Would you support a presidential candidate who held that biblical law superceded the Constitution?

[bodecea]

Its a simple question, if you can't answer move along to the flamer forum.

Thanks for playing.

Dip shit the constitution already follows the bible ..... unlike the Quran

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Oh? I don't think so.

 

[irosie91]

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

35 Founding Father Quotes Conservative Christians Will Hate

some were deists

You are getting pounded. The founders decided against religion controlling government for a reason.

you are overly optimistic. they were generally Christians even those who called
themselves "deists" ---yes----they decided on separation of church-----and state----not because they were all "pagans"-------because they were doing the thing of the day

 

[bodecea]

Its a simple question, if you can't answer move along to the flamer forum.

Thanks for playing.

Dip shit the constitution already follows the bible ..... unlike the Quran

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No it doesn't.

Yes it does...

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Nope. Not at all.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

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

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.

That was another reason I didnt comment on it. It was too weird and embarrassing.

 

[Asclepias]

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

35 Founding Father Quotes Conservative Christians Will Hate

some were deists

You are getting pounded. The founders decided against religion controlling government for a reason.

you are overly optimistic. they were generally Christians even those who called
themselves "deists" ---yes----they decided on separation of church-----and state----not because they were all "pagans"-------because they were doing the thing of the day

I noticed you just introduced some concepts I never mentioned. Your position has eroded to the point you will now begin lying instead of just admitting you dont know what you are talking about. Have at it.

 

[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.

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?

There's nothing about "don't murder, don't steal, don't lie" in the Constitution.....and besides are your saying that those three things are credited ONLY as Christian religious mores?

 

[JakeStarkey]

90% of Americans would not support such a candidate.

Rightfully so.

 

[IsaacNewton]

You can tell, many times, more about someone by what they don't say than what they do say.

Not a lot of 'hell no's' from conservatives in this thread. It speaks volumes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can tell, many times, more about someone by what they don't say than what they do say.

Not a lot of 'hell no's' from conservatives in this thread. It speaks volumes.

I REPEAT.... provide a name of a mainstream candidate now or in the past that held those views. Islam teaches that Islam must rule the world and that Sharia law is supreme. Which means any Muslim is more likely to support that position then not.

 

[browsing deer]

You can tell, many times, more about someone by what they don't say than what they do say.

Not a lot of 'hell no's' from conservatives in this thread. It speaks volumes.

Do you start each morning by asking yourself "How can I be more of a dishonest creep today than I was yesterday?"

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

 

[westwall]

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.

Nope.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

The Supremes changed the game in the middle of the 7th inning for her...

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Of course not. And wouldn't trust a Muslim anyway.

 

[amrchaos]

Can I vote for a Muslim, Christian or Jew? Yes

Can I vote for a religious fanatic?

Hell 2 the Naw!
2 the da NAW NAW NAW!

Sing it Bishop Bullwinkle!

 

[NYcarbineer]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

The Supremes changed the game in the middle of the 7th inning for her...

No they didn't. That's retarded, from you, as usual.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

The Supremes changed the game in the middle of the 7th inning for her...

No they didn't. That's retarded, from you, as usual.

Give me a link the Supremes didn't legislated from the bench?

We had so many laws against same sex marriage...what law in the constitution says it is legal?

And don't make shit up....

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

 

[bodecea]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

The Supremes changed the game in the middle of the 7th inning for her...

No they didn't. That's retarded, from you, as usual.

Give me a link the Supremes didn't legislated from the bench?

We had so many laws against same sex marriage...what law in the constitution says it is legal?

And don't make shit up....

Well, better yet....link the name and/or statute # of the law that the Supremes legislated from the bench. All laws have statute #s. LInk it so we can read it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tell us which law SCOTUS legislated.