And they dare to call themselves 'christian' (Page 2): Right but that's no reason to not combat drugs.

This topic was split up because it has reached high page count.
You can find the follow-up topic here.

XXX Loc: Somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon

kemmer wrote:

As long as American druggies demand drugs, drugs will be available somehow.

Right but that's no reason to not combat drugs.

martsiva

RascalRiley wrote:

They are not the same people. You believe propaganda.

Oh yes they are the same people a that is a fact!! Democrats are the ones yelling about Christain nationalism as they support homosexuality and mentally ill men dressed up in d**g reading to young children!! The ones who allowed the obscenities on the White House lawn IN FRONT OF CHILDREN!!!

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

American Scene wrote:

Religion and politics should ALWAYS be separate.

David L wrote:

Where did you get that false idea? Certainly not from the Bible.

kemmer wrote:

Umm… the Constitution? 🙄

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is not in the constitution.

The 1st amendment protects every American citizen's right to freely practice his or her religion.
American politicians are American citizens, they too have the right to practice their religions.

James Madison, Property

29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that d******n which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, wh**ever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which p***es itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

Bruce123

American Scene wrote:

Religion and politics should ALWAYS be separate.

You should change your name to
Clueless American.

XXX Loc: Somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon

Blade_Runner wrote:

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is not in the constitution.

The 1st amendment protects every American citizen's right to freely practice his or her religion.
American politicians are American citizens, they too have the right to practice their religions.

James Madison, Property

29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that d******n which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, wh**ever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which p***es itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is not ... (show quote)

dbirch

then don't take it.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

martsiva wrote:

Oh yes they are the same people a that is a fact!! Democrats are the ones yelling about Christain nationalism as they support homosexuality and mentally ill men dressed up in d**g reading to young children!! The ones who allowed the obscenities on the White House lawn IN FRONT OF CHILDREN!!!

Republicans will fix child molesting. /s

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C09fOb4Of8I/?igsh=MTNqdXlpemh0dTNyeA==

This site tracks child molesters. Monsters.

https://www.whoismakingnews.com

kemmer

martsiva wrote:

So Christians supporting Trump is in the Constitution??

Trump isn’t even too hot on the Constitution.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

kemmer wrote:

Trump isn’t even too hot on the Constitution.

He is lightyears more respectful of and loyal to our constitution than you are.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

kemmer wrote:

Umm… the Constitution? 🙄

There is no phrase in The Constitution mandating a separation of church & state. There is no bar of religion from infulencing government nor vice versa.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

crazylibertarian wrote:

There is no phrase in The Constitution mandating a separation of church & state. There is no bar of religion from infulencing government nor vice versa.

What could go wrong if one religion is the basis of a government of a diverse nation?

The third one is iffy but many Republican and Dems reps are benefiting from defensive spending.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

American Scene wrote:

Religion and politics should ALWAYS be separate.

Troll alert

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

LogicallyRight wrote:

Troll alert

Says the resident troll. 😂

wilpharm

kemmer wrote:

Umm… the Constitution? 🙄

ummm..where??

maryla22

American Scene wrote:

Religion and politics should ALWAYS be separate.

The founders wanted to escape the influence of having a religion forced on them...but I don't think they imagined the c*******m that members of the current POTUS staff seem to be pushing!!

70% of America no longer believe in e******ns.