Did you not a few posts back rightly denigrate the supreme court?
Sure did, and know why. Do you?
Would that not be because they are accepting legislation that does not provide for all men equally under the law?
No. Partly because they bench warrant MAKE legislation, on case Law.
Also because; The Law is SUPPOSED to be, clear and concise, that anyone can read it, and clearly comprehend its intent. (Or be repealed for vagueness).
When the USSC renders an Opinion, that is not Law.
When the USSC renders a Verdict, and it is NOT unanimous; HOW can that be? IF the Verdict was solely BASED on the LAW.
If there are split decisions on Opinions or Conflicting Laws; Opinions are irrelevant, and Conflicting Laws should be Repealled, VOID for vagueness.
Problem is: the USSC can not render a Law, UnConstitutional. That is the JOB of Congress, who is the culprit that enacts UnConstitutional Laws to begin with.
Persons seated in seats of power, ie House of Representives....were designed to take turns with other People from the public at large, as Servants to Protect the People's Rights. Today, Reps, main goal is to Keep "THEMSELVES" glued to seats of power, and use the People's Liberty (behind closed doors), as bargaining chips among their colleagues. And the Ignorant people, clamor, all but demanding they make more and more Liberty crushing Laws.
Back to religious legislation. I am sure you are familiar with the history of Europe, how that through various submissive kings and queens the Papal Antichrist managed to have enacted religious legislation which completely destroyed any and all vestige of religious liberty from the continent.
Your government was established to
protect the freedoms of the people, not impose upon them restrictions or prescriptions for Christian living. [/QUOTE]
The US Government was established, to PROTECT "rights" of the People at large, by the Same Principles and Standards as God.
It is God WHO established Liberty, and those who established the US, acknowledged it was God WHO established Liberty.
The People have a right to secure their own Liberty.
The People WHO do not choose to secure their own Liberty, become the Burden of the Government, and thus the Thorny Burden of the People.
Even the irreligious have a right to their own destiny and to their own choices as to whether or not they choose to obey God's commandments.
Sure. No one said otherwise. And had the US been established WITH a National Religion called Christianity, True Liberty, would prevail.
And those who REJECT enjoying Liberty and taking care of their own, WOULD NOT, be the burden of the Government or the People at large.
Should not governments, who are prone to error and rash judgement, be even more solicitous in abstaining from any legislation which can, and you know will be, used to bring disrepute...punishment...persecution and/or death to those who may disagree?
Not sure your implication of error, as if any government governed by men making decision is perfect.
Not sure your implication of rash, as if there is disregard of examining ideas and backlash.
Sounds like you are challenging the Penal Code.
That's the beauty of a Federation. Very few are subject to the big scheme of the Federation, and otherwise subject to the Goverence and Laws of the sovereign individual States.
Every State has it's own Governance, and Laws. And All Laws are expressly written, available for public view. If one does not like the Governance or Laws, they have 49 other choices to reside in the jurisdictional boundaries of such other places, that they do agree with their laws and Governance.
Some States reject the Death Penalty; while other States invoke the Death Penalty and have an Express Lane to carry out the Sentence.
Some people of one State criticize the Laws of other States. So what? Their right to criticize, but not their right to have a say in the conduct of the matters of the State they criticize.
Like California for example. I have been there, obeyed their laws while traveling there;
But would never live there and subject myself to their Governance.
Further, to which branch of Christianity would you defer in relation to enacting legislation.
Not sure what you mean. There is an established body, that holds the power to enact Legislation.
I agree that we all have some things in common. But you can't legislate faith, only practice.
Who said Faith can be legislated?
What I said was the US was established on the Principles and Standards of God.
Are you challenging, such Principles and Standards of what is RIGHT, should be questioned, because it stems from Religious precepts of Christians whose precepts are "supposed" to be Godly "precepts" of what is RIGHT?
So whose practice would you suggest? The Amish or SDA's? Catholic or Mormon? Hebrew Roots, Messianic, Methodist, Presbyterian, or maybe even an ecumenical compromise based loosely on those things upon which they can agree? Mmmm, sound familiar?
Basis is one thing, for which I already expounded on.
Practice is another thing, for which I said nothing that requires anyone to Practice any particular religion.
To ask me WHICH practice I would suggest;
Would be for men to practice being free to take care of themselves, their own families, and not infringe on others.
God Bless,
Taken
