Would you support a presidential candidate who held that biblical law superceded the Constitution?

[RodISHI]

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.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Citizens can not nullify laws, or defy courts. It is a false premise.

 

[Sallow]

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

It absolutely does not.

 

[thanatos144]

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

It absolutely does not.

Yes it does.... it is so funny watching you idiot commies try to talk about shit you know nothing about

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Kondor3]

Citizens can not nullify laws...

Tell that to your Fearless Leader, who nullified our Nation's immigration laws, by Imperial Decree (EO).

 

[koshergrl]

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.

It's not uncomfortable. It's a question based on false premise...which you retards think makes you look smart.

 

[blackhawk]

Are any of the current candidates running on a platform of biblical law over the Constitution? If not I don't see the relevance of the question.

 

[amrchaos]

Are any of the current candidates running on a platform of biblical law over the Constitution? If not I don't see the relevance of the question.

I guess the closest candidate to that would be Huckabee.

Anyway, the foundations of our Republic is mostly of greek/roman origin than anything else.

A government founded on the Bible? That is a Theocracy or a Monarchy approved of by a religion. The concept of men making the laws and appending the Constitution with amendments--i.e. changing God's law-- goes against the foundations of any government based on a religion and would never have been condoned!

However, I am wasting time writing this. You can even demonstrate inequality was supported in the Bible and the devout would argue equality was taught. That is spiritual equality before god, not human equality between man. Fundamentally different concepts and not related by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[rdean]

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

It absolutely does not.

That's the problem with the right wing. They claim to follow the Bible, but really don't know what it says. I posted a link to a satire from Onion, and these right wingers were convinced I was posting to what I thought was a news article. That I was taken in by the Onion.
But the article is so clearly satire, it was a mystery to me why they could think that.

Then, like I said in a previous post, a right winger I know and I got into an argument over what the Bible says about rape. I told him about the 50 pieces of silver and he told me I was crazy, the Bible doesn't say that. So I asked him if he ever read the Bible, and he said he didn't have to because his pastor tells him what it says.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

This is the single biggest reason why it's difficult to argue with the right wing. They don't need to read something if they already know what it says. Examples of that type of thinking are endless.

 

[IsaacNewton]

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

It absolutely does not.

That's the problem with the right wing. They claim to follow the Bible, but really don't know what it says. I posted a link to a satire from Onion, and these right wingers were convinced I was posting to what I thought was a news article. That I was taken in by the Onion.
But the article is so clearly satire, it was a mystery to me why they could think that.

Then, like I said in a previous post, a right winger I know and I got into an argument over what the Bible says about rape. I told him about the 50 pieces of silver and he told me I was crazy, the Bible doesn't say that. So I asked him if he ever read the Bible, and he said he didn't have to because his pastor tells him what it says.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

This is the single biggest reason why it's difficult to argue with the right wing. They don't need to read something if they already know what it says. Examples of that type of thinking are endless.

Conservatism runs on emotion, almost exclusively on fear and anger.

And most of them are not intellectually sophisticated. Many actually believed Stephen Colbert was a true conservative and they were glad to see him on tv giving it to the 'liberals'. The opposite was the case of course, but the joke went sailing wayyy over their heads.

And 95% of people who claim to be Christian in the US aren't. All you have to do is look at all the people, including children, who go to bed hungry every day.

 

[Sallow]

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

It absolutely does not.

Yes it does.... it is so funny watching you idiot commies try to talk about shit you know nothing about

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Well perhaps you can find a clause in the Constitution and map it to the bible verse it was derived from.

The only thing that I can think of that comes close is the 3/5th person clause and the bible's support for slavery. But that was nullified later.


Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Bible and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's also something I don't think you Theocrats should be proud of..

 

[rdean]

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

It absolutely does not.

That's the problem with the right wing. They claim to follow the Bible, but really don't know what it says. I posted a link to a satire from Onion, and these right wingers were convinced I was posting to what I thought was a news article. That I was taken in by the Onion.
But the article is so clearly satire, it was a mystery to me why they could think that.

Then, like I said in a previous post, a right winger I know and I got into an argument over what the Bible says about rape. I told him about the 50 pieces of silver and he told me I was crazy, the Bible doesn't say that. So I asked him if he ever read the Bible, and he said he didn't have to because his pastor tells him what it says.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

This is the single biggest reason why it's difficult to argue with the right wing. They don't need to read something if they already know what it says. Examples of that type of thinking are endless.

Conservatism runs on emotion, almost exclusively on fear and anger.

And most of them are not intellectually sophisticated. Many actually believed Stephen Colbert was a true conservative and they were glad to see him on tv giving it to the 'liberals'. The opposite was the case of course, but the joke went sailing wayyy over their heads.

And 95% of people who claim to be Christian in the US aren't. All you have to do is look at all the people, including children, who go to bed hungry every day.

This is why the Pope's visit angered the conservatives.

 

[bravoactual]

But There Shall Be No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required As A Qualification To Any Office or Public Trust Under The United States.

 

[bravoactual]

If you want to believe in some mythical, magical skyman, feel free. But do not force your version of your god down my throat.

I do not believe in your version of your god

I do not want to believe in your version of your god.

I do not want, need, desire, request, or require to about your version of your god.

I do not want to hear about your version of your god.

Your right to your Freedom of Religion does not mean you have the right to force your version of your god on me or anybody else.

You do not have a right to use your version of your god as a weapon against others. It does not matter one way or the other if you do not like a person or persons and their sexual identity, you do not have a right to deny them rights that you have.

Keep your fucking version of your fucking god to your fucking self.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Christian and all theists, just like atheists, have every right, in a democratic society, to use their religiious values in the formulation of public policy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But There Shall Be No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required As A Qualification To Any Office or Public Trust Under The United States.

And that has nothing to do with religious beliefs and values, only to do with organized religion.

If a person can't handle that, better step off and walk far away.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

 

[Skylar]

Non-believers have an easy choice...

However...

Within the domain of Believers, which dominates?

1. God's laws

...or...

2. Man's laws?

The question for you is then.....is the Constitution man's law or GOd's law?

 

[RodISHI]

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.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

 

[bravoactual]

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.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Overturning a law that Conservatives don't like is being activist.