah, so now the government *can* enforce laws that 'force people to act against their faith or face financial ruination.'

It seems we're all on the same page. The government can't target a particular religion with a law. But it can enforce generally applicable laws that some religious folks may object to.

Government CAN do whatever its power provides the means to do.

Government was ruining Euro-Peon lives for hundreds of years throughout Europe, before people found a place to flee from such, which is when they came here... and summarily began to ruin lives here, through government.

Was there someone contesting that?

You seem intent upon demanding that POWER equates to LEGITIMACY.

Where'd you get that idea? Can you explain the basis of that disordered conclusion?

My guess is that in loose terms it makes sense to you, because at the moment your subjective needs require that such must be true. But that when you try to organize the premises toward a sound conclusion, you'll be unable to cobble together anything that serves any sense of sound reason.

Please, take your time... I wouldn't want you to prove my point without fully investing your disordered mind.

So what you believe to be the power of God does not equate to legitimacy. lol

God is powerful. Indeed. But that's not what makes God legitimate. God's legitimacy is in its objective reason.

If God were merely all powerful... absent sound reason, we'd all simply be, AT BEST: Food.

And if we're all just food, then there is no reason for us to "BE" anything beyond whatever our given craving at any given moment guides us to be.

Now... what purpose would there be to providing FOOD with the means to reason soundly Gilligan?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really? Then who decided that the divine right of kings was not a legitimate Christian belief?

Did God?

You did. And as usual, you're wrong ... again.

You're lying. You're lying based on your own measure of what lying is. You said lying is claiming as truth something you cannot know to be true.

You cannot know God's view on what the nature of the governments of Men should be, therefore you are lying if you assert that any particular form of government is the right one in the eyes of God.

I actually can know God's view. And I absolutely DO know God's view.

Where did you get the idea that God's view was 'unknowable Gilligan?

What is God's view of you?

An expression of himself... The same as any parent views their children.

Are you actually trying to say that you do not instinctively understand that?

For that to be true, you would be claiming yourself as God-less... or a being absent kinship with God, thus lacking the elements essential to claim the status of humanity; lacking the trait that separates humanity from the lower species. I hope for your own sake that is not true.

Please tell me it was a rhetorical exercise...

God is an invention of Man, and, even if a supernatural being or beings that fit the definition of gods exist,

gods are still the inventions of men because man has no evidence of gods.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Freedom of religion is in the constitution

So is freedom FROM religion.

Nope... That is literally NOT in the Constitution.

But ... Just to be cruel, you're invited to cite the specific section wherein you 'feel' the freedom from Religion is expressed IN the USC.

(Reader you'll find that this would-be 'contributor' is unable to demonstrate any validity of its claim. And the reality that it's claim is false... will in no way alter its feeling that what is not true... Is true.)

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows you to impose your religion on others.

Site anything I've ever said wherein I am seeking to impose my religion upon anyone.

Your mental disorder simply provides for you to be incapable of understanding that the United States is founded upon those things that are certain; which is to say self-evident truths... which you need to claim to be 'religious'. You then need to further claim that the U.S. Constitution precludes the means of individuals to convey those religious beliefs through law.

You do this because your mental disorder is a perversion of human reasoning. This perversion is widely known throughout human history as "evil".

So Gilligan, while such is not an epiphany, per se... it is good information nonetheless.

Are you stating for the record that you do not believe God's law should be supreme?

Do so to confirm that.

Would you care to offer evidence of any law which stands superior to the laws of nature?

I'm open to consider whatever evidence you have to offer.

(Reader, ... yes... Gilligan has just refuted its own would-be 'point'.

LOL! It can't help itself to do otherwise.)