Would you support a presidential candidate who held that biblical law superceded the Constitution?

[Skylar]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

Absolutely I would. God knows better than man

Yeah, but whose god? Would you be happy with Allah setting the tone for the US? Or Vishnu? How about Amaterasu?

 

[Slyhunter]

And I'll ask a question that I can't get an answer for in this thread:

Is the constitution 'man's law' and 'civil law'?

It's man's law but it's supposed to be Man's supreme law.

So...among our religious folks, if God's law is supreme to man's law.....does that mean that God's law should supercede the Constitution?

Fuck our religious folks. Their opinion doesn't matter unless they try to establish a theocracy. Then it's war.

 

[Skylar]

And I'll ask a question that I can't get an answer for in this thread:

Is the constitution 'man's law' and 'civil law'?

It's man's law but it's supposed to be Man's supreme law.

So...among our religious folks, if God's law is supreme to man's law.....does that mean that God's law should supercede the Constitution?

Fuck our religious folks. Their opinion doesn't matter unless they try to establish a theocracy. Then it's war.

Check out 'dominion Chrsitianity'. And one of its leading pastos: Rafael Cruz. Ted's father.

 

[Slyhunter]

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You do not have the Right to deny another person their Rights. You do not have the Right to decide unto yourself, based on your version of your god what Rights another can and/or cannot have.

Amendment Nine.

United States Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Emphasis added.

"Deny or Disparage Others". Guess what, you cannot deny Rights to Gays/Lesbians solely because they are Gay/Lesbian.

You mean like requiring a permit before you can rent yourself or your property out to someone who wants to use it, like Uber Rideshare?

False equivalency

no it isn't. Denying me rights simply because you want to permit the activity I wish to do. ok, lets make permits for sex, if you don't have a permit your not allowed to have sex.

Look it up. False equivalency.

How is agreeing or refusing to give permits to someone to marry same sex a false equivalency to agreeing or refusing (requiring) permits for an individual to do with himself and/or his own property what he wishes to do with it, for example Uber Rideshare, Prostitution, inhale pot, etc.

 

[Bonzi]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

Absolutely I would. God knows better than man

Yeah, but whose god? Would you be happy with Allah setting the tone for the US? Or Vishnu? How about Amaterasu?

There is only ONE true God.

 

[bravoactual]

And of course there is the 14th. Amendment of the Constitution of The United Sates of America.

Amendment 14.

Section I.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States; nor shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is "Equal Protection Clause" under which the Denial of the Right to Same-Sex was struck down.

There is no "God's Law", in the United States. The U.S. is NOT governed by fictional book.



A person cannot be denied their Full and Equal Rights in this country based on a false Religious Premise.

 

[bravoactual]

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You do not have the Right to deny another person their Rights. You do not have the Right to decide unto yourself, based on your version of your god what Rights another can and/or cannot have.

Amendment Nine.

United States Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Emphasis added.

"Deny or Disparage Others". Guess what, you cannot deny Rights to Gays/Lesbians solely because they are Gay/Lesbian.

You mean like requiring a permit before you can rent yourself or your property out to someone who wants to use it, like Uber Rideshare?

False equivalency

no it isn't. Denying me rights simply because you want to permit the activity I wish to do. ok, lets make permits for sex, if you don't have a permit your not allowed to have sex.

Look it up. False equivalency.

There you again, using those pesky facts that Republicans hate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You do not have the Right to deny another person their Rights. You do not have the Right to decide unto yourself, based on your version of your god what Rights another can and/or cannot have.

Amendment Nine.

United States Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Emphasis added.

"Deny or Disparage Others". Guess what, you cannot deny Rights to Gays/Lesbians solely because they are Gay/Lesbian.

You mean like requiring a permit before you can rent yourself or your property out to someone who wants to use it, like Uber Rideshare?

False equivalency

no it isn't. Denying me rights simply because you want to permit the activity I wish to do. ok, lets make permits for sex, if you don't have a permit your not allowed to have sex.

Look it up. False equivalency.

There you again, using those pesky facts that Republicans hate.

I am Republican, our far right only pretend to be Republican.

They will be gone after this next election.

 

[Slyhunter]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

Absolutely I would. God knows better than man

Yeah, but whose god? Would you be happy with Allah setting the tone for the US? Or Vishnu? How about Amaterasu?

There is only ONE true God.

Me. Worship ME or I will cast you in Hell after you are dead.
Prove me wrong.

 

[Bonzi]

Law of is of man
Man is fallible

 

[Skylar]

You do not have the Right to deny another person their Rights. You do not have the Right to decide unto yourself, based on your version of your god what Rights another can and/or cannot have.

Amendment Nine.

United States Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Emphasis added.

"Deny or Disparage Others". Guess what, you cannot deny Rights to Gays/Lesbians solely because they are Gay/Lesbian.

You mean like requiring a permit before you can rent yourself or your property out to someone who wants to use it, like Uber Rideshare?

False equivalency

no it isn't. Denying me rights simply because you want to permit the activity I wish to do. ok, lets make permits for sex, if you don't have a permit your not allowed to have sex.

Look it up. False equivalency.

How is agreeing or refusing to give permits to someone to marry same sex a false equivalency to agreeing or refusing (requiring) permits for an individual to do with himself and/or his own property what he wishes to do with it, for example Uber Rideshare, Prostitution, inhale pot, etc.

Marriage isn't property or prostitution. Nor is denying a permit for a particular use of property based on sexual orientation or the gender of the participants. Meaning an utterly different basis.

 

[Skylar]

Law of is of man
Man is fallible

True enough. But God isn't here to tell us what He, she, they, it want. Instead, its man telling us what God 'really means'.

Which leads us back to your statement: man is fallible.

 

[Bonzi]

Law of is of man
Man is fallible

True enough. But God isn't here to tell us what He, she, they, it want. Instead, its man telling us what God 'really means'.

Which leads us back to your statement: man is fallible.

Either way then, why trust "man"?

 

[peach174]

No such person should ever become president of the USA.

Then I guess you would have been against our 1st President George Washington.
Quote from part of his farewell address.
George Washington's Farewell Address of 1796
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

 

[Skylar]

Law of is of man
Man is fallible

True enough. But God isn't here to tell us what He, she, they, it want. Instead, its man telling us what God 'really means'.

Which leads us back to your statement: man is fallible.

Either way then, why trust "man"?

You say that as if there is a third option. There isn't. Its man, or man. As God doesn't break ties.

 

[Slyhunter]

You mean like requiring a permit before you can rent yourself or your property out to someone who wants to use it, like Uber Rideshare?

False equivalency

no it isn't. Denying me rights simply because you want to permit the activity I wish to do. ok, lets make permits for sex, if you don't have a permit your not allowed to have sex.

Look it up. False equivalency.

How is agreeing or refusing to give permits to someone to marry same sex a false equivalency to agreeing or refusing (requiring) permits for an individual to do with himself and/or his own property what he wishes to do with it, for example Uber Rideshare, Prostitution, inhale pot, etc.

Marriage isn't property or prostitution. Nor is denying a permit for a particular use of property based on sexual orientation or the gender of the participants. Meaning an utterly different basis.

What part of "or" did you have problem understanding. "with oneself OR ones property." exclude the 'or ones property' from the discussion if you wish in your next answer if it makes it easier for you to answer. I won't exclude it because then the statement wouldn't be complete.

 

[Slyhunter]

You mean like requiring a permit before you can rent yourself or your property out to someone who wants to use it, like Uber Rideshare?

False equivalency

no it isn't. Denying me rights simply because you want to permit the activity I wish to do. ok, lets make permits for sex, if you don't have a permit your not allowed to have sex.

Look it up. False equivalency.

How is agreeing or refusing to give permits to someone to marry same sex a false equivalency to agreeing or refusing (requiring) permits for an individual to do with himself and/or his own property what he wishes to do with it, for example Uber Rideshare, Prostitution, inhale pot, etc.

Marriage isn't property or prostitution. Nor is denying a permit for a particular use of property based on sexual orientation or the gender of the participants. Meaning an utterly different basis.

You want to marry a person of the same sex.
I want to prostitute myself.
Why is it ok to permit one but not the other?
Why is it ok to requiring permission to do one but not the other?

I wish to rent my car and myself out to people going from point A to point B. Why do I need permission to do so if you don't need permission to marry someone of the same sex?

 

[Skylar]

False equivalency

no it isn't. Denying me rights simply because you want to permit the activity I wish to do. ok, lets make permits for sex, if you don't have a permit your not allowed to have sex.

Look it up. False equivalency.

How is agreeing or refusing to give permits to someone to marry same sex a false equivalency to agreeing or refusing (requiring) permits for an individual to do with himself and/or his own property what he wishes to do with it, for example Uber Rideshare, Prostitution, inhale pot, etc.

Marriage isn't property or prostitution. Nor is denying a permit for a particular use of property based on sexual orientation or the gender of the participants. Meaning an utterly different basis.

What part of "or" did you have problem understanding. "with oneself OR ones property." exclude the 'or ones property' from the discussion if you wish in your next answer if it makes it easier for you to answer. I won't exclude it because then the statement wouldn't be complete.

What part of 'isn't' didn't you follow? As in 'marriage isn't property'. I even included your lovely 'or'. As in 'marriage isn't property or prostitution'.

Your equivilancy requires they be the same. They aren't.

Worse, the basis for exclusion is utterly different. As who is denying permits for property use based on gender or sexual orientation? No one that I'm aware of.

So your comparison is false equivalence. Squared.

 

[Skylar]

False equivalency

no it isn't. Denying me rights simply because you want to permit the activity I wish to do. ok, lets make permits for sex, if you don't have a permit your not allowed to have sex.

Look it up. False equivalency.

How is agreeing or refusing to give permits to someone to marry same sex a false equivalency to agreeing or refusing (requiring) permits for an individual to do with himself and/or his own property what he wishes to do with it, for example Uber Rideshare, Prostitution, inhale pot, etc.

Marriage isn't property or prostitution. Nor is denying a permit for a particular use of property based on sexual orientation or the gender of the participants. Meaning an utterly different basis.

You want to marry a person of the same sex.
I want to prostitute myself.

Marriage isn't prostitution. Instantly killing your analogy.

Nor are you being excluded from prostitution based on gender. Prostitution isn't legal for some, but illegal for others. Its illegal for everyone. While marriage is permitted for some. But wasn't permitted for others based on criteria that are constitutionally invalid. Creating an 'equal protection under the law' issue.

You may ignore these vast differences in subject matter, legal basis or constitutional prinicple. But a rational person wouldn't.

 

[peach174]

Law of is of man
Man is fallible

True enough. But God isn't here to tell us what He, she, they, it want. Instead, its man telling us what God 'really means'.

Which leads us back to your statement: man is fallible.

Man could not have been that consistent. God wrote the Bible.
The Bible contains 66 books written over 1,500 years by 40 different writers but it tells one "big story" of God's plan of salvation that culminated in Jesus Christ. You can't even pass a secret around a circle of 12 people and get the same message at the end. There is a wide variety of human authors and themes (in the Bible). Yet behind these,there lies a single divine author with a single unifying theme.