No Faith Questions Unless Contradiction

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER :
"MARRIAGE,THE COURT, THE DECLARATION"

IRT:
[The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator.]

IRT:
“Oh I'm sorry, you are talking about 'Marriage.” It is not one thing in the U.S. it is TWO things.”

ANS:
Marriage is a sacred contractual bond between God, man, and wife. It is created by God (Gen.). If you choose not to make it sacred and not receive all the graces from God that strengthens your vows and your nuptial union, your fidelity and love for each other, you have every right to do so, but it also is foolish to do so.

In a survey some years back, it was found that married devout Catholics experience only two percent of broken marriages. Of course, those Catholic marriages that weren’t too devout are no different from that which civil marriages suffer. Their divorce rate ranges in the higher forty percent.

IRT:
[Try thinking before you jump to such an irrational contradictory assertion. The statement was. ‘You cannot believe your rights are God given and not believe in God unless you’re an imbecile.’]

Wow, imbecile? Did we leap to name calling so quickly?

ANS:
If you don’t believe in God you can’t believe your rights come from God. That’s perfectly logical and to believe the opposite is ridiculous.

If you don’t believe in a God, is it not imbecilic to believe your rights come from God? Since you claim you do not believe in God, to be called an imbecile you would have to believe your rights come from God.

I assume you don’t believe your rights come from God and so the statement didn’t call you an imbecile. An imbecile, in this case, would be one who contradicts himself, viz. believing his rights came from God but not believing in a God.

However, your rash judgment is indicative of your ability to jump to false inappropriate conclusions because of your prejudices and predispositions. They are an obstacle to your objective judgments and reason.

Because of your lack of careful thought and rash judgments, you might reconsider your judgments about God. God is manifested in His Creation, can be demonstrated by reason as did Aristotle, is embedded in our conscience that distinguishes good and evil, and is testified to in the Scriptures and history. God is also manifested in man’s innate yearning for the perfect and ultimate good.

IRT:
“I do NOT believe my rights are god-given. I dno not believe in a god, there, no problem. My rights as an American are outlined in the Constitution. That's all I need.”

ANS:
If your rights are not God given, then they are given by man or government. If they are given by the government, the government can take them away. That’s very ominous and fickle, is it not?

To the contrary, your rights are guaranteed by the Natural Law. There are consequences for breaking the Natural Law, one being AIDS, another is Death of the Unborn.

IRT:
[Are not all the rights stated in the Bill of Rights applicable to every man in the world because we all have the same nature?]

“The bill of rights, for example the right to bear arms, is NOT the natural right of everyone in the world and you know it, same for speech, the press, and religion.”

ANS:
The right to carry arms is a natural right for self-defense. All the rights to. religion, press, and freedom of speech are called inalienable rights. That means they are natural rights that are inviolable. Even the amoral Court admits that, notwithstanding the Founding Fathers.

IRT:
And why do you keep quoting the Dec. of Independence? It is not legally binding.

ANS:
Did your eyes glaze over what was written about the Declaration? That so called “divorce decree,” states why there was a separation. It was based on our natural rights that are endowed by God that were being violated.

Even our amoral Court admitted our Constitution is based on our Judeo Christian heritage (see “Lawrence v. Texas). The Court claims the Founding Fathers were in error. Further, instead of referring to our Constitution the Court relied on the Constitutions embedded in England, Ireland, and the European nations.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADRUNNER
“KNOW THE MORLAL AND RELIGIOUS COMPORT OF YOUR CANDIDATE”

IRT:
Obama contemptuously supports “Roe.” Obama voted three times against protecting a child that survived an abortion, from the abortionist finishing the job.

ACORN and the other radical subversive groups Obama helped fund and trained have an avowed stated purpose to end capitalism and disrupt the social order.

Obama is linked deeply in the ideology of the radical left personified in ACORN. And while America slept, ACORN manipulated the Democrats into bringing down the collapse of our financial system. It’s happened before our very eyes and none of the Dems are the wiser.

ACORN is on the verge of collapsing two very critical organs of our nation’s vitality, the economy, and our election system; and Obama is without question part of this assault. The American majority is being led into oblivion like the Pied Piper leading the blind mice into a state of social suicide .

Moreover, the concept of morality in "Lawrence v. Texas,” is that our traditional moral values, that have sustained our value system since the Founding Fathers inscribed them into the Constitution, have been found to "serve no legitimate purpose to the State.”

The 5th Circuit Court cited “Lawrence” to find for the plaintiff because Texas’ law had been enacted on a moral basis.

“Lawrence,” defined “Liberty” as “the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life...”

Scalia, in dissent
“I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one's "right to define" certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government's power to regulate actions based on one's self-defined "concept of existence, etc.," it is the passage that ate the rule of law.”

We have a Court that will seek any absurdity to write into the Constitution their social engineering irrespective of the Constitution, and Obama agrees with them.

IRS:
“Many countries have modeled their constitutions on the U.S.'s. … The source of ideas is irrelevant.”

ANS:
Just the opposite is true and the source is relevant. Our Courts, for the last some 70 years are modeling our Constitution on the basis of European jurisprudence and the Court ascribes to foreign laws instead of our own.

The majority’s opinion in “Lawrence v. Texas,” said, “… Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case's reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court Of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct.“

The Court majority ignored “stare decisis” and relied on these foreign suppositions as “The English Prohibition,” “The Wolfenden Report,” “Report Of The Committee On Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (1963),” the “English Parliament,” the “European Court Of Human Rights in Northern Ireland, Dudgeon V. United Kingdom, 45 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1981) ¶ ;52. d,” , and the authority in all countries that are members of the “COUNCIL OF EUROPE” (21 nations then, 45 nations now),

Scalia in dissent:
“Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence… because foreign nations decriminalize conduct.

The Court's discussion of these foreign views…
is therefore meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however ..."this Court ... should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans." Foster v. Florida, 537 U. S. 990, n. (2002) (Thomas, J., concurring in denial of certiorari).

IRT:
[Consequently, the Court has invaded the Freedom of Religion and has banned even the mention of God in the Public Square as Church and State entanglement.]

“Oh, you're pi55ed off because you can't build these things on PUBLIC property. Sheesh, why would you even want to?”

ANS: Sorry, it’s not I but you that seems exasperated and disheveled. Christians and Jews have every right to participate in the Public Square and they don’t have to leave their religion in their Temples and Churches.

The Founding Fathers figured it out, viz. no country can sustain the social order that ignores the natural rights of man, and the Church is the guardian of those rights embedded in the Ten Commandments. The progressives haven’t figured it out yet; they think they write the Natural and Moral Laws.

The Left thinks this great nation just happened.

Thus, Scalia writes in “Lawrence,”
“Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some States choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior.” No, they don’t, because man’s rights are endowed by God and not man.

The antagonists don’t think our country is great; they prefer a national socialism of the Godless regimes whose conclusions are witnessed in North Korea, China, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iraq under Saddam, Germany under Hitler, the USSR under Stalin, and Cuba under Castro.

The co-founder of the ACLU, Rodger Baldwin, wanted America to be like the USSR. Since 1963, ACORN, of which Obama was an integral part of, has set goals to overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism, and are about to accomplish it.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADRUNNER
WHY IT IS NECESSARY TO KNOW THE RELIGIOUS AND MORAL COMPORT OF THE CANDIDATES:

IRT:
“How has the freedom of religion been invaded? Can you not pray? Can you not worship in your home, or the house of your lord? Can you not build all the temples, churches, and monuments that you like? Who is stopping you?”

ANS:
I imagine we can build all the monuments, temples, and churches we want, but Christians just don’t live in churches or temples; they live in society. As to monuments, they are being proscribed from the public square as is prayers to God.

Hence, prayers at huddles in football games, basketball games, and at graduation ceremonies are unconstitutional. Some schools have even tried to prevent a child from saying grace before lunch.

Mount Soledad Cross
“A cross has been on the site since 1913 designed by Architect Donald Campbell He designed the present Latin cross in recessed concrete with a twelve-foot arm spread in 1954. Forty-four years later, in 1998.

After the sale by the City of the cross and the land it stands on to the nonprofit Mount Soledad Memorial Association, the cross was transformed into being the centerpiece of a newly erected Korean War Memorial.

Since 1989, the Mt. Soledad Cross has been involved in a continuous litigation regarding its legal status. According to the interpretation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and No Preference Clause of the California Constitution by the opponents of the cross.

It is illegal to display a religious symbol, such as a Christian cross, on public land, as it demonstrates preference to a specific religion and thus violates the separation of church and state.

Judges have sided with plaintiffs on multiple occasions and ruled that the cross is illegal and has to be removed or sold to the highest bidder.”

What’s next? Under that scenario, the crosses that decorate the graves of our fallen military heroes at Arlington cemetery are subject to be removed. Even the prayers at a soldier's military funeral were challenged as entanglement of Church and State.

Moreover, Christians also have a right to go to public schools and not be indoctrinated with anti-religious doctrines as homosexuality being taught as a natural life style, or abortion is morally licit or are taught by Evolution that man is an animal.

Consequently, the ACLU sent down a Black lawyer to defend Evolution and quash any attempts to teach any form of Creationism.

Blacks have been repeatedly scourged and degraded by segregationists who depicted Blacks as monkeys. So here, we have the fatuous inane ACLU, sending a Black lawyer to litigate the Louisiana School Text Book case and defend this scurrilous imposition, that Blacks are animals, placed on Black people by bigoted troglodytes.

As said before, the Constitution is based on our Judeo-Christian heritage. Even our amoral Court has recognized this as it separates morality from civil law and decimates the moral foundation of the Bill of Rights and the underpinnings of our Constitution.

“Lawrence v. Texas” Opinion---
Justice Kennedy;
“The condemnation [gay sex] has been shaped by religious beliefs], conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family.” These traditions and beliefs were based on the Natural Moral Law by the Founding Fathers such as Jefferson and Madison.

Again, Justice Kennedy recognizes the traditional religious impositions inscribed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers.

Kennedy:
“Chief Justice Burger joined the opinion for the Court in Bowers and further explained his views as follows:

"Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards." 478 U. S., at 196.”

Obama has said he supports justices like the Apocalyptic justices on the left of the Court. If you think that isn’t important, and that traditional morality has no standing in Civil Law, as these justices believe, than you support the social suicide of the nation that we are surreptitiously approaching.

We have murdered close to 50 million unborn children. You cursed God as being a child killer. What is this maledicted court’s approval of abortion but the murder of children? Who has fought against this opprobrious depravity more than Christians?

Colorado is about to vote on the definition that the “conceived” is a “person” a human being. That’s not up for a vote; it’s already a reality proven by some of the most eminent Eugenic Scientists in history, if not by common sense, “Roe” decided that a woman was never pregnant with a child; they called it a “thing” and redefined “person.”

Obama contemptuously supports “Roe.” Obama voted three times against a law that would protect a child who survived the attempted murder by the abortionist from continuing the job. That’s absurd and defines Obama.

Of course, that doesn’t mean anything to the radical left or the radical Court. If the Court can redefine “person” they can redefine anything, and we’re waiting on their redefinition of marriage.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADERUNNER
“THE COURT”

IRS:
[That’s the problem, the Court has not upheld the Constitution. It has trespassed on the inviolable of the Right to Life.]

“You're changing the subject. I did not assert that I agreed with all SC decisions or actions, I merely stated that they are NOT beholden to the laws of god, only the constitution of the United States.”

ANS:
I don’t see where I said you subscribed to all the decisions of the Court. What I have said is the Court is violating the inviolable rights guaranteed by our Constitution, and they are doing it with impunity. They have become an oligarchy.

They have done things that are remarkable unbelievable. For one, giving war prisoners Constitutional rights and jury by trial in a Court of American Law. That is a prescription for destroying the Judicial system by overburdening and bankrupting the judicial system.

Most importantly, they have trespassed on the sacred rights of man. It should be unequivocally obvious that the “Roe” decision is a direct assault on the 4th and 5th Amendments. To do so they had to redefined man’s nature. That is the height of absurdity.

IRT:
[The Court has denied the basis on which the Constitution was written, the Natural Moral Law]

“That is gibberish. The Supreme Court's ONLY guideline is the constitution. Natural Moral law may be a source of ideas for the constitution, however they are NOT the constitution.”

ANS:
To the contrary, the Bill of Rights is the compass of the Constitution and the Court is not guided by the Constitution but by their whims. The five justices on the radical left of the Court were not guided by our Constitution but by the constitutions of the European Court in “Lawrence.”

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html

“And, to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case's reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct.”

HERE IS ANOTHER RELIANCE ON FOREIGN LAWS AND NOT OUR CONSTITUTION:

“An adult male resident in Northern Ireland Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, 45 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1981) ¶ ;52. Authoritative in all countries that are members of the Council of Europe”

Beginning in colonial times there were prohibitions of sodomy derived from the English criminal laws passed in the first instance by the Reformation Parliament of 1533.

The English prohibition was understood to include relations between men and women as well as relations between men and men. See, e.g., King v. Wiseman, 92 Eng. Rep. 774, 775 (K. B. 1718) (interpreting "mankind" in Act of 1533 as including women and girls).

It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral.

The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs [and the Natural Moral Law as was done by Thomas Jefferson], conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family.

For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives.

The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and to Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards did not take account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction.” (Ibid)

MORE FOREIGN GUIDANCE THE COURT RELIED ON: TO COUNTERMAND BOWERS A SUPREME COURT PRECEDENCE

“A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing ho nonsexual conduct:. The Wolfenden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (1963). Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations 10 years later. Sexual Offences Act 1967, §1. (LAWRENCE}”

“Of even more importance, almost five years before Bowers was decided the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels to Bowers and to today's case.

An adult male resident in “NORTH IRELAND” alleged he was a practicing homosexual who desired to engage in consensual homosexual conduct. The laws of Northern Ireland forbade him that right. He alleged that he had been questioned, his home had been searched, and he feared criminal prosecution. The court held that the laws proscribing the conduct were invalid…”

The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and to Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards did not take account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction. A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct”—(KENNEDY/ LAWRENCE, (ibid)”.

Does that give you any idea how meaningful the Founding Fathers relied on our Judeo-Christian heritage and how it played in the Constitution’s jurisprudence?

The amoral Court has undermined the whole moral structure of our Constitution and our inalienable rights and sought the views of an amoral precedence set by European Courts.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADRUNNER
“THERE IS A GOD and THE CONSTITUTION IS BASED ON THAT PREMISE.”

IRT:
The 'Declaration of Independence' is not a binding legal document for the people of the United States.

ANS:
Yes, the Declaration is not a binding legal document, but its reiteration of our inalienable rights in the Bill of Rights is. Moreover, the “Declaration” is the purpose for our independence and is said to be one of the most important documents of our Government.

The Bill of Rights are the personification of the Declaration, viz. that man is endowed by certain inviolable rights that do not come under the authority of man, but they are endowed by God.

Although it is not part of the Constitution, it is the basic foundation of our Constitutional law. It states the purpose of the government and justifies the authority of man to overthrow the government if it consistently violates those inalienable rights. There would have been no Constitution if the Bill of Rights hadn’t been approved.

What’s more, the Declaration was approved by all of the Thirteen Colonies and the Second Continental Congress.

http://www.reference.com/search?q=Declaration+of+independence

"The Declaration of Independence is the most important of all American historical documents. It is essentially a partisan document, a justification of the American Revolution presented to the world; but its unique combination of general principles and an abstract theory of government with a detailed enumeration of specific grievances and injustices has given it enduring power as one of the great political documents of the West.” It is the framework for the Constitution.

“After stating its purpose, the opening paragraphs assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory of natural rights.”

Our basic inalienable rights are stated in the Declaration and are recognized and legitimized in the Bill of Rights. The Declaration states the purposes for which we have established this nation’s government; it is the philosophical basis for our independence and existence as a nation.

Things don’t have to be in the Constitution to be binding. Thus, you have the Ninth Amendment that protect man’s natural rights that are not imbedded in the Constitution as one of our enumerated rights.

In addition, the meaning of the word “Liberty,” is not specifically defined in the Constitution but is a paramount idea that frames our human civil rights.

You might notice that “a wall of separation” is not in the Constitution. It was a statement between Thomas Jefferson and a pastor of a Baptist Church and yet it has been incorrectly used as the justification for a wall between Church and State. The Constitution states no such sense of the radical separation the Court has force on the nation.

Thomas Jefferson noted that if not the Church, who should we seek for our moral guidance?

IRT:
["So the voter should be wary of what are the candidates' views of the Ten Commandments. Does the candidate believe in God, and our God given inalienable rights?"]

"Read it [the Preamble] thoroughly, where is god, yours, or anyone else's even mentioned? This nation as defined by the constitution is BY the people, FOR the people."

ANS:
The people are not a government unto themselves, they are a people created by God, and endowed with certain inalienable rights and governed by the Natural Law whose corollary is the Natural Moral Law.

You cannot insure the domestic tranquility promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty when violating the inviolable rights of man.

Hence, the Constitution and the Preamble is based on the prerequisites of the Natural Moral Law.

They assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory of natural rights. Natural Rights are the fundamental principles that are the substructure of all governments.

IRT:
“Our nation is based on the constitution, period. What an individual believes about a god or not is his business.”

ANS:
That’s ridiculous. If your rights are not guaranteed by God, they are under the auspices of man.

You enjoy the rights that you have because the Founding Fathers knew that man’s rights were not based on the whims of man period. One’s natural rights are endowed by God. The Constitution does not give them, God does; it only recognizes them.

The Founding Fathers just didn’t pick these rights out of thin air, they based them on the nature of man. Any thing that violates the nature of man’s inviolable rights cannot be morally justified.

Although these same rights are in the Russian Constitution, they are not inalienable, they are subject to Russian and civil authority. Why America is so unique is these rights have been inviolable and it is unconstitutional for any government to violate them because they are given to man by God through his Natural Law.

On the contrary, the Court, by fiat, has violated these rights with impunity. Moreover, they have redefined the nature of man of which they have no more authority than a mouse in a mouse trap. Such arrogance is absurdity begetting absurdity.

Hence, the Thirteen Colonies signed the Declaration of Independence which stated when a government “consistently” violates these rights it’s not only a right, but a duty for its citizens to overthrow that government and replace it with a nation in accordance to man’s nature.

That’s what differs us from totalitarian and tyrannical nations. These types of nations dictate the rights of man and the consequences have been devastating.

They have led to Fascism, Socialism, and Communism based on a religion of materialism that denies God’s existence. Their inevitable failures are historically consistent and have fostered nothing but stark desolation and bleakness.

The tranquility of the social order is in direct proportion to its adherence to the Natural Moral Law.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADRUNNER
“WHOSE GOD ARE YOU SPEAKING OF”

IRT:
"The court is only sworn in to uphold the constitution of the United States, not your jealous, egotistical, vengeful, and child-murdering god.”

ANS:
I wonder, if you don’t believe in God, how do you know God is egotistical, vengeful, and a child-murdering God? What children is God murdering?

Somebody, apparently has been feeding you full of baloney. And, why should it matter to you since He is non-existent? What troubles you is that He does exists or you wouldn’t be so frustrated.

Moreover, what ever you’ve been told, I think you have your gods mixed up. My God is no murder of children that would be an oxymoron; He creates children. Maybe you have the wrong god, Baal, or some other pagan gods like the Carthaginian or Phoenician gods. Irrespectively, since God is the giver of all life, what He gives He can take back.

My God is no one you’ve described. My God created man out of His love for man. and God gave man all the wonders and beauties of the world. He gave man dominion over the whole Universe and made man for eternal happiness in Paradise.

Therefore, it is written, John 14:2 –“In my Father’s house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you."

Thus, God’s word is written in Genesis 26cf: “And God said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God, he created him: male and female he created them.

And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

“And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.” That’s pretty awesome. Where's the vengeance?

“And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good.”

It is written that no man can love another more than one who gives up his life for another. God loved man so much that when man was tempted by Satan and fell from the graces of God, God gave His only Son up, to an ignominious death on the Cross that man’s relationship with God be restored so that man may not suffer eternal death.

Therefore it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him," 1Cor 2: 9.

However, there is a corollary to those who reject the love of God. “You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?—-Mt 23:33" What is often characterized as God’s vengeance is God’s Justice.

Unfortunately, there are many foolish people who refuse to believe in God and choose Hell because they think they are their own God. They make their own laws and their own morality contrary to God’s Natural and Moral Laws of which they deny exists (1 Corinthians 10:6-14).

Regrettably, Lucifer, who was the “Light of Heaven,” thought he was greater than is God. Thus, Satan, as do those who refuse to believe in God, made a very big mistake. “Satan fell from the skies like a bolt of lightening into the pits of eternal fire”—Luke 10:17-24” It’s called Hell, and there is one whether you believe it or not.—Revelation 9:1-12.

When God created man, He made man perfect, but Satan seduced man; he bribes the foolish who succumb to his facade that there is no God.

Consequently, Adam disobeyed God and sin entered into the world under the auspices of pain, suffering, and death. Moreover, the intellect became subject to error. Death entered by Adam's disobedience.

That wasn’t God’s original plan, but man changed it on his own. Hence, in John 8:24, Jesus said, “For if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sin.”

Further, “…woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born—Mt 26:24.”

All evil is a lack of good. God is All-Good, All Loving, All Merciful, but He is also Justice. Hence, what is called God’s vengeance is God’s Justice. God, by definition, and by His Essence and His Existence that are the same, can do no evil.

Who are really killing children? As a nation, are we not the ones that have murdered nearly 50 million unborn children by Abortion, and worldwide, hasn’t man murdered some billion unborn?

Are we not experimenting on embryos that are human? Since you are worried about the murdering of children, you surely must not be a pro-abortionist or condone embryonic stem-cell research, right?

To support such ignominy would be be facetious. If you are sincerely worried about children, vote to stop infanticide and abortion, vote McCain.

stephanemot : "Back then, Palin already used canned answers to dodge the key issues : "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum"

If you look at the core of the proposition, it means : stop making this teaching illegal, leave it up to the teacher.

Palin is not a closet evolutionist : she is a hardcore theocon, but a careful one. After the publication of the Discovery Institute's Wedge document, no politician can promote ID without risking his/her career.

Palin perfectly illustrate the new creationist agenda : we have taken into account the failure of our Intelligent Design imposture, and we understand that we cannot be too pushy these days, but our priority is to make sure some door is somewhat opened for the next waves.

The only evolution Palin will ever accept is from democracy to theocracy." October 4, 2008 8:23 PM

Brakes tapered with, statetrooper report completed, keep building my case, thanks

"ANS:
That’s the problem, the Court has not upheld the Constitution. It has trespassed on the inviolable of the Right to Life."

You're changing the subject. I did not assert that I agreed with all SC decisions or actions, I merely stated that they are NOT beholden to the laws of god, only the constitution of the United States.

"The Court has denied the basis on which the Constitution was written, the Natural Moral Law"

That is gibberish. The Supreme Court's ONLY guideline is the constitution. Natural Moral law may be a source of ideas for the constitution, however they are NOT the constitution. Many countries have modeled their constitutions on the U.S.'s. They are however all independent documents not beholden to the U.S. constitution. The source of ideas is irrelevent.

"Consequently, the Court has invaded the Freedom of Religion and has banned even the mention of God in the Public Square as Church and State entanglement"

How has the freedom of religion been invaded? Can you not pray? Can you not worship in your home, or the house of your lord? Can you not build all the temples, churches and monuments that you like? Who is stopping you?
Oh, you're pi55ed off because you can't build these things on PUBLIC property. Sheesh, why would you even want to?
Public (gvmnt) property is NOT YOURS. It is everyone's No one gets to put one and only one version of religion on public property. Because THEY DON'T OWN IT!

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADRUNNER
MORALITY IS NOT UNIVERSAL?

IRT:
[Recently, the Court has usurped the authority of God]

"The court is only sworn in to uphold the constitution of the United States, not your jealous, egotistical, vengeful, and child-murdering god.”

ANS:
That’s the problem, the Court has not upheld the Constitution. It has trespassed on the inviolable of the Right to Life.

Consequently, the Court with no authority, has redefined the human person in order to murder the unborn legally. Hence, the Court legalized murder and violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the inviolable right that secures the sacred nature of human life.

The Court has denied the basis on which the Constitution was written, the Natural Moral Law, and in “Lawrence” wrote immorality into the Constitution as a legal Constitution right while banning traditional morality as a basis for all Civil Law.

Further, the Court has compromised the “Freedom of Speech Clause” by limiting the right to the Freedom of Political Speech by agreeing with the Congressional legislation limiting political speech in "McCain Feingold."

Consequently, the Court has invaded the Freedom of Religion and has banned even the mention of God in the Public Square as Church and State entanglement.

It has defied God and banned the fundamental basis for Civil Law, “The Ten Commandments” from the Public Square though the Commandments are displayed on the entrance doors to the Court and on the East pediment of the Court building.

The Court has banned the display of the Crèche in the public square though the nation and government has expressly recognized its celebration.

Moreover, the Court has violated the Fifth Article of the Constitution by writing law instead of interpreting it.

Again, the Court has recently trespassed on the Right of “Eminent Domain.” Now the meaning of “Eminent Domain” not only relies on the common good of the State but on the good of private business.

Finally, the Court in all its audacity has redefined the nature of man. That is like the Court proscribing that fish not be allowed to swim in water, or making it illegal for man to eat, or walk, or talk. No Court has any authority over the Natural Law no matter how arrogant they become.

"The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator"

Oh I'm sorry, you are talking about marriage as it relates to the religious definition. I thought we were talking about the government license that enables people to share propery, speak on another's behalf and get a tax break. 'Marriage' is not one thing in the U.S. it is TWO things. I don't personally care what any church says marrige is, I didn't get married in a church anyhow, I went to the courthouse and got a judge to sign the license. I didn't pray or anything. What you do within your own religious organizations is fine by me, just leave me out of it.

"Try thinking before you jump to such an irrational contradictory assertion. The statement is TOTALLY true, not TOTALLY incorrect. You cannot believe your rights are God given and not believe in God unless you’re an imbecile."

Wow, imbecile? Did we leap to name calling so quickly?
I do NOT believe my rights are god-given. I dno not believe in a god, there, no problem. My rights as an American are outlined in the Constitution. That's all I need.

"Are not all the rights stated in the Bill of Rights applicable to every man in the world because we all have the same nature?"

The bill of rights, for example the right to bear arms, is NOT the natural right of everyone in the world and you know it, same for speech, the press, and religion. We in the U.S. are guaranied these things because we established our nation on this platform. Other nations do not see our 'rights' the same way. therefore these rights are relative to time/place/culture.

And why do you keep quoting the Dec. of Independence? It is not legally binding. It was a grand and fancy divorce decree. When it came time to actually define and build the framework of our nation we drew up and ratified a new founding document, the Constitution. You know, the one that never mentions god.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADRUNNER
MORALITY IS NOT UNIVERSAL?

IRT:
["we are on the verge of redefining Marriage that secures the basic moral structure of all societies, the family."]

“Really? Marriage has differing definitions in many societies. The U.S. which still clings to the notion of '1 man + 1 woman only' can boast about a 50% divorce rate.. I don't suppose that helps the 'basic moral structure' all that much.

ANS:
"The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children."

Marriage can have many different definitions but that doesn’t make them right. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. God made man and woman to compliment themselves with each other and to bring forth the fruits of their love for each other children.

Since man is by nature a social being, he is under the regime of the Natural & Natural Moral Laws (N&NML), else he acts against his human nature.

“The N&NML is in consonance with the Sacred Scripture that begins with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God and concludes with a vision of "the wedding-feast of the Lamb."

Scripture speaks throughout of marriage and its "mystery," its institution and the meaning God has given it, its origin and its end, its various realizations throughout the history of man, the difficulties arising from sin and its renewal."

Marriage in the order of creation

"The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws viz. N&NML.

God himself is the author of marriage. The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes.

These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures.

"The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."

God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.

Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes.

And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"91

Holy Scripture, as does the N&NML, affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone." The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.

"Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

After the fall of man from the graces of God, marriage helps to overcome self-absorption, egoism, pursuit of one's own pleasure, and to open oneself to the other, to mutual aid and to self-giving.

Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will.

It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility.

In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.

The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses' community of persons, which embraces their entire life: "so they are no longer two, but one flesh." They "are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving." This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in God, given through the sacrament of Matrimony

Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive. By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement "until further notice."

The "intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them."

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves.

God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning [he] made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply."

Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children. In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.

Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
GLADRUNNER
"MORALITY IS NOT UNIVERSAL?"

IRT:
[If one doesn’t believe in God, he can’t believe our rights are God given, and that is ominously destructive to our nation ]

“Totally incorrect. I know what my rights are according to the constitution. They are spelled out. I do not need to believe in your god to either understand them, or put on a uniform to defend them, any more than I need your god's signature on speed limit signs.”

ANS:
Try thinking before you jump to such an irrational contradictory assertion. The statement is TOTALLY true, not TOTALLY incorrect. You cannot believe your rights are God given and not believe in God unless you’re an imbecile.

As to your rights, they are spelled out in the Constitution. But they are based on the Natural Law (NL) from which the Natural Moral Law (NML) flows and it is based on man’s human nature. Every creature in the Universe, with the exception of man, must act according to its nature. If it didn’t a fish could act like a tree, or a tree could act like an ocean, etc.

The Declaration of Independence:
“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Do you deny this?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident:”—The Declaraion.

Do you deny these truths below are self-evident? If you don’t, then they are universal and applicable to all men. Are not all the rights stated in the Bill of Rights applicable to every man in the world because we all have the same nature?

The NML guarantees these rights, and when they are violated, societies all over the world suffer the consequences. Thusly, when the rights of man, mandated by the NML, are violated, the NL reacts with retribution and vengeance.

For example, “gay sex,” is punished by AIDS, “illicit sex” is reciprocated by STDs, adultery advances the destruction of marriage, and suppression of our inviolable rights summons up, rebellion, insurrection, and revolt against the suppressors.

If you deny these rights and believe that your rights are relative, then you’ve just made your rights vulnerable to every dictator on earth. Hence, a dictator’s view of rights is just as legitimate as yours are.

Therefore, you have no right to force your morals on them, might replaces right, and morality becomes a whimsical matter of opinion. Thus, if one believes he has a right to steal, lie, or murder some one, or burn down his neighbor’s house, that’s his right because you’ve rendered immorality meaningless by making morality whatever you believe viz. relative.

This is personified in those nations who believe man is the giver of rights and not God. Thus, we have the opprobrious totalitarian ignominious governments that the NL, in restitution, rains down on them the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Famine, Death, Pestilence, and War.

You might check out the nations who don’t believe in a theodicy but in an anthropocentric world that evolves around man only, viz. China, Russia, the Congo, and North Korea. The calamities that have pursued these nations are unequivocally tragic.

A nation’s success is measured in proportion to its accordance to the NML embedded in our Judeo-Christian heritage and inscribed by the Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights. That is verified by the fruits such belief produces. America’s greatness, is caused by its adherence to the NML

Further, try contrasting North Korea to South Korea. The former is an atheist nation, the latter is a nation that recognizes the universal NML. A stark contrast can be made between West Germany and East Germany, an atheist nation. East Germany was a devastated catastrophe.

Unquestionably, there are universal moral laws that every man is endowed with, irrespective of what ever you think. Namely, murder, lying, and stealing are violations of the NML. No society can countenance their legality because they violate the natural rights of all men and all society and the consequences in violating them are disastrous.

1.“That all men are created equal;”—The Declaration

Are all men created equal and have equal rights? If you believe that, then that means all men have the same nature and have the same rights which is a testimony to the NML

If you don’t believe all men are equal, then you believe that all men are not equal, viz. in dignity and self-worth. You then have a society, as we do in India, where there is a cast system, and a country that is plagued by volatile social disorder. Moreover, under that regime you could justify slavery.

2. “That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;”—The Declaration.

Do you deny that? If you do, then man, a.k.a. government, has a right to deny your rights. If man gives you these rights, and not God, man can justly taking them away. In the Godless nations, the people who think like that are tyrants like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot. They all were obvious examples of those who denied there was a God and the NML. They made their own moral laws.

In addition, you’ve unwittingly subscribed to the theory that “might makes right.”

3. “…that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it “—The Declaration.

Hence, another testimony that these rights are universal and not given by man but by God.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1:
"If one doesn’t believe in God, he can’t believe our rights are God given, and that is ominously destructive to our nation "

Totally incorrect. I know what my rights are according to the constitution. They are spelled out. I do not need to believe in your god to either understand them, or put on a uniform to defend them, any more than I need your god's signature on speed limit signs.

"Morality, though it overlaps into religion, it is not only a religious belief but also a secular one"

Morality is not universal. Therefore it is relative. there is no universally accepted 'natural moral law' That is a man-made concept that is neither 'natural' nor 'law'.
"we are on the verge of redefining Marriage that secures the basic moral structure of all societies, the family."
Really? Marriage has differing definitions in many societies. The U.S. which still clings to the notion of '1 man + 1 woman only' can boast about a 50% divorce rate.. I don't suppose that helps the 'basic moral structure' all that much.
"Recently, the Court has usurped the authority of God"
The court is only sworn in to uphold the constitution of the United States, not your jealous, egotistical, vengeful and child-murdering god.

"corrupted the purpose of the Preamble, the Declaration, and the Constitution."
The 'Declaration of Independence' is not a binding legal document for the people of the United States.
"So the voter should be wary of what are the candidates' views of the Ten Commandments. Does the candidate believe in God, and our God given inalienable rights"
Or does he swear to uphold, protect and defend the constitution? This is what the job actually entails.

'We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'

Read it thoroughly, where is god, yours or anyone else's even mentioned? This nation as defined by the constitution is BY the people, FOR the people.

"However, our nation is based on Judeo-Christian Heritage. Our inalienable rights are based on these rights being given by God and they are therefore inviolable"
Our nation is based on the constitution, period. What an individual believes about a god or not is his business. Our founding fathers started this country to be different from the ones they fled. They came here to escape the evil that was the church-state. They chose to build a country where each person could worship, or not, as they chose without having a king, or president forcing them to suffer under the tyranny of an unaccountable religious institution.

IN REPLY TO “NO FAITH QUESTIONS:”

If one has a radical faith, as do the terrorists have, it is proper to understand what candidates believe. However, our nation is based on Judeo-Christian Heritage. Our inalienable rights are based on these rights being given by God and they are therefore inviolable.

If man has authority over your human rights, than he also has the authority to rescind them. We have a Court that has just denied the bases for our Civil Rights, Traditional Morality.

If one doesn’t believe in God, he can’t believe our rights are God given, and that is ominously destructive to our nation and a direct contradiction of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution that recognizes these inviolable rights. Man does not give them they are endowed by God.

Moreover, we are not just speaking of religious rituals and the dogmas of a religion; religion also defends the sanctity of man, viz. the moral decorum of humanity.

Consequently, the “Ten Commandments” are the inherent standards for the Natural Moral Law (NML). They are both religious and secular precepts of society.

Morality, though it overlaps into religion, it is not only a religious belief but also a secular one. However, they are not the same “per se.”

Subsequently, man has a free will to choose what religion he wishes to believe, or not to believe at all. But, when it comes to morality, man doesn’t have a choice; he must act according to the Natural Moral Law or suffer the dire consequences.

The consequences of ignoring the NML are devastating. God not man determines the NML that flows from the Natural Law (NL) which is authored by God. The consequences of ignoring the NML is personified in the Godless countries of China, Russia, and the Congo. They foster the belief in Communism, Fascism, and Socialism. Further, the consequences of a false god is manifested in the Middle East and the Far East where turmoil prevails as the common sense of the day.

Recently, the Court has usurped the authority of God, and replaced the moral guidance of the Bible with the Constitution. It then maligned the Constitution by writing immorality into it as a Constitutional right. The Court isolated the meaning of “Liberty,” and “Privacy” from the NML and corrupted the purpose of the Preamble, the Declaration, and the Constitution.

The Court, in “Roe v. Wade,” redefined the nature of man to circumvent the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Bill of Rights. Hence, the Court knew that man, according to the Fourth Amend., has a right to be secure in his own “person,” and a right to life in the Declaration and Fifth Amendment.

Consequently, the Court claimed the unborn were not “persons,” and nearly 50 million unborn have been slaughtered because of it. Further, we are on the verge of redefining Marriage that secures the basic moral structure of all societies, the family.

The Court has no more authority to redefine man then it has to proscribe it is illegal for the sun to shine, to declare it is illegal to rain, or for man not to eat.

So the voter should be wary of what are the candidates' views of the Ten Commandments. Does the candidate believe in God, and our God given inalienable rights?

The Court has trespassed on our inviolable rights, viz. the Right to Life, the Freedom of Religion. It has even compromised the Freedom of Speech, and in “Lawrence,” has thrown out tradition morality as the standard for our Civil Laws, while legalizing “gay sex” as a Constitutional right.

Obama supports these ignominious justices and that is important to know because he would put your inalienable rights in jeopardy by appointing similar Justices.

Obama supports “gay marriage,” and “infanticide”; he refused three times to vote for a bill that would protect a poor child that survived a botched abortion. Obama visited Iraq and asked them not to let Bush withdraw troops from Iraq until Obama wins the election. Not only does he have no respect for the unborn, he has no respect for our military when he plays politics with their lives.

Moreover, he has no respect for the Iraqi people. He voted several times to undermine the Iraq war by not funding it while we were in combat, and he attempted to withdraw our troops in the middle of the war.

When a nation, a Court, and a candidate claims he believes in God but acts contrary to the NL and the NML, he has a right to run for president, but the nation has a duty to not elect him. We’ve barely survived Clinton; we may not survive another Clinton in Obama who pretends to recognize God and defies his NML.

DCWCA: "Atheists, being atheists, cannot fathom, in this vast universe which they cannot explain the ins and outs of completely, that they are also a created thing, just as their human capicity can create and be creative. It is a limited mindset that denies that, yet sees themselves as all knowing and intelligent with regard to this age-old situation."

You can not explain the universe either, other that 'god did it' You do not know how he did it, therefore you cannot explain the ins and outs of it any more than I.

I am not and do not claim to be all-knowing. Quite the contrary, it is the religious that claim to have all the answers. Not only 'god did it' but you know exactly, specifically which god did it.
'cannot fathom... they are a created thing'
Of course we can fathom that mommy and daddy created me by combining their DNA. That's not hard to fathom at all.

CounterWW

Excellent point. Atheists, being atheists, cannot fathom, in this vast universe which they cannot explain the ins and outs of completely, that they are also a created thing, just as their human capicity can create and be creative. It is a limited mindset that denies that, yet sees themselves as all knowing and intelligent with regard to this age-old situation.

Atheists, being atheists, cannot fathom a greater power than themselves. It is easy to deny God when you make yourself smarter than everyone else in your own self deceived brain.

Universities are also teeming with believers my friend. You ought to seek them out and get a different, positive, and un-skewed opinion about life in general. Yours is way off the mark.

Politicians, being politicians, choose what religion to be aligned with - for political reasons.
Many of them are too smart to believe in the SkyGod and the Kingdom of Heaven. Universities are teeming with agnostics and atheists.
But it's easy to pretend to be God-fearing if God-fearing people are highly admired - even if you know there aren't any Gods to fear.
That's a small hurdle when running for office.
Just lie. Or you'll NEVER get elected.

Politicians, being politicians, choose what religion to be aligned with - for political reasons.
Many of them are too smart to believe in the SkyGod and the Kingdom of Heaven. Universities are teeming with agnostics and atheists.
But it's easy to pretend to be God-fearing if God-fearing people are highly admired - even if you know there aren't any Gods to fear.
That's a small hurdle when running for office.
Just lie. Or you'll NEVER get elected.

Politicians, being politicians, choose what religion to be aligned with - for political reasons.
Many of them are too smart to believe in the SkyGod and the Kingdom of Heaven. Universities are teeming with agnostics and atheists.
But it's easy to pretend to be God-fearing if God-fearing people are highly admired - even if you know there aren't any Gods to fear.
That's a small hurdle when running for office.
Just lie. Or you'll NEVER get elected.

Politicians, being politicians, choose what religion to be aligned with - for political reasons.
Many of them are too smart to believe in the SkyGod and the Kingdom of Heaven. Universities are teeming with agnostics and atheists.
But it's easy to pretend to be God-fearing if God-fearing people are highly admired - even if you know there aren't any Gods to fear.
That's a small hurdle when running for office.
Just lie. Or you'll NEVER get elected.