One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Why is the Supreme Court using religious belief to alter secular law?
Page <<first <prev 8 of 11 next> last>>
May 21, 2022 22:07:08   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
With most who claim to be atheists it is not that they do not believe in God but that they do not want there to be a God. Their ego is such that they cannot tolerate the concept that they are not the Supreme being of the universe.



Seems like it would take more faith not to believe. Kinda obvious there’s a higher power. Cannot get order from chaos.

Reply
May 21, 2022 22:13:13   #
RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
You proved my point. Your response is your ego at work and an over evaluation of your own intelligence. Life is not a God but a gift from God. Even Thomas Jefferson believed that.
You will have no problem believing I am not above average intelligence. You would have no problem thinking me less than average being as I am a progressive.

My ego is not in play here.

Reply
May 21, 2022 22:15:00   #
Liberty Tree
 
RascalRiley wrote:
You will have no problem believing I am not above average intelligence. You would have no problem thinking me less than average being as I am a progressive.

My ego is not in play here.


Your ego is at the center of the play. You just cannot admit it.

Reply
May 21, 2022 22:15:46   #
RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit
 
JFlorio wrote:
Seems like it would take more faith not to believe. Kinda obvious there’s a higher power. Cannot get order from chaos.
A much higher power. One that encompasses all of life, universe wide.

Reply
May 21, 2022 22:23:48   #
RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
Your ego is at the center of the play. You just cannot admit it.

Ok. Maybe a little bit. I am amused

Reply
May 21, 2022 22:25:00   #
Rose42
 
RascalRiley wrote:
Abraham created the current god. There have been thousands of gods. Every civilization has had its gods.

We are not the first.


No, God created Abraham. There is only one God.

Reply
May 21, 2022 22:33:57   #
RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit
 
Rose42 wrote:
No, God created Abraham. There is only one God.
We each have our faiths. You question mine as I question yours.

Reply
 
 
May 22, 2022 00:08:15   #
Ri-chard Loc: 23322
 
Milosia2 wrote:
Why is the Supreme Court using religious belief to alter secular law?
Alito's draft opinion is full of specious legal and historical language — but it's just religious doctrine in d**g

By THOM HARTMANN
PUBLISHED MAY 10, 2022 2:16PM (EDT)
An activist with The Center for Popular Democracy Action holds a photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as they block an intersection during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 01, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
An activist with The Center for Popular Democracy Action holds a photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as they block an intersection during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 01, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
view in app
save
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Democrats are generally disinclined to discuss religion, much less debate it.

They like to point out that Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were famously atheist, Thomas Jefferson and dozens of other high-profile people in the founding generation were deists (a close cousin to atheists and certainly not Christians), and that in two different places the Constitution explicitly rejects religion interfering with government or vice versa.

But it's time to discuss religion whether we like it or not, because it's no longer knocking on our door: Sam Alito just sent it into the house with a no-knock warrant and stun grenades that threaten to catch the place on fire.

Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson draft opinion rests on two main premises.

The first is that the Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and tradition."

This right-wing canard has been around for years, and has been used to argue against pretty much ever form of modernity from integrated public schools to, more recently, same-sex marriage. It's a convenient pole around which you can twist pretty much any argument you want, because American history and tradition have been all over the map during the past roughly 240 years.

There you have it in a nutshell !

*** The first is that the Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and tradition."***
There is no such right , presently.
Why is the Supreme Court using religious belief to... (show quote)


You should be more concerned about your Democrat run city of blight. It's a in your face sign of the spreading economic fallout of mortgage foreclosures, several suburbs of Cleveland, one of the nation’s hardest-hit cities, are spending millions of dollars to maintain vacant houses as they try to contain blight and real-estate panic.
Your Shaker Heights, a mostly affluent suburb, loaded with evictions and vacancies, a problem fueled by a rapid increase in high-interest, subprime loans.
Cuyahoga County, including Cleveland and 58 suburbs, has one of the country’s highest foreclosure rates, and officials say the worst is yet to come. In 1995, the county had 2,500 foreclosures; last year there were 15,000. Officials blame the weak economy and housing market and a rash of subprime loans for the high numbers, and the unusual prevalence of vacant houses.
In the last two years more than 600 houses in Euclid have gone through foreclosure or started the process, many of them the homes of elderly people who refinanced with low two-year teaser rates, then saw their payments grow by 50 percent or more.
Euclid has installed alarm systems in some vacant houses to keep out people hoping to steal lights and other fixtures, drug users and squatters. The city has hired three new building inspectors, bringing the total to nine, to deal with troubled properties and is getting a $1 million loan from the county to cover the costs of rehabilitation, demolition and lawn care at the foreclosed houses. (When the properties are sold, such direct maintenance costs will be recovered through tax assessments.)

The Euclid mayor, Bill Cervenik, said the city, with a population of 53,000, was losing $750,000 a year in property taxes from the empty houses.

Knowing your mindset by your comments, you think this is just peachy.

Reply
May 22, 2022 01:49:14   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
RascalRiley wrote:
Tell me, who defined the current god?
When Yahweh appeared to Moses, He gave him His name - I AM THAT I AM. (Exodus 3: 14)

Yahweh is the only being in existence whose reason for existence is with Himself.
No mortal being can explain his own existence.

IOW, Yahweh defines Himself.
IOW, Yahweh defines Himself....

Reply
May 22, 2022 02:53:30   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
Milosia2 wrote:
That covers i**********ns.


It also covers your precious baby k**ler protesters. You have already admitted that you agree with murdering children who are perfectly capable of survival outside the womb, since you support the recent Democrap legislation that was just defeated which allows a******n right up until birth. What a shame that people who support this legislation were not victims of it.

Reply
May 22, 2022 02:58:40   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
RascalRiley wrote:
You will have no problem believing I am not above average intelligence. You would have no problem thinking me less than average being as I am a progressive.

My ego is not in play here.


I have yet to meet a prog whose ego was not the center of their existence. Typical Progressive intelligence quotients are about what you would expect from people who have, at best, a somewhat tenuous acquaintance with reality.

Reply
May 22, 2022 03:03:25   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
RascalRiley wrote:
There are MD’s that keep people alive past their time anointed time.


Appointed, not anointed. If someone is no longer viable without life support and the situation has no hope of improvement it is cruel to keep them alive.

Reply
May 22, 2022 03:05:36   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
martsiva wrote:
YOU are a d********g, lying, vulgar, imbecile!! Tell that lie to all the MDs who say otherwise!!


The current Democrap legislation would allow babies who are viable outside the womb, such as preemies, to be aborted up until nearly the moment of birth. Anyone who supports this despicable view should be chained to the back of a truck and drug down a gravel road till they are aborted.

Reply
May 22, 2022 03:18:07   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
kemmer wrote:
Of course many of our Founding Fathers were s***e owners. And women were considered the property of their husbands and/or fathers—and of course they couldn’t v**e for anything.


So what? S***ery was an accepted institution all over the world at the time. Every culture, including the one that spawned you, has practiced it at one time or another. From about 700 AD till 1700 AD, more than one and a half million w****s were ens***ed by Muslims, many of whom were black. Most of the s***es in the US were already s***es in Africa when they were purchased, usually by British s***ers, and t***sported to what became the US; and of the approximately eleven million black s***es who were t***sported to the Americas, around 600,000 of them ended up in what became the US, most of them while we were still British colonies.
Progressive dolts tend to judge people of different times by current standards. Newsflash: The accepted morality of any time period derives from the extant physical conditions. Several hundred or even three hundred years ago, survival was less of a certainty than it is today, and the "high moral tone" of self-righteous progtards would have been considered abject stupidity. Self-righteousness tends to increase as dangers to one's existence decrease.

Reply
May 22, 2022 08:33:13   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
Milosia2 wrote:
Why is the Supreme Court using religious belief to alter secular law?
Alito's draft opinion is full of specious legal and historical language — but it's just religious doctrine in d**g

By THOM HARTMANN
PUBLISHED MAY 10, 2022 2:16PM (EDT)
An activist with The Center for Popular Democracy Action holds a photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as they block an intersection during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 01, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
An activist with The Center for Popular Democracy Action holds a photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as they block an intersection during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 01, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
view in app
save
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Democrats are generally disinclined to discuss religion, much less debate it.

They like to point out that Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were famously atheist, Thomas Jefferson and dozens of other high-profile people in the founding generation were deists (a close cousin to atheists and certainly not Christians), and that in two different places the Constitution explicitly rejects religion interfering with government or vice versa.

But it's time to discuss religion whether we like it or not, because it's no longer knocking on our door: Sam Alito just sent it into the house with a no-knock warrant and stun grenades that threaten to catch the place on fire.

Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson draft opinion rests on two main premises.

The first is that the Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and tradition."

This right-wing canard has been around for years, and has been used to argue against pretty much ever form of modernity from integrated public schools to, more recently, same-sex marriage. It's a convenient pole around which you can twist pretty much any argument you want, because American history and tradition have been all over the map during the past roughly 240 years.

There you have it in a nutshell !

*** The first is that the Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and tradition."***
There is no such right , presently.
Why is the Supreme Court using religious belief to... (show quote)


'The Center for Popular Democracy Action'
What a bad joke.
Orwellian at its best.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 11 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.