Would you support a presidential candidate who held that biblical law superceded the Constitution?

Modern liberalism is a religion, of course: Its devotees dare not mention its name, and regularly castigate anyone who applied ANY spoken name to it ("We're NOT socialists! We're NOT communists! Don't you DARE call us that! We're NOT....", etc.).
IsaacNewton said:
Sorry, if you want a thread where you get to define what is a religion and isn't try the Religion forum.
See? The OP opens a thread about religion in government, and when somebody points one out one he didn't expect, he tries to get rid of him rather than discuss what he said. Because he CAN'T discuss it without admitting that he and his ilk are the problem.
Just answer the question.
I did.

Didn't even read the post, did we? :rolleyes-41:

You are so naïve and dishonest. You want to change the subject because you can't answer the question.

Fine, you can't answer it, move along sport.
I did.

Still didn't read my first post in the thread, did we? :biggrin:

Or are we deliberately trying to pretend we haven't? :eek-52:

Back to the subject:
What should we do about people presently in office, who keep making laws implementing their own religion (Modern Liberalism) in place to the U.S. Constitution?
 
Hey dummy since christians made the constitution I would say it is a moot question.....

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


What an ignorant thumper the founding fathers were mostly deists not christers


“The legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion.”
~Founding Father Charles Pinckney, Constitutional Convention, 1787


founding+father.jpg



2012-07-17+23.05.09.jpg



quote-Thomas-Paine-of-all-the-tyrannies-that-affect-mankind-105938.png

35 Founding Father Quotes Conservative Christians Will Hate
 
Last edited:
and thor---------and BEOWULF ------and Zarathustra

Do you have a link for those? I have a link to the congressional resolution specifying my claim.

Iroquois Confederacy is foundation of United States Constitution

"H. Con. Res. 331 was passed in October 1988 to acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution, and to reaffirm the continuing government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the Constitution.

Congress, on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution, "acknowledged the historical debt which this Republic of the United States of America owes to the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indian Nations for their demonstration of enlightened, democratic principles of government and their example of a free association of independent Indian Nations."

diplomatic sophistry-------kinda like Obama's THE USA IS AN ISLMAMIC NATION

"Islmamic nation" huh?

:alcoholic:
You can tell she was emotionally traumatized by the congressional resolution. She was so shaken she couldnt spell correctly. :biggrin:

asclepias is so DESPERATE that she GRASPS at a typo like a drowning
man grasps at a straw
That only works if I was the one that brought it up. Sorry but I know you hate to be wrong. You should get use to it because you are wrong a lot.
 
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.

I wouldn't vote for anyone who I thought would not perform their job according to the Constitution, we've had enough of the that the last 6+ years.
 
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.

Considering we have one now that holds that "whatever I feel is good" supersedes the constitution, what would be the difference?

Other than imposing a totalitarian government of your own choosing, how can you change what the People want?
 
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.
I agree.

Of course, many Christian religious mores are matched by language of the Constitution. Don't murder, don't steal, don't lie etc. It turns out that people who adhere to Christian religions, are already more than halfway to supporting the Constitution - a far better proportion than is found in adherents to Sharia law.

How about people who believe that the religion of Modern Liberalism should supersede the Constitution? They support taxation to transfer funds directly to various special interest groups (forbidden by the Const), and govt getting involved in workplace conditions, land zoning, local environmental conditions, medical insurance, retirement funding, unemployment compensation in various forms, and even the size of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we can buy - all functions forbidden to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and reserved instead to the States and the People.

Modern liberalism is a religion, of course: There is no proof that it works (and plenty of evidence to show it doesn't), it is perceived as different things by different people in different places, it requires absolute faith and devotion to its ideals without question, and seeks to destroy anyone who doesn't unquestioningly obey and proselytize it requirements. Its devotees dare not mention its name, and regularly castigate anyone who applied ANY spoken name to it ("We're NOT socialists! We're NOT communists! Don't you DARE call us that! We're NOT....", etc.). And they can tolerate no other religion except Modern Liberalism. They regard anyone who disagrees, as not only wrong but evil.

Does your view that "there is no religion that supercedes[sic] the Constitution", include the religion of Modern Liberalism? What do you propose we should to with the people already in office, who are clearly fanatical devotees to that religion and regularly violate the Constitution to make laws implementing their religion in its place?
 
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.

Considering we have one now that holds that "whatever I feel is good" supersedes the constitution, what would be the difference?

Other than imposing a totalitarian government of your own choosing, how can you change what the People want?

You don't change them, you make them scared to oppose the view de jour.

Kind of what progressives are doing now.
 
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.

Considering we have one now that holds that "whatever I feel is good" supersedes the constitution, what would be the difference?

Other than imposing a totalitarian government of your own choosing, how can you change what the People want?

You don't change them, you make them scared to oppose the view de jour.

Kind of what progressives are doing now.

Conservatism is 100% fear mongering.
 
and thor---------and BEOWULF ------and Zarathustra

Do you have a link for those? I have a link to the congressional resolution specifying my claim.

Iroquois Confederacy is foundation of United States Constitution

"H. Con. Res. 331 was passed in October 1988 to acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution, and to reaffirm the continuing government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the Constitution.

Congress, on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution, "acknowledged the historical debt which this Republic of the United States of America owes to the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indian Nations for their demonstration of enlightened, democratic principles of government and their example of a free association of independent Indian Nations."

diplomatic sophistry-------kinda like Obama's THE USA IS AN ISLMAMIC NATION

"Islmamic nation" huh?

:alcoholic:
You can tell she was emotionally traumatized by the congressional resolution. She was so shaken she couldnt spell correctly. :biggrin:

asclepias is so DESPERATE that she GRASPS at a typo like a drowning
man grasps at a straw

"she"?

He didn't point it out -- I did. I mean it was already wacko enough even if spelt correctly, but when I tried to pronounce "Islmamic" I wet my pants with hilarity.

He's right about the Injuns btw. That goes waaaaay back.
 
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.
Be specific provide us a name of a main stream candidate or former candidate that ever believed that. Islam teaches that Islam is supreme and that the goal is all Governments and all people on the entire earth be run and controlled by Islam.
 
We the People made the constitution.

The Lord was only mentioned in the calendar.
 
“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814
 

Forum List

Back
Top