Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

The US Constitution comes from Greek philosophy, not the Bible.

AgEngDawg

Legendary
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
8,997
So, we all die and his words live on? No they won't. How? See, THAT'S crazy! This guy wants some dark age feudalism that erases the US from history.
Our entire enternal destiny is based on whether we put our faith in Jesus Christ. That is for everyone in the world.

Also, just to blow your mind, guess what? This world is disposable. It will be burned up one day and replaced.

As one of my favorite Pastors says, you think Global Warming is bad, wait until you see what God does with it.

So to sum up, we need to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
 

Zolton

Poster
Joined
Jul 11, 2023
Messages
89
Our entire enternal destiny is based on whether we put our faith in Jesus Christ. That is for everyone in the world.

Also, just to blow your mind, guess what? This world is disposable. It will be burned up one day and replaced.

As one of my favorite Pastors says, you think Global Warming is bad, wait until you see what God does with it.

So to sum up, we need to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Global temperatures go up, then CO2 rises after the oceans warm, years later. It's all lies. We need to save America so we don't have to believe what anyone tells us.
 

Liquid Reigns

Poster
Joined
Oct 31, 2023
Messages
198
But it has nothing to do with the US Constitution, whereas Plato, Aristotle, etc. have everything to do with it. The founding fathers expressly kept religion out of it. Everyone knows this and are not being honest, which is treasonous at this time. Communist and Christian suppression and distortion of the truth are both treasonous.
That was the point, I agree the founding documents of the US are secular in nature derived via philosophers and the Enlightenment (John Locke, etc.). The Bible is a book of old myths and passed down stories, the people that think it is infallible or the actual word of Gods(since there is more than one God referenced in the Bible). I don't know that they are treasonous, but communists definitely are, Christians...there are too many differing view points in, and very few will exclaim the US was founded on Christian ideals. Only person on this site that makes the claim that the US was founded as a Christian Nation is the resister, and he's simply fukn nuttrs.
 
Last edited:

TheResister

Elite
Joined
Sep 22, 2023
Messages
884
I am making sense. You are paid by the US Government to disrupt. You are a traitor.

EVERY time on this board someone disagrees on a subject they call the other guy a traitor, fed or faggot. You need some new material.

The first time that separation of church and state was mentioned was in a private letter to the Danbury Baptists. At that time the churches were providing an education to the children. Therefore, in the context that letter was written, Jefferson was promising the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would never interfere in the task of educating the children. It means exactly 180 degrees opposite of what you argue and the phraseology cannot be found in any official federal document of the founding or framing periods outside that private letter - which, BTW has NO legal authority.
 

Liquid Reigns

Poster
Joined
Oct 31, 2023
Messages
198
EVERY time on this board someone disagrees on a subject they call the other guy a traitor, fed or faggot. You need some new material.

The first time that separation of church and state was mentioned was in a private letter to the Danbury Baptists. At that time the churches were providing an education to the children. Therefore, in the context that letter was written, Jefferson was promising the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would never interfere in the task of educating the children. It means exactly 180 degrees opposite of what you argue and the phraseology cannot be found in any official federal document of the founding or framing periods outside that private letter - which, BTW has NO legal authority.

Claim 1: "The first time that separation of church and state was mentioned was in a private letter to the Danbury Baptists."​

Analysis:

  • Accurate: The phrase "separation of church and state" was indeed popularized by Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. In this letter, Jefferson wrote about the "wall of separation between Church & State."

Claim 2: "At that time the churches were providing an education to the children."​

Analysis:

  • Accurate but Misleading: During the early 19th century, many schools were run by religious organizations, but the role of churches in education varied by region. The claim is partially accurate but does not fully capture the broader context of education during that period, which included both religious and secular influences.

Claim 3: "In the context that letter was written, Jefferson was promising the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would never interfere in the task of educating the children."​

Analysis:

  • Inaccurate: Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists did not specifically address education. The primary purpose of the letter was to reassure the Baptists that the federal government would not establish a national religion or interfere with religious practices. The context was broader, focusing on religious freedom and the protection of religious practice from government intervention.

Claim 4: "It means exactly 180 degrees opposite of what you argue and the phraseology cannot be found in any official federal document of the founding or framing periods outside that private letter - which, BTW has NO legal authority."​

Analysis:

  • Partially Accurate but Misleading:
    • Accurate: The exact phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution or other founding documents. It is derived from Jefferson’s letter.
    • Misleading: While the letter itself has no legal authority, the principle of separation of church and state has been inferred from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the government ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").
    • Relevance: Jefferson's letter has been referenced in Supreme Court decisions, most notably in Reynolds v. United States (1878), indicating that while the letter itself is not law, its interpretation of the First Amendment has had a significant influence on legal thought.

Rebuttal:​

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is often cited as an explanation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which is the basis for the principle of separation of church and state. While it is true that the exact phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, the concept is deeply embedded in American jurisprudence.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the separation of church and state as a constitutional principle. For example, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court stated, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable."

Furthermore, Jefferson's intent in his letter was to assure that religious liberty would be protected from government interference, not specifically to address education. The idea that the federal government would not interfere with religious practices, including education provided by religious institutions, aligns with the broader principle of religious freedom but does not limit the application of separation to education alone.

In summary, while Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists is not a legally binding document, it reflects a foundational interpretation of the First Amendment. The separation of church and state is a well-established constitutional doctrine that has been affirmed through numerous Supreme Court rulings.
 

Golbez

Poster
Joined
Mar 12, 2024
Messages
235
You have guns because you might NOT turn the other cheek or love your enemy. Is there something about checks and balances or democracy in the Bible that I missed? Decentralizing the power structure? Are people brainwashed on all sides?
Newsflash genius. You live in an oligarchy not a democracy. Take the red pill and welcome to the real world.
 

Zolton

Poster
Joined
Jul 11, 2023
Messages
89
I know there are a lot of posters here all the time with US military backgrounds that jump in with insane bullshit if you start to undermine their brainwashing. Who's paying you exactly? There are people with nothing to lose coming straight for your throat from a long way off out of nowhere. Do you know what the Romans did to traitors? Do you know what everyone has always done to traitors? You can't stay safe.
 

TheResister

Elite
Joined
Sep 22, 2023
Messages
884

Claim 1: "The first time that separation of church and state was mentioned was in a private letter to the Danbury Baptists."​

Analysis:

  • Accurate: The phrase "separation of church and state" was indeed popularized by Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. In this letter, Jefferson wrote about the "wall of separation between Church & State."

Claim 2: "At that time the churches were providing an education to the children."​

Analysis:

  • Accurate but Misleading: During the early 19th century, many schools were run by religious organizations, but the role of churches in education varied by region. The claim is partially accurate but does not fully capture the broader context of education during that period, which included both religious and secular influences.

Claim 3: "In the context that letter was written, Jefferson was promising the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would never interfere in the task of educating the children."​

Analysis:

  • Inaccurate: Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists did not specifically address education. The primary purpose of the letter was to reassure the Baptists that the federal government would not establish a national religion or interfere with religious practices. The context was broader, focusing on religious freedom and the protection of religious practice from government intervention.

Claim 4: "It means exactly 180 degrees opposite of what you argue and the phraseology cannot be found in any official federal document of the founding or framing periods outside that private letter - which, BTW has NO legal authority."​

Analysis:

  • Partially Accurate but Misleading:
    • Accurate: The exact phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution or other founding documents. It is derived from Jefferson’s letter.
    • Misleading: While the letter itself has no legal authority, the principle of separation of church and state has been inferred from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the government ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").
    • Relevance: Jefferson's letter has been referenced in Supreme Court decisions, most notably in Reynolds v. United States (1878), indicating that while the letter itself is not law, its interpretation of the First Amendment has had a significant influence on legal thought.

Rebuttal:​

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is often cited as an explanation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which is the basis for the principle of separation of church and state. While it is true that the exact phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, the concept is deeply embedded in American jurisprudence.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the separation of church and state as a constitutional principle. For example, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court stated, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable."

Furthermore, Jefferson's intent in his letter was to assure that religious liberty would be protected from government interference, not specifically to address education. The idea that the federal government would not interfere with religious practices, including education provided by religious institutions, aligns with the broader principle of religious freedom but does not limit the application of separation to education alone.

In summary, while Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists is not a legally binding document, it reflects a foundational interpretation of the First Amendment. The separation of church and state is a well-established constitutional doctrine that has been affirmed through numerous Supreme Court rulings.

Your rebuttal was VERY lacking. You admit that the United States Supreme Court found a separation of church and state in 1947. That is 158 years AFTER the ratification of the Constitution! Funny, no prior court, no legal authority and no document ever inferred such a doctrine prior to that. Furthermore, in Everson there is no citation to ANY prior case, statute or court document save of an out of context sentence written in a private communication. You cannot cite that situation in any other United States Supreme Court decision.

Religious Liberty you admit as well. There is no separation FROM church and state in Jefferson's writing... not specific and not inferred. If you have religious Liberty, then the church was protected in teaching children Christian principles from the New England Primer which was first published in 1687 and remained the primary textbook for schools for 150 years. Fact is, it was in use when Jefferson went to school. As a politician he never advocated that the practice would be stopped. You're being dishonest or you are just plain ignorant on that point.
 

TheResister

Elite
Joined
Sep 22, 2023
Messages
884
"In a now-famous study published in the American Political Science Review on the influence of European writers on the political literature of the founding, Donald S. Lutz reported that the Bible was cited more frequently than any European writer or even any European school of thought. The Bible, he found, accounted for approximately one-third of the citations in the literature he surveyed. The book of Deuteronomy alone was the most frequently cited work, followed by Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, the most cited secular source. In fact, Deuteronomy was referenced nearly twice as often as Locke’s writings, and the Apostle Paul was mentioned about as frequently as Montesquieu."

 

Liquid Reigns

Poster
Joined
Oct 31, 2023
Messages
198
Your rebuttal was VERY lacking. You admit that the United States Supreme Court found a separation of church and state in 1947. That is 158 years AFTER the ratification of the Constitution! Funny, no prior court, no legal authority and no document ever inferred such a doctrine prior to that. Furthermore, in Everson there is no citation to ANY prior case, statute or court document save of an out of context sentence written in a private communication. You cannot cite that situation in any other United States Supreme Court decision.

Religious Liberty you admit as well. There is no separation FROM church and state in Jefferson's writing... not specific and not inferred. If you have religious Liberty, then the church was protected in teaching children Christian principles from the New England Primer which was first published in 1687 and remained the primary textbook for schools for 150 years. Fact is, it was in use when Jefferson went to school. As a politician he never advocated that the practice would be stopped. You're being dishonest or you are just plain ignorant on that point.
Let's address the claims made in the latest response from "The Resister" for accuracy and provide a thorough rebuttal.

Claim 1: "The United States Supreme Court found a separation of church and state in 1947. That is 158 years AFTER the ratification of the Constitution! Funny, no prior court, no legal authority and no document ever inferred such a doctrine prior to that."

Analysis:

  • Accurate but Misleading: The landmark 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education did indeed explicitly articulate the separation of church and state. However, the principle itself has deeper historical roots. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") inherently implies a degree of separation, preventing the government from endorsing or supporting a particular religion. Jefferson's letter was first used in Reynolds v. United States (1878), indicating that while the letter itself is not law, its interpretation of the First Amendment has had a significant influence on legal thought.

Claim 2: "In Everson there is no citation to ANY prior case, statute or court document save of an out of context sentence written in a private communication."

Analysis:

  • Inaccurate: While Everson did prominently reference Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, it was not the only source considered. The decision also cited other historical contexts and precedents that underscored the principle of religious freedom and non-establishment, Reynolds v. United States (1878) as just one example. The Court’s interpretation was influenced by a broader understanding of the First Amendment.

Claim 3: "Religious Liberty you admit as well. There is no separation FROM church and state in Jefferson's writing... not specific and not inferred."

Analysis:

  • Inaccurate: Jefferson’s letter explicitly mentions a "wall of separation between Church & State," which is a clear statement of the principle. This phrase is widely understood as advocating for a separation that ensures religious liberty by preventing government interference in religious matters.

Claim 4: "The church was protected in teaching children Christian principles from the New England Primer which was first published in 1687 and remained the primary textbook for schools for 150 years."

Analysis:

  • Accurate but Misleading: The New England Primer was indeed a primary textbook and was used to teach Christian principles. However, this historical fact does not negate the principle of separation of church and state. Education in early America did often involve religious instruction, but the evolution of public education and the interpretation of the First Amendment over time led to a clearer delineation between religious and public spheres.

Claim 5: "As a politician, [Jefferson] never advocated that the practice would be stopped."

Analysis:

  • Accurate: Jefferson did not explicitly advocate for the cessation of religious instruction in schools during his political career. However, his advocacy for religious freedom and his opposition to government-established religion laid the groundwork for the separation principle.

Rebuttal:

The principle of separation of church and state, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson and later upheld by the Supreme Court, ensures that the government cannot establish, support, or interfere with religious institutions. This principle is derived from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prevents the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion."

While the explicit articulation of this principle by the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education occurred in 1947, the roots of this interpretation extend back to the founding of the United States. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was intended to prevent government entanglement with religion, which is inherently a separation principle. Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists provides a clear and historically significant articulation of this intent.

Furthermore, the claim that Everson lacks citations to prior cases or statutes is incorrect. The Court's decision drew on historical contexts and prior interpretations of the First Amendment. The decision was not based solely on Jefferson’s letter but on a broader understanding of constitutional principles.

The use of religious texts like the New England Primer in early American education reflects historical practices but does not undermine the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. As public education evolved, so too did the understanding that public schools should remain secular to ensure religious freedom for all students.

In conclusion, the separation of church and state is a well-established constitutional doctrine grounded in the First Amendment, articulated by Jefferson, and affirmed by the Supreme Court. This principle protects religious liberty by ensuring that government does not interfere with or support religious institutions, thereby maintaining a clear boundary between church and state.
 
Last edited:

Liquid Reigns

Poster
Joined
Oct 31, 2023
Messages
198
"In a now-famous study published in the American Political Science Review on the influence of European writers on the political literature of the founding, Donald S. Lutz reported that the Bible was cited more frequently than any European writer or even any European school of thought. The Bible, he found, accounted for approximately one-third of the citations in the literature he surveyed. The book of Deuteronomy alone was the most frequently cited work, followed by Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, the most cited secular source. In fact, Deuteronomy was referenced nearly twice as often as Locke’s writings, and the Apostle Paul was mentioned about as frequently as Montesquieu."

Lutz's research on the influence of the Bible and other religious texts on the political literature of the American founding era provides valuable insights into the intellectual context of the time. However, this does not alter the fundamentally secular nature of the founding documents. The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are rooted in Enlightenment principles and are designed to establish a government that ensures religious freedom and the separation of church and state.


Lutz identifies the Bible as one source of influence on the founders, he also recognizes actual philosophers such as Locke, Montesquieu, and others having at least 2/3's (66%) of all citations regarding the intellectual context of the time, verse the Bible being at about 1/3 (34%) of all citations.
 
Last edited:

Mungri

Poster
Joined
May 7, 2024
Messages
446
I know there are a lot of posters here all the time with US military backgrounds that jump in with insane bullshit if you start to undermine their brainwashing. Who's paying you exactly? There are people with nothing to lose coming straight for your throat from a long way off out of nowhere. Do you know what the Romans did to traitors? Do you know what everyone has always done to traitors? You can't stay safe.
Your dad's seed was rotten. Your mom's eggs expired.

On top of which, you were dropped down the stairs many times as a baby, oh, and lets not forget however many drugs yo momma consumed while pregnant with you.
 

TheResister

Elite
Joined
Sep 22, 2023
Messages
884
Normally I put the dumb lady on ignore. I read one more of her silly posts (by special request) and will add this before switching back to ignore. She still hasn't learned how to discuss things without personal attacks.

I repeat, the 1947 Everson case did not rely on any statute, founding document, etc. save of Thomas Jefferson's private letter. In Reynolds the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."

Almost is not authoritative; it needs more, but the high Court ruled that they (not we, the people) are the final arbiters of what the law is (Marbury v. Madison). That gets into legislating from the bench. Another subject, but explains why Roe v. Wade was overturned AND if Trump gets re-elected, the right hopes for a return to religious Liberty.

When my stalker argues gun control, she wants to go back to English law and when trying to defend religious censorship, she returns to the mythical system of checks and balances. What a joke! Yeah, they told me about those too, but the Supreme Court claims they are the superior branch and, so far, even Jesus hasn't challenged them.

"I believe ‘Jesus to be the Messiah,’ the King and Saviour promised, and sent by God; and, as a subject of his Kingdom, I take the rule of my faith and life from his kingdom [and] from his will, declared and left upon record in the inspired writings of the apostles and evangelists in the New Testament; which I endeavor to the utmost of my power, as is my duty, to understand in their true sense and meaning.”1 While this all might be quite ordinary for a typical Englishmen at the beginning of the eighteenth century, it is actually quite striking when we learn that the identity of the man in question is none other than the eminent philosopher and supposed forerunner to the Enlightenment... John Locke"


The bitch is back on ignore. If you want more info, contact me at resisters.
 
Last edited:

TheResister

Elite
Joined
Sep 22, 2023
Messages
884
I know there are a lot of posters here all the time with US military backgrounds that jump in with insane bullshit if you start to undermine their brainwashing. Who's paying you exactly? There are people with nothing to lose coming straight for your throat from a long way off out of nowhere. Do you know what the Romans did to traitors? Do you know what everyone has always done to traitors? You can't stay safe.
I'm confused by your post. I had to take someone off ignore just because of your thread. You are apparently allowing someone to do your thinking on this topic.

I'm wondering how you contend that ex military people are brainwashed. If you look at the woman that is posting as if she is the ultimate authority on this subject, you know what a traitor is. I know what she deserves.
 

Liquid Reigns

Poster
Joined
Oct 31, 2023
Messages
198
Normally I put the dumb lady on ignore. I read one more of her silly posts (by special request) and will add this before switching back to ignore. She still hasn't learned how to discuss things without personal attacks.

I repeat, the 1947 Everson case did not rely on any statute, founding document, etc. save of Thomas Jefferson's private letter. In Reynolds the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."

Almost is not authoritative; it needs more, but the high Court ruled that they (not we, the people) are the final arbiters of what the law is (Marbury v. Madison). That gets into legislating from the bench. Another subject, but explains why Roe v. Wade was overturned AND if Trump gets re-elected, the right hopes for a return to religious Liberty.

When my stalker argues gun control, she wants to go back to English law and when trying to defend religious censorship, she returns to the mythical system of checks and balances. What a joke! Yeah, they told me about those too, but the Supreme Court claims they are the superior branch and, so far, even Jesus hasn't challenged them.

"I believe ‘Jesus to be the Messiah,’ the King and Saviour promised, and sent by God; and, as a subject of his Kingdom, I take the rule of my faith and life from his kingdom [and] from his will, declared and left upon record in the inspired writings of the apostles and evangelists in the New Testament; which I endeavor to the utmost of my power, as is my duty, to understand in their true sense and meaning.”1 While this all might be quite ordinary for a typical Englishmen at the beginning of the eighteenth century, it is actually quite striking when we learn that the identity of the man in question is none other than the eminent philosopher and supposed forerunner to the Enlightenment... John Locke"


The bitch is back on ignore. If you want more info, contact me at resisters.
In neither of those posts did I personally attack you.

You can repeat what ever you want, it doesn't change the facts.

Let's analyze and address the points raised by "The Resister" for factual accuracy and logical consistency.

Claim 1: "The 1947 Everson case did not rely on any statute, founding document, etc. save of Thomas Jefferson's private letter."

Analysis:
  • Inaccurate: The Supreme Court case Everson v. Board of Education (1947) did indeed reference Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, but it also relied on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The decision was grounded in the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." The Court interpreted this clause to mean that the government cannot support or endorse religious activities.

Claim 2: "In Reynolds the United States Supreme Court ruled: 'may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.' Almost is not authoritative; it needs more."

Analysis:
  • Misleading: The quote from Reynolds v. United States (1878) does indicate that Jefferson's letter "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration," but this is an acknowledgment of its interpretative value, not a dismissal. The Court used Jefferson's letter to help clarify the meaning of the Establishment Clause. This does not diminish the authoritative nature of the First Amendment itself.

Claim 3: "The high Court ruled that they (not we, the people) are the final arbiters of what the law is (Marbury v. Madison). That gets into legislating from the bench."

Analysis:
  • Accurate but Contextually Misleading: The Supreme Court, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), did establish the principle of judicial review, giving the Court the authority to interpret the Constitution. This does not equate to "legislating from the bench," which is a pejorative term suggesting judicial overreach. Judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the U.S. legal system that ensures laws align with the Constitution.

Claim 4: "Roe v. Wade was overturned AND if Trump gets re-elected, the right hopes for a return to religious Liberty."

Analysis:
  • Accurate but Contextual: The Supreme Court did overturn Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022. The statement about hopes for a return to religious liberty is speculative and politically charged, reflecting a specific viewpoint rather than a factual assertion.

Claim 5: "When my stalker argues gun control, she wants to go back to English law and when trying to defend religious censorship, she returns to the mythical system of checks and balances. What a joke!"

Analysis:
  • Inaccurate and Misleading: The system of checks and balances is not mythical but a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. It is a core element of American governance, ensuring accountability and balance among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

Claim 6: "The Supreme Court claims they are the superior branch and, so far, even Jesus hasn't challenged them."

Analysis:
  • Inaccurate and Hyperbolic: The Supreme Court does not claim to be the superior branch of government. The principle of judicial review allows the Court to interpret the Constitution, but this does not make it superior. This claim is hyperbolic and misrepresents the role of the judiciary.

Claim 7: Quoting John Locke on Jesus and religious faith.

Analysis:
  • Accurate: John Locke did write about his Christian faith, and his religious views were known. However, Locke is also a foundational figure in Enlightenment thought and championed the separation of church and state, which influenced the American founders.

Rebuttal:

In conclusion, the principles of separation of church and state, judicial review, and checks and balances are well-established and critical to the functioning of American democracy. Misrepresenting these principles does not change their foundational role in the U.S. legal and political system.

You are, after all, the dumb fuck that claims he is adept at legal research, having gone to a class to become a Notary. For you claiming to be a Christian Patriot you sure don't understand nor comprehend the founding documents of this great Nation. SMFH
 
Last edited:

Liquid Reigns

Poster
Joined
Oct 31, 2023
Messages
198
I'm confused by your post. I had to take someone off ignore just because of your thread. You are apparently allowing someone to do your thinking on this topic.

I'm wondering how you contend that ex military people are brainwashed. If you look at the woman that is posting as if she is the ultimate authority on this subject, you know what a traitor is. I know what she deserves.
I don't claim to be the ultimate authority on anything, I'm merely pointing out your BS and ignorance.

AAaahhhhh, are you whining like a little bitch? You can't handle when someone points out your fallacies and ignorant interpretations. Are you mad because someone actually knows more than you. Bring you and both your little butt buddies here and have a grown up discussion.
 
Last edited:

Zolton

Poster
Joined
Jul 11, 2023
Messages
89

Why carry a sword then?

Just to be cool?

No......... Swords of the day were the pinnacle of weaponry.

What do you mean by "turn the other cheek"?
What do I think turn the other cheek means? ... oh, sorry I fell asleep there.

Not a word about Greek philosophy from anyone. Unless it was in those long posts I didn’t read.

The Republic was written 375 years before Jesus.

America is also a democracy even if it isn’t Switzerland. It is considered a representative democracy. To say it isn’t implies people don’t vote, which implies you are part of the steal.

You guys still are military. You're clearly the first generations of soldiers that never had the fuck beaten out of them.
 
Last edited:

Zolton

Poster
Joined
Jul 11, 2023
Messages
89
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Is @Mungri young? Like, teenage?

Listen. @Mungri, @Mungri ... @Mungri. Ask yourself something. Do you want to be a STAR? Do want to be LOVED by everyone? Listen. Your generation has never had music of it's own. You don't know what it FEELS like. Search "Tolpamin". Buy it. FEEL it. Tell your friends. It will change your life.
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2022
Messages
2,579
What do I think turn the other cheek means? ... oh, sorry I fell asleep there.

Not a word about Greek philosophy from anyone. Unless it was in those long posts I didn’t read.

The Republic was written 375 years before Jesus.

America is also a democracy even if it isn’t Switzerland. It is considered a representative democracy. To say it isn’t implies people don’t vote, which implies you are part of the steal.

You guys still are military. You're clearly the first generations of soldiers that never had the fuck beaten out of them.
I have no idea what you are talking about
 

Zolton

Poster
Joined
Jul 11, 2023
Messages
89
In neither of those posts did I personally attack you.

You can repeat what ever you want, it doesn't change the facts.

Let's analyze and address the points raised by "The Resister" for factual accuracy and logical consistency.

Claim 1: "The 1947 Everson case did not rely on any statute, founding document, etc. save of Thomas Jefferson's private letter."

Analysis:
  • Inaccurate: The Supreme Court case Everson v. Board of Education (1947) did indeed reference Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, but it also relied on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The decision was grounded in the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." The Court interpreted this clause to mean that the government cannot support or endorse religious activities.

Claim 2: "In Reynolds the United States Supreme Court ruled: 'may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.' Almost is not authoritative; it needs more."

Analysis:
  • Misleading: The quote from Reynolds v. United States (1878) does indicate that Jefferson's letter "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration," but this is an acknowledgment of its interpretative value, not a dismissal. The Court used Jefferson's letter to help clarify the meaning of the Establishment Clause. This does not diminish the authoritative nature of the First Amendment itself.

Claim 3: "The high Court ruled that they (not we, the people) are the final arbiters of what the law is (Marbury v. Madison). That gets into legislating from the bench."

Analysis:
  • Accurate but Contextually Misleading: The Supreme Court, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), did establish the principle of judicial review, giving the Court the authority to interpret the Constitution. This does not equate to "legislating from the bench," which is a pejorative term suggesting judicial overreach. Judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the U.S. legal system that ensures laws align with the Constitution.

Claim 4: "Roe v. Wade was overturned AND if Trump gets re-elected, the right hopes for a return to religious Liberty."

Analysis:
  • Accurate but Contextual: The Supreme Court did overturn Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022. The statement about hopes for a return to religious liberty is speculative and politically charged, reflecting a specific viewpoint rather than a factual assertion.

Claim 5: "When my stalker argues gun control, she wants to go back to English law and when trying to defend religious censorship, she returns to the mythical system of checks and balances. What a joke!"

Analysis:
  • Inaccurate and Misleading: The system of checks and balances is not mythical but a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. It is a core element of American governance, ensuring accountability and balance among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

Claim 6: "The Supreme Court claims they are the superior branch and, so far, even Jesus hasn't challenged them."

Analysis:
  • Inaccurate and Hyperbolic: The Supreme Court does not claim to be the superior branch of government. The principle of judicial review allows the Court to interpret the Constitution, but this does not make it superior. This claim is hyperbolic and misrepresents the role of the judiciary.

Claim 7: Quoting John Locke on Jesus and religious faith.

Analysis:
  • Accurate: John Locke did write about his Christian faith, and his religious views were known. However, Locke is also a foundational figure in Enlightenment thought and championed the separation of church and state, which influenced the American founders.

Rebuttal:

In conclusion, the principles of separation of church and state, judicial review, and checks and balances are well-established and critical to the functioning of American democracy. Misrepresenting these principles does not change their foundational role in the U.S. legal and political system.

You are, after all, the dumb fuck that claims he is adept at legal research, having gone to a class to become a Notary. For you claiming to be a Christian Patriot you sure don't understand nor comprehend the founding documents of this great Nation. SMFH
Could you please elaborate?
 

Zolton

Poster
Joined
Jul 11, 2023
Messages
89
I’m on LSD. Wanna go?

The Greeks took acid. That’s how they did it! They just kept it a secret. Read “The Road to Eleusis” by Albert Hofmann, the man who discovered LSD, explaining how the Greek annual Eleusinian Mysteries ceremony probably involved Plato, Socrates, etc. essentially taking acid for Christmas every year.
 

Mungri

Poster
Joined
May 7, 2024
Messages
446
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Is @Mungri young? Like, teenage?

Listen. @Mungri, @Mungri ... @Mungri. Ask yourself something. Do you want to be a STAR? Do want to be LOVED by everyone? Listen. Your generation has never had music of it's own. You don't know what it FEELS like. Search "Tolpamin". Buy it. FEEL it. Tell your friends. It will change your life.

Im probably older than your dad you dumb kid.
 

hmt5000

Legendary
Founder
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
6,859
Jesus says don't defend yourself and God will protect and/or save you if you worship and obey commands. Not American.
Misquotes abound on violence in the bible. Thou shalt not kill is actually "thou shalt not commit murder" in ancient meaning. The point of the bible is not to allow the conquest of your people but simply how to live in peace within your community. Self-defense is not a sin.
 
Top Bottom