The Three GOP Candidates' Faiths, Should it Matter to You

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't care about their faith unless it is some twisted version of what is already a bogus belief system. Push it on me & my support is gone.

But this thread isn't for you. It's for the people who vote who already have faith and how each candidate's faith affects their vote.

Wrong.

Every member of this forum is at liberty to post in this thread and express his opinion.

And all three of the republican candidates for president have made it quite clear their hostility toward settled, accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and their desire to undermine that case law with judicial appointments likewise hostile to the First Amendment, and seek to codify Christian dogma in secular law in violation of the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.

So this issue is very much for those who are not Christian, whose religious liberty is very much imperiled should the likes of Cruz or Kasich become president.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Separation of church and state, should disqualify anyone that invokes any faith in any religion. Any religion that endorses any candidate should lose tax free status.

Once in Office. But people vote with their faith hangover, do you deny that?

Which is why we have the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, to prevent those so inclined from codifying their religious dogma in secular law.

 

[kaz]

The COTUS certainly does not prohibit voters from considering religion when voting, which is obviously what the OP was getting at, your twisting aside.

I'm good if we get rid of the socons who worship God and the leftists like Jillian who worship Obama and the Democrat party and the rest of us can decide. That would be a huge improvement over what we have now

I'm just tired of morons who think that "separation of church and state" means that voters and politicians shouldn't be allowed to use their religious mores to try to shape policy. Being a religious person doesn't disqualify you or make your views less important.

So then they'll be shaping policy based on someone's religious understanding. Correct?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

How is that different than anyone else? Everyone has assistance in forming their opinions. Your religion is liberalism, so why is it fair that you vote then on what government should do when you're directly voting on your religion itself? You gotta ... think

That's not my religion buddy. I don't force my religious beliefs on any one. That's not Christlike, nor is it Biblical. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Liberalism is your religion every bit as much as Christianity is to others. More so. Christianity is unproveable with empirical data, you have to believe it on faith. Liberalism is actually contradicted by all empirical data and you have to believe it on faith. Yet questioning liberalism to you is as unthinkable as questioning Jesus is to a Christian.

Pure religion

 

[jillian]

I don't care about their faith unless it is some twisted version of what is already a bogus belief system. Push it on me & my support is gone.

But this thread isn't for you. It's for the people who vote who already have faith and how each candidate's faith affects their vote.

 

[kaz]

Separation of church and state, should disqualify anyone that invokes any faith in any religion. Any religion that endorses any candidate should lose tax free status.

Once in Office. But people vote with their faith hangover, do you deny that?

Which is why we have the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, to prevent those so inclined from codifying their religious dogma in secular law.

Again reversing the Constitution. The first amendment is a limit on government, not a power of government. Government cannot force a particular religion on it's citizens. It doesn't limit its citizens from having faith. Where do you people come up with this shit?

 

[JimBowie1958]

What's a "Judea Christian"? As opposed to what other type of Christian? Break it down for me. Thanks.

It's a typo Christian, lol.

I meant to type Judeo-Christian, which is to say all those faiths that are branches of Judaism and Christianity.which itself is a branch of Judaism. These religions consider the Jewish Old Testament to be Divinely inspired and reference them as various kinds of authority.

Islam is not a Judeo Christian faith because it regards the Bible as completely corrupted and unreliable for any religious authotiry whatsoever and only the Koran is pure enough to be useful as authority in religion, hence it not being Judeo-Christian.

Modern Protestants that reject the Bible as a moral authority are regarded as being Judeo-Christian but they are not for the same reasons that Muslims are not, though in theory we all three worship the same God, along with Sikhs.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Again reversing the Constitution. The first amendment is a limit on government, not a power of government. Government cannot force a particular religion on it's citizens. It doesn't limit its citizens from having faith. Where do you people come up with this shit?

But there are some religions that are evil and are rightly prosecuted for evil practices, like the Thuggee religion and any religion that practices murder as part of its faith.

 

[kaz]

Again reversing the Constitution. The first amendment is a limit on government, not a power of government. Government cannot force a particular religion on it's citizens. It doesn't limit its citizens from having faith. Where do you people come up with this shit?

But there are some religions that are evil and are rightly prosecuted for evil practices, like the Thuggee religion and any religion that practices murder as part of its faith.

I'm not clear what you're arguing. Murder is illegal

 

[JimBowie1958]

Again reversing the Constitution. The first amendment is a limit on government, not a power of government. Government cannot force a particular religion on it's citizens. It doesn't limit its citizens from having faith. Where do you people come up with this shit?

But there are some religions that are evil and are rightly prosecuted for evil practices, like the Thuggee religion and any religion that practices murder as part of its faith.

I'm not clear what you're arguing

That some religions should not be protected by the First Amendment because they advocate the murder of other people or even have murder of other people as apart of their system of worship, like the Thuggees, the Aztecs, etc..

 

[kaz]

Again reversing the Constitution. The first amendment is a limit on government, not a power of government. Government cannot force a particular religion on it's citizens. It doesn't limit its citizens from having faith. Where do you people come up with this shit?

But there are some religions that are evil and are rightly prosecuted for evil practices, like the Thuggee religion and any religion that practices murder as part of its faith.

I'm not clear what you're arguing

That some religions should not be protected by the First Amendment because they advocate the murder of other people or even have murder of other people as apart of their system of worship, like the Thuggees, the Aztecs, etc..

What do you propose to limit their first amendment rights?

 

[Katzndogz]

Los Angeles had no problem limiting the church of the most high goddess. The lot of them were thrown in jail.

Articles about Church Of The Most High Goddess - latimes

 

[JimBowie1958]

Again reversing the Constitution. The first amendment is a limit on government, not a power of government. Government cannot force a particular religion on it's citizens. It doesn't limit its citizens from having faith. Where do you people come up with this shit?

But there are some religions that are evil and are rightly prosecuted for evil practices, like the Thuggee religion and any religion that practices murder as part of its faith.

I'm not clear what you're arguing

That some religions should not be protected by the First Amendment because they advocate the murder of other people or even have murder of other people as apart of their system of worship, like the Thuggees, the Aztecs, etc..

What do you propose to limit their first amendment rights?

In the case of murderous religions, their faith should be illegal, membership in it should be criminal and they should be targeted for prosecution for being members of that religion.

Punishment should be loss of citizenship, banishment from the USA, and a minimum 20 years sentence if they return, and a life sentence if caught returning a second time.

 

[kaz]

Again reversing the Constitution. The first amendment is a limit on government, not a power of government. Government cannot force a particular religion on it's citizens. It doesn't limit its citizens from having faith. Where do you people come up with this shit?

But there are some religions that are evil and are rightly prosecuted for evil practices, like the Thuggee religion and any religion that practices murder as part of its faith.

I'm not clear what you're arguing

That some religions should not be protected by the First Amendment because they advocate the murder of other people or even have murder of other people as apart of their system of worship, like the Thuggees, the Aztecs, etc..

What do you propose to limit their first amendment rights?

In the case of murderous religions, their faith should be illegal, membership in it should be criminal and they should be targeted for prosecution for being members of that religion.

Punishment should be loss of citizenship, banishment from the USA, and a minimum 20 years sentence if they return, and a life sentence if caught returning a second time.

Yet you can't prove they committed any other crime? That's ridiculous. If that's their serious endeavor, prove they committed a crime, it shouldn't be hard

 

[gipper]

The candidates should answer to our political system.... not their religious affiliations.

just like when JFK said he didn't answer to the pope.

the wacky GOP has it butt backwards now.

Oh Jilly babes....what do you mean the POTUS answers to our political system?

As far as I know, the POTUS is required to abide by the Constitution...of course, this has become a rather quaint belief oh these past 100 years....and Libs like you and BO find the Constitution an impediment to your kooky plans for imposing tyranny.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yet you can't prove they committed any other crime? That's ridiculous. If that's their serious endeavor, prove they committed a crime, it shouldn't be hard

Had the Brits waited to prosecute the Thuggees one at a time only after they killed some one, they would still be murdering people across the Indian subcontinent.

That is the only way to rid society of such religions and that is by making membership in that religion or organization a crime itself.

Too bad that runs afoul of your idiotic libertarians bullshit.

 

[Silhouette]

Los Angeles had no problem limiting the church of the most high goddess. The lot of them were thrown in jail.

Articles about Church Of The Most High Goddess - latimes

Well I imagine there aren't too many people in the upcoming primaries who belong to that church. But there are plenty of catholics and protestants I would think..

 

[Silhouette]

This country was buil;t on Judeo Christianity and to change that would effectively destroy the culture and create chaos on an unimaginable scale.

For the rest, see post #104

Yes, and stupid Europe is waltzing right in that direction...

 

[Pogo]

Again reversing the Constitution. The first amendment is a limit on government, not a power of government. Government cannot force a particular religion on it's citizens. It doesn't limit its citizens from having faith. Where do you people come up with this shit?

But there are some religions that are evil and are rightly prosecuted for evil practices, like the Thuggee religion and any religion that practices murder as part of its faith.

I'm not clear what you're arguing

That some religions should not be protected by the First Amendment because they advocate the murder of other people or even have murder of other people as apart of their system of worship, like the Thuggees, the Aztecs, etc..

What do you propose to limit their first amendment rights?

In the case of murderous religions, their faith should be illegal, membership in it should be criminal and they should be targeted for prosecution for being members of that religion.

Punishment should be loss of citizenship, banishment from the USA, and a minimum 20 years sentence if they return, and a life sentence if caught returning a second time.

Excellent translation from the original German.

Unfortunately for your Final Solutions, our Constitution already thought of that and pre-empted it with the First Amendment.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But there are some religions that are evil and are rightly prosecuted for evil practices, like the Thuggee religion and any religion that practices murder as part of its faith.

I'm not clear what you're arguing

That some religions should not be protected by the First Amendment because they advocate the murder of other people or even have murder of other people as apart of their system of worship, like the Thuggees, the Aztecs, etc..

What do you propose to limit their first amendment rights?

In the case of murderous religions, their faith should be illegal, membership in it should be criminal and they should be targeted for prosecution for being members of that religion.

Punishment should be loss of citizenship, banishment from the USA, and a minimum 20 years sentence if they return, and a life sentence if caught returning a second time.

Excellent translation from the original German.

Unfortunately for your Final Solutions, our Constitution already thought of that and pre-empted it with the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does not cover murderous religions. Period. And if you think it does then you are insane.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Whatever.. everybody believes in something. PERIOD.