Fiona Hill: "The president was trying to stage a coup"

M

marke

Well-known member
annabenedetti said:
More on that James Madison quote:

“Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion.

“The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country.”

– James Madison – Letter to Edward Livingston (excerpt); July 10th, 1822.
Click to expand...
Atheists, Humanists, hedonists, evolutionists, and other followers of isms and spasms do not speak for the majority of American voters, especially patriotic conservative Christian voters. Democrats try to silence Christian conservatives by various means, including by erecting twisted walls of separation between God and civilization, cheating in elections to disenfranchise Christian voters, filing false allegations against Christian voters to take away their rights and freedoms, and creating leftist government propaganda departments to control free speech in a way that silences Christian voices.
 
Last edited:
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
ffreeloader said:
You quote it but you don't believe it.
Click to expand...

I realize you want to have state approval for discrimination, but Madison worked to prevent a state religion to prevent one sect from setting itself over other sects as arbiter of what constituted acceptable expression. Citizens aren't required to follow the dictates of any sect Christianity or any other religion, and citizens also have the protection of equal rights under the law.
 
M

marke

Well-known member
annabenedetti said:
I realize you want to have state approval for discrimination, but Madison worked to prevent a state religion to prevent one sect from setting itself over other sects as arbiter of what constituted acceptable expression. Citizens aren't required to follow the dictates of any sect Christianity or any other religion, and citizens also have the protection of equal rights under the law.
Click to expand...
We have state approval of discrimination. If you are black you can resist arrest and will not be charged, or if charged will not be jailed, or if jailed will not be prosecuted, or if prosecuted will not be found guilty. If a black man gets hurt resisting arrest he stands to make millions by filing a civil lawsuit against the cop and there is a good chance the cop will go to jail. In other areas, in response to black and leftist discrimination against whites and conservatives, democrats have given blacks and leftists special privileges so that blacks, black women, homosexuals, and transgenders are given first priority in government hiring and they cannot be judged by the content of their character over the color of their skin in the process. Also, under the modern leftist democrat socialist Marxist US government black lives matter far more than the lives of cops, whites, conservatives, Christians, or republicans.

Is that kind of discrimination reversed, perverted, racist, greedy, selfish, proud, divisive, or what?
 
Last edited:
G

Gary K

New member
Banned
annabenedetti said:
I realize you want to have state approval for discrimination, but Madison worked to prevent a state religion to prevent one sect from setting itself over other sects as arbiter of what constituted acceptable expression. Citizens aren't required to follow the dictates of any sect Christianity or any other religion, and citizens also have the protection of equal rights under the law.
Click to expand...
Yeah, government approval of one denomination over another is what Madison refused to accept. That means one person suing another attempting to force the other person's conscience and getting government's approval of that in court which is exactly what happened to the baker. The destruction of his right to freely practice his religion without government's interference.

I disagree with a what a Catholic believes all day long, but I have no right, or desire, to take him to court and tell him he must think or behave the way I think he should. That is exactly what happened to the baker. You know it and I know it. You just desire the destruction of the Constitution.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
ffreeloader said:
Yeah, government approval of one denomination over another is what Madison refused to accept. That means one person suing another attempting to force the other person's conscience and getting government's approval of that in court which is exactly what happened to the baker. The destruction of his right to freely practice his religion without government's interference.

I disagree with a what a Catholic believes all day long, but I have no right, or desire, to take him to court and tell him he must think or behave the way I think he should. That is exactly what happened to the baker. You know it and I know it. You just desire the destruction of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Legal challenges to equal rights were argued on the basis on religious freedom. Yes, Maurice Bessinger didn't want to serve the three Black customers in his restaurant because he believed that serving Black customers “contravene[d] the will of God.”

Bessinger argued that his deeply held religious beliefs allowed him to circumvent Title II of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in public accommodations.

The Supreme Court ruled against him, saying the “free exercise of one’s beliefs … as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief, is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society… Undoubtedly, Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.”


Your free exercise doesn't get to roll over the constitutional rights of others.
 
Last edited:
M

marke

Well-known member
You are right. With the democrat party it is all about race and gender, not character and qualifications.


Black Lives Matter Resources

Student Affairs Divisional Response 06/08/20: We are appalled and heartbroken by the racist killings and stand in solidarity with the Black and African American community. Tragically, these deaths
sa.berkeley.edu sa.berkeley.edu

www.theblaze.com

Microsoft promises black hiring quotas to fight racial injustice | Blaze Media

In the name of 'diversity and inclusion'
www.theblaze.com www.theblaze.com

www.cnn.com

An all-Black group is arming itself and demanding change. They are the NFAC

When two loud bangs rang out on the streets of Lafayette, Louisiana, no one knew where the gunshots came from as protesters gathered to demand justice for another Black man killed by police.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
annabenedetti said:
... Maurice Bessinger didn't want to serve the three Black customers in his restaurant
Click to expand...
HIS restaurant
annabenedetti said:
because he believed that serving Black customers “contravene[d] the will of God.”
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter what he believed. It is his restaurant. He should be free to deny service to anybody for any reason at all
annabenedetti said:
Bessinger argued that his deeply held religious beliefs allowed him to circumvent Title II of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in public accommodations.
Click to expand...
Including public accommodations was legislative and judicial overreach. It is unconstitutional. It should be repealed.

It is fully within the Constitution to force the government and governmental agencies and institutions to bar discrimination. Not privately owned businesses.
annabenedetti said:
The Supreme Court ruled against him...
Click to expand...
To their everlasting shame
 
G

Gary K

New member
Banned
marke said:
You are right. With the democrat party it is all about race and gender, not character and qualifications.


Black Lives Matter Resources

Student Affairs Divisional Response 06/08/20: We are appalled and heartbroken by the racist killings and stand in solidarity with the Black and African American community. Tragically, these deaths
sa.berkeley.edu sa.berkeley.edu

www.theblaze.com

Microsoft promises black hiring quotas to fight racial injustice | Blaze Media

In the name of 'diversity and inclusion'
www.theblaze.com www.theblaze.com

www.cnn.com

An all-Black group is arming itself and demanding change. They are the NFAC

When two loud bangs rang out on the streets of Lafayette, Louisiana, no one knew where the gunshots came from as protesters gathered to demand justice for another Black man killed by police.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
Click to expand...
My exercise of my liberty doesn't run over anyone else's rights. They are free to go anywhere else they choose to go. Some one will accommodate them and take their money for whatever it is they want. And I have no desire to stop that accommodation as it is none of my business. If I own a vegan restaurant I/m telling meat eaters I don't want their business nor money. I'm discriminating against them, but I am not telling them they can't eat meat.

There is no difference between that and someone who says I will not support a set of beliefs that run counter to mine. Someone else will always provide the service they desire. Say, a gay baker. I'm actually sending business his direction. Oh, the evil of that. :rolleyes:
 
M

marke

Well-known member
ffreeloader said:
My exercise of my liberty doesn't run over anyone else's rights. They are free to go anywhere else they choose to go. Some one will accommodate them and take their money for whatever it is they want. And I have no desire to stop that accommodation as it is none of my business. If I own a vegan restaurant I/m telling meat eaters I don't want their business nor money. I'm discriminating against them, but I am not telling them they can't eat meat.

There is no difference between that and someone who says I will not support a set of beliefs that run counter to mine. Someone else will always provide the service they desire. Say, a gay baker. I'm actually sending business his direction. Oh, the evil of that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If I make cakes I am free to make them or not make them as I choose. If a homosexual wants a cake he is free to shop around to find one that suits him but not free to force someone to make a cake for him who does not want to make a cake for him.
 
M

marke

Well-known member
User Name said:
US oil production is at 2018 levels, so why isn't it at 2018 prices?
Click to expand...
Bad students and incompetent researchers do not understand why broad conclusions should not be drawn from extremely limited data sets and cropped facts, especially if the data sets and reports are edited and massaged by liars with hidden agendas in order to make the conclusions conform to erroneous apriori assumptions.

1655132777182.jpeg
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
marke said:
Bad students and incompetent researchers do not understand why broad conclusions should not be drawn from extremely limited data sets and cropped facts, especially if the data sets and reports are edited and massaged by liars with hidden agendas in order to make the conclusions conform to apriori erroneous assumptions.
Click to expand...

None of that blather answers the question but rather dodges it completely, so I'll ask again:

US oil production is at 2018 levels, so why isn't it at 2018 prices?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top