The Left Loses Ground...

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

So Man invented Nature?

Well... LOL! Thank you for sharing that Gilligan.

Now go home... you're drunk.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Chimpanzees possess a certain amount of ability to reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.)

The laws of nature have nothing to do with God, unless you believe that 'God' is nothing more than nature by another name.

 

[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?

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...

I'll tell you this in all sincerity, you are a sham, a charlatan; someone who desperately seeks attention by trying to demean and cheapen the views of others.
"An expression of himself... The same as any parent views their children."
Just caught you in a bold-faced lie. You do not view children the same way as any parent because I've read your self-righteous, hypocritical, bigoted, closed-minded views on gays, and a loving parent would never turn
away from their child, but you would by calling them abnormal.
In my opinion, you are an expression of defamatory, harmful beliefs, intolerance, prejudice, bigotry, inequality, incorrigibility, and ignorance. The lower species of which you speak.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Chimpanzees possess a certain amount of ability to reason.

LOL! Well... uh... thank you for sharing that Gilligan.

It is a WONDERFUL demonstration of the limitations relevant to you, and your on-going struggle with your own means to reason ... soundly.

(Reader... Shhhh ... don't upset it, it has no means to understand as it's means to reason does not rise to even that low threshold.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'll tell you this in all sincerity, you are a sham, a charlatan; someone who desperately seeks attention by trying to demean and cheapen the views of others. ...

Well, you misrepresent me... as if I were such a person, why would I be here, working a venue where others provide a constant stream of cheap, self-demeaning views?

But thank you for thinking of me, nonetheless.

 

[Lilah]

I'll tell you this in all sincerity, you are a sham, a charlatan; someone who desperately seeks attention by trying to demean and cheapen the views of others. ...

Well, you misrepresent me... as if I were such a person, why would I be here, working a venue where others provide a constant stream of cheap, self-demeaning views?

But thank you for thinking of me, nonetheless.

Really, you are asking me why you are here? Didn't I just elaborate for you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The laws of nature have nothing to do with God

Nature IS God, Gilligan. No Nature, No God... No God, No Nature....

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Really, you are asking me why you are here?

No... .

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

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

.)

Your legal right to remain celibate.

 

[Lilah]

Really, you are asking me why you are here?

No... .

So you are a dunderhead, too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The laws of nature have nothing to do with God

Nature IS God, Gilligan. No Nature, No God... No God, No Nature....

What God is that?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The laws of nature have nothing to do with God

Nature IS God, Gilligan. No Nature, No God... No God, No Nature....

What God is that?

Nature, Gilligan. There's only one.

LOL! Or would you like to offer evidence of some other nature, that you're 'aware' of?

(Reader... LOL! I know, right ?)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Really, you are asking me why you are here?

No... .

So you are a dunderhead, too.

Am I?

How so?

 

[Lilah]

Really, you are asking me why you are here?

No... .

So you are a dunderhead, too.

Am I?

How so?

"Well, you misrepresent me... as if I were such a person, why would I be here?"

If you can't understood your thoughts and reasoning, how do you expect others to?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yeah, but which government? They vary wildly in terms of the protection of rights, freedoms and balances of power. You're lumping them all together, equating any government with any other.

That's obviously not going to work.

You seem intent upon demanding that POWER equates to LEGITIMACY.

Legitimate in comparison to what? Your answer is always the same: you citing your subjective opinion claiming its 'objective truth'.
You citing you doesn't establish any objectively standard. But a subjective one. Nor does it establish any objective legitimacy.

Thus you claiming that something is 'illegitimate' because it conflicts with your personal opinion is merely more subjectivity. And of no objective value. Even when you label your subjective opinion as 'natural law' or 'god's law' or whatever else you imagine.

 

[Skylar]

The laws of nature have nothing to do with God

Nature IS God, Gilligan. No Nature, No God... No God, No Nature....

What God is that?

Nature, Gilligan. There's only one.

LOL! Or would you like to offer evidence of some other nature, that you're 'aware' of?

(Reader... LOL! I know, right ?)

Yeah, but your logic behind this assumption is rather anemic. You use the 'first mover' argument. Where the 'first mover' must be god. And from there you make a series of assumptions. But there's nothing in the first mover argument that mandates the first mover be god. Or that it be singular. Or that it be sentient. Or that it be good. Or that it still exists. Merely that it moved first.

All the attributes, all the beliefs, all the intentions, all the purposes, all the rules and laws that you've attributed to this first mover beyond moving first......are logically baseless using the first mover argument.

And your argument is based *entirely* on all your subjective assumptions, imagined rules, laws, intentions. Meaning that your entire argument has no logical basis.

Nature is god according to who? That would be according to you. Citing you. Which is objectively meaningless.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Really, you are asking me why you are here?

No... .

So you are a dunderhead, too.

Am I?

How so?

"Well, you misrepresent me... as if I were such a person, why would I be here?"

If you can't understood your thoughts and reasoning, how do you expect others to?

The reasoning is clear... its you who fails to understand it. Again, demonstrating a stark deficiency in your means to reason, thus presenting evidence of your sub-human nature.

 

[Skylar]

Really, you are asking me why you are here?

No... .

So you are a dunderhead, too.

Am I?

How so?

"Well, you misrepresent me... as if I were such a person, why would I be here?"

If you can't understood your thoughts and reasoning, how do you expect others to?

The reasoning is clear... its you who fails to understand it. Again, demonstrating a stark deficiency in the means to reason, thus presenting evidence of your sub-human nature.

Apparently your purpose is to type the phrase 'sub-human' as often as possible.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yeah, but which government?

Government... OKA: Governing bodies comprised of human beings... whose flaws are inherently amplified by the power that such provides, over other human beings.

And as is the nature of amplification, the greater the flaws in the individuals present in government, the greater their flaws become, under such. Which is why, Leftists; not at all unlike yourself, should never be allowed to get anywhere NEAR such, as you people are the most severely flawed human beings in the history of humanity...

But hey... Evil is nothing, absent a flawed human being.

And FWIW, I am not lumping anything together, I am speaking to the concept of governance itself... which by the nature of such, axiomatically clumps the elements of its composition.

The American Founders understood government to be the single greatest threat to freedom and that is why they took such measures to enumerate the specific powers of US federal government, in limiting its scope and in so doing, its power.

You seem intent upon demanding that POWER equates to LEGITIMACY.

Legitimate in comparison to what?

Illegitimacy.

An example of such would be your silly-assed notion: 'A stated position is axiomatically subjective.'