Would you support a presidential candidate who held that biblical law superceded the Constitution?

[Slyhunter]

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.

Prostitution is illegal forbidding me from practicing in it.
Homosexual sex is legal not forbidding you from practicing it it.
neither case is property involved.
Why is one permitted and the other isn't when both are individual choices and harms no one but themselves?

Same can be said about smoking pot, Uber, and a multitude of others.
We need O'reilly and his no spin zone here.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

marriage is not permitted for incest or polygamist so you're wrong again. Even legalized homo marriage still left some people out in the cold. Again not equal protection of the law because all individual choices aren't being included.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

There are many books about other gods too. You're just being selected as to which books to believe in vs which books to ignore.

 

[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.

Man could not have been that consistent. God wrote the Bible.

Did God write the Koran? The Vedas? The Kojiki?

And of course, there are all sorts of interpretations. The Puritans used to execute for adultery and sodomy. The founders, just for sodomy. Modern Christians for neither.

That's not consistent. And God hasn't shown up to tell us who was right. Even if you accept the idea that the Bible is God's word (which most people don't), its still man's interpretation of it. Which renders its use fallible.

 

[Skylar]

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.

marriage is not permitted for incest or polygamist so you're wrong again.

And which statement am I 'wrong on'? Does marriage not being allowed for polygamy magically make marriage prostitution? Or make prostitution legal?

What statement of mine *specifically* does your example prove wrong? Because it looks like you're arguing a point I'm not making.

Even legalized homo marriage still left some people out in the cold. Again not equal protection of the law because all individual choices aren't being included.

Obergefell addressed the specific legal questions asked of the court. And the court answered those questions. Where did you ever get the idea that Obergefell ruled on, or was capable of ruling on every possible question related to marriage that ever did exist or could exist?

It addressed same sex marriage. If you want polygamy, make your case for it. And bring it before the courts. But Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Prostitution is illegal forbidding me from practicing in it.
Homosexual sex is legal not forbidding you from practicing it it.
neither case is property involved.

Which makes your direct comparison to property permitting all the more gloriously irrelevant and uselessly unequivilant.

Why is one permitted and the other isn't when both are individual choices and harms no one but themselves?

You've moved your goal posts from marriage....to sodomy. They aren't the same thing. If not for the false equivilancy fallacy your posts would be little more than punctuation.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

marriage is not permitted for incest or polygamist so you're wrong again.

And which statement am I 'wrong on'? Does marriage not being allowed for polygamy magically make marriage prostitution? Or make prostitution legal?

What statement of mine *specifically* does your example prove wrong? Because it looks like you're arguing a point I'm not making.

Even legalized homo marriage still left some people out in the cold. Again not equal protection of the law because all individual choices aren't being included.

Obergefell addressed the specific legal questions asked of the court. And the court answered those questions. Where did you ever get the idea that Obergefell ruled on, or was capable of ruling on every possible question related to marriage that ever did exist or could exist?

It addressed same sex marriage. If you want polygamy, make your case for it. And bring it before the courts. But Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy.

both wanting to marry someone of the same sex and wanting to prostitute oneself are CHOICES MADE BY INDIVIDUALS. Why is it ok to make one illegal and the other legal? That isn't fair.

If you legalize one CHOICE you need to legalize ALL possible CHOICES an individual can make that doesn't harm others in their making that choice.

 

[Skylar]

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.

marriage is not permitted for incest or polygamist so you're wrong again.

And which statement am I 'wrong on'? Does marriage not being allowed for polygamy magically make marriage prostitution? Or make prostitution legal?

What statement of mine *specifically* does your example prove wrong? Because it looks like you're arguing a point I'm not making.

Even legalized homo marriage still left some people out in the cold. Again not equal protection of the law because all individual choices aren't being included.

Obergefell addressed the specific legal questions asked of the court. And the court answered those questions. Where did you ever get the idea that Obergefell ruled on, or was capable of ruling on every possible question related to marriage that ever did exist or could exist?

It addressed same sex marriage. If you want polygamy, make your case for it. And bring it before the courts. But Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy.

both wanting to marry someone of the same sex and wanting to prostitute oneself are CHOICES MADE BY INDIVIDUALS. Why is it ok to make one illegal and the other legal? That isn't fair.

Once again, marriage isn't prostitution. You can equate them all you like. But it doesn't make your analogy any less void of logic or reason.

If you legalize one CHOICE you need to legalize ALL possible CHOICES an individual can make that doesn't harm others in their making that choice.

Nope. As the basis of the obergefell decision wasn't the legalization of 'all choices'. It was that the basis for exclusion of gays from marriage failed to meet the constitutional requirements.

You can imagine that Obergefell 'needed to' address all choices for everyone, forever. But your imagination really has nothing to do with the decision, caselaw, reality or the constitution.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

marriage is not permitted for incest or polygamist so you're wrong again.

And which statement am I 'wrong on'? Does marriage not being allowed for polygamy magically make marriage prostitution? Or make prostitution legal?

What statement of mine *specifically* does your example prove wrong? Because it looks like you're arguing a point I'm not making.

Even legalized homo marriage still left some people out in the cold. Again not equal protection of the law because all individual choices aren't being included.

Obergefell addressed the specific legal questions asked of the court. And the court answered those questions. Where did you ever get the idea that Obergefell ruled on, or was capable of ruling on every possible question related to marriage that ever did exist or could exist?

It addressed same sex marriage. If you want polygamy, make your case for it. And bring it before the courts. But Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy.

both wanting to marry someone of the same sex and wanting to prostitute oneself are CHOICES MADE BY INDIVIDUALS. Why is it ok to make one illegal and the other legal? That isn't fair.

Once again, marriage isn't prostitution. You can equate them all you like. But it doesn't make your analogy any less void of logic or reason.

If you legalize one CHOICE you need to legalize ALL possible CHOICES an individual can make that doesn't harm others in their making that choice.

Nope. As the basis of the obergefell decision wasn't the legalization of 'all choices'. It was that the basis for exclusion of gays from marriage failed to meet the constitutional requirements.

You can imagine that Obergefell 'needed to' address all choices for everyone, forever. But your imagination really has nothing to do with the decision, caselaw, reality or the constitution.

All choices an individual can make involving the individual and consenting other individuals should be legal. Homosexuality should not be a special case that gets legalization while ignoring other choices people can make.

 

[Skylar]

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.

marriage is not permitted for incest or polygamist so you're wrong again.

And which statement am I 'wrong on'? Does marriage not being allowed for polygamy magically make marriage prostitution? Or make prostitution legal?

What statement of mine *specifically* does your example prove wrong? Because it looks like you're arguing a point I'm not making.

Even legalized homo marriage still left some people out in the cold. Again not equal protection of the law because all individual choices aren't being included.

Obergefell addressed the specific legal questions asked of the court. And the court answered those questions. Where did you ever get the idea that Obergefell ruled on, or was capable of ruling on every possible question related to marriage that ever did exist or could exist?

It addressed same sex marriage. If you want polygamy, make your case for it. And bring it before the courts. But Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy.

both wanting to marry someone of the same sex and wanting to prostitute oneself are CHOICES MADE BY INDIVIDUALS. Why is it ok to make one illegal and the other legal? That isn't fair.

Once again, marriage isn't prostitution. You can equate them all you like. But it doesn't make your analogy any less void of logic or reason.

If you legalize one CHOICE you need to legalize ALL possible CHOICES an individual can make that doesn't harm others in their making that choice.

Nope. As the basis of the obergefell decision wasn't the legalization of 'all choices'. It was that the basis for exclusion of gays from marriage failed to meet the constitutional requirements.

You can imagine that Obergefell 'needed to' address all choices for everyone, forever. But your imagination really has nothing to do with the decision, caselaw, reality or the constitution.

All choices an individual can make involving the individual and consenting other individuals should be legal.

That's an opinion. Alas, the Obergefell decision didn't come to this conclusion.Or even address it.

Homosexuality should not be a special case that gets legalization while ignoring other choices people can make.

Any choice that is allowed would be a 'special case' in your estimation. Why are you focusing on homosexuality? Wouldn't.......buying licorice or painting decals on your car meet your uselessly vague standards just as completely?

 

[bodecea]

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.

If the law of God is that thou shall commit no murder but it is "legally" supplanted by some man made law that requires a citizen to turn in a Jew for extermination (just as one historical example from another country), I'd say God's law trumps the law of that land.

I think only a Nazi would disagree.

Yes you democrats do...... how many babies slaughtered since 74?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Focus on the topic if you can.

 

[SillyWabbit]

If a candidate were willing to come out to the masses during his campaign and state explicitly that he believes God's law supersedes the Constitution, I would support that person. If for no other reason than to find out how such a person would perform his duties--and the possible chaos that would ensue.
Would such a person get elected? Maybe to local or even state positions, certainly not the Presidency. Or maybe...

 

[bravoactual]

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?

Ain't Religious Freedom a Cast Iron Mother Fucking Bitch?

You cannot restrict or deny another person their their Freedom of Religion because you do not like how they worship, where they worship, why they worship or what they call their version of their god.

Religious Freedom means exactly that.

You don't get to decide how another person can worship, but you sure as hell have to live with it.

 

[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?

Ain't Religious Freedom a Cast Iron Mother Fucking Bitch?

You cannot restrict or deny another person their their Freedom of Religion because you do not like how they worship, where they worship, why they worship or what they call their version of their god.

Religious Freedom means exactly that.

You don't get to decide how another person can worship, but you sure as hell have to live with it.

In a discussion of god knowing better than man in terms of laws.......you need to get specific. As often the various 'gods' disagree.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

marriage is not permitted for incest or polygamist so you're wrong again.

And which statement am I 'wrong on'? Does marriage not being allowed for polygamy magically make marriage prostitution? Or make prostitution legal?

What statement of mine *specifically* does your example prove wrong? Because it looks like you're arguing a point I'm not making.

Even legalized homo marriage still left some people out in the cold. Again not equal protection of the law because all individual choices aren't being included.

Obergefell addressed the specific legal questions asked of the court. And the court answered those questions. Where did you ever get the idea that Obergefell ruled on, or was capable of ruling on every possible question related to marriage that ever did exist or could exist?

It addressed same sex marriage. If you want polygamy, make your case for it. And bring it before the courts. But Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy.

both wanting to marry someone of the same sex and wanting to prostitute oneself are CHOICES MADE BY INDIVIDUALS. Why is it ok to make one illegal and the other legal? That isn't fair.

Once again, marriage isn't prostitution. You can equate them all you like. But it doesn't make your analogy any less void of logic or reason.

If you legalize one CHOICE you need to legalize ALL possible CHOICES an individual can make that doesn't harm others in their making that choice.

Nope. As the basis of the obergefell decision wasn't the legalization of 'all choices'. It was that the basis for exclusion of gays from marriage failed to meet the constitutional requirements.

You can imagine that Obergefell 'needed to' address all choices for everyone, forever. But your imagination really has nothing to do with the decision, caselaw, reality or the constitution.

All choices an individual can make involving the individual and consenting other individuals should be legal. Homosexuality should not be a special case that gets legalization while ignoring other choices people can make.

you're right....homosexuality should not be a special case.....it should be banned just like prostitution, etc.....gay marriage would be actually be banned today if the courts didn't think they could make law....a society needs to determine what values it will live by and this should be through the democratic process.....not through 5 or 6 lawyers in black robes....

our country was founded on many Christian principles and the more we get away from our original moral values the more our country sinks into depravity due to atheist secular relativistic arguments like yours.....if our country does not get back to its basic moral values our nation will rot from the inside......

 

[bravoactual]

Law of is of man
Man is fallible

Law of Man is still way better than Religious Law.

There is NO RELIGIOUS LAW.

 

[Skylar]

marriage is not permitted for incest or polygamist so you're wrong again.

And which statement am I 'wrong on'? Does marriage not being allowed for polygamy magically make marriage prostitution? Or make prostitution legal?

What statement of mine *specifically* does your example prove wrong? Because it looks like you're arguing a point I'm not making.

Even legalized homo marriage still left some people out in the cold. Again not equal protection of the law because all individual choices aren't being included.

Obergefell addressed the specific legal questions asked of the court. And the court answered those questions. Where did you ever get the idea that Obergefell ruled on, or was capable of ruling on every possible question related to marriage that ever did exist or could exist?

It addressed same sex marriage. If you want polygamy, make your case for it. And bring it before the courts. But Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy.

both wanting to marry someone of the same sex and wanting to prostitute oneself are CHOICES MADE BY INDIVIDUALS. Why is it ok to make one illegal and the other legal? That isn't fair.

Once again, marriage isn't prostitution. You can equate them all you like. But it doesn't make your analogy any less void of logic or reason.

If you legalize one CHOICE you need to legalize ALL possible CHOICES an individual can make that doesn't harm others in their making that choice.

Nope. As the basis of the obergefell decision wasn't the legalization of 'all choices'. It was that the basis for exclusion of gays from marriage failed to meet the constitutional requirements.

You can imagine that Obergefell 'needed to' address all choices for everyone, forever. But your imagination really has nothing to do with the decision, caselaw, reality or the constitution.

All choices an individual can make involving the individual and consenting other individuals should be legal. Homosexuality should not be a special case that gets legalization while ignoring other choices people can make.

you're right....homosexuality should not be a special case.....it should be banned just like prostitution, etc.....gay marriage would be actually be banned today if the courts didn't think they could make law....a society needs to determine what values it will live by and this should be through the democratic process.....not through 5 or 6 lawyers in black robes....

No, he's not right. Why should homosexuality be criminalized?

our country was founded on many Christian principles and the more we get away from our original moral values the more our country sinks into depravity due to atheist secular relativistic arguments like yours.....if our country does not get back to its basic moral values our nation will rot from the inside......

The founders executed gays. The Puritians executed adulterers. Are these the 'christian principles' you think we should return to?

If so, why?

 

[bravoactual]

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?

Ain't Religious Freedom a Cast Iron Mother Fucking Bitch?

You cannot restrict or deny another person their their Freedom of Religion because you do not like how they worship, where they worship, why they worship or what they call their version of their god.

Religious Freedom means exactly that.

You don't get to decide how another person can worship, but you sure as hell have to live with it.

In a discussion of god knowing better than man in terms of laws.......you need to get specific. As often the various 'gods' disagree.

Man tries and fails to interpret what man believes is god and will always fail. Man wants to play god, with any of pesky responsibilities of god.

 

[jillian]

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.

the oath of the president is to defend the constitution.

the constitution takes precedence over religion vis a vis our government.

so anyone who claims their brand of religion a) supercedes *my* brand and anyone else's brand; and b) claims it takes precedence over the constitution, has no business being president and would be in violation of the oath of office.

 

[bodecea]

Oh, by the way:

Our Declaration of Independence is based off of these verses, which acknowledge and teach the value of objective moral values, fixed standards, absolute truth, and the sanctity of all life.

Exodus 20:1-17
Deuteronomy 30:19
Psalm 119:142-152
Proverbs 14:34
Isaiah 5:20-21
John 10:10
Romans 2:15
Hebrews 13:8

Nope....it was based partially on The Declaration of Arbrouth and partially on John Locke's Two Treatises of Government.

For our system of checks and balances, they are based on the principle that all men are sinners:

Genesis 8:21
Jeremiah 17:9
Mark 7:20-23
Romans 3:23
1 John 1:8

Wrong. Our system of checks and balances come from Ancient Greece, Calvin, and Montesquieu.

For wisdom on the three branches of government, the Judicial, Executive and Legislative see Isaiah 33:22

Wrong again....still Ancient Greece, Calvin, and Montesquieu.

Religious freedom as stated in the First Amendment can be found in 1 Timothy 2:1-2

Keep being wrong....religious freedom can be traced to Cyrus the Great....and the EARLY Muslim empire. Christian nations up to the United States were notoriously intolerant of other religions or even other christian sects. Even the Puritans who came to Massachusetts for their own religious freedom denied it to others.

Separation of Church from State:

Deuteronomy 17:18-20
1 Kings 3:28
Ezra 7:24
Nehemiah 8:2
1 Samuel 7:15, 10:27, and 15:10-31
2 Samuel 12:1-18
Matthew 14:3-4
Luke 3:7-14 and 11:52
Acts 4:26-29

Strike again....Christianity thru the divine right of kings and patron saints of nations were NOT fans of separation of church and state. In fact one of the first to suggest it, John Locke, had to tread lightly on that subject.

Article IV of the Constitution, which guarantees a Republican form of Government to all the states is based off of these verses:

Exodus 18:21
Deuteronomy 1:13
Judges 8:22-23
1 Samuel 8
Proverbs 11:14 and 24:6

Duh....the Roman Republic.....or rather shall we say the PAGAN Roman Republic.......why do you think the founders wanted the important Washington buildings to be modeled after Roman temples/architecture.

The First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all stress the importance of governing oneself and his family, as the first level of governance and are based off of these verses:

Matthew 18:15-18
Galatians 5:16-26
1 Corinthians 6:1-11
1 Timothy 3:1-5
Titus 2:1-8

The Fifth Amendment grants the right to life, liberty, and property, and is based off of Exodus 20:15-17


The Sixth Amendment grants a fair trial to those tried in our justice system, and is based off of these verses:

Exodus 20:16
Deuteronomy 19:15
Proverbs 24:28 and 25:18
Matthew 18:16

Truly stretching here.