Parvane wrote: "One of the problems we have in the West is our governments, especially in Washington, have been infiltrated by Muslims who are advising the White House" "The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights." Constitution of America states the freedom of religion. Islam is a religion. So whats the problem? Either America supports the freedom of religion or it does not.
There is no constitutional right to oppose the same constitutional right. Since Islam opposes freedom of religion, it stands against the first amendment, against the law. It should be clear it has no free exercise of religion right to do so.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- Franklin Graham started out as a chowderhead apparently tried to do what his father did, not very well apparently and now entering his second childhood as a chowderhead again mixing politics with religion. ---
Jim, one thing you should be credited with is that you're a good name-caller. Now how about some more anti-catholic stuff to keep up the cover? You don't want any here calling you a troll.
btw, the preachers of the 18th and 19th centuries were very much involved with politics, both prior and during the Am Rev., and in their public opposition to slavery. They knew that there was no area of life to be artificially excluded from Christian influence. Too bad so many of today's preachers are happy hiding behind stained glass windows, burying their talents under the podium.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- Oh, and back to that great Islamic fighter, Franklin Graham, and I do wish he was a good of fighter for spreading the Gospel. He's a poor shadow of his father in that particular area. Just because one is anti-Islamic doesn't make him a Christian, nor does it make him wrong about Islam, Christopher Hitchens was great at pointing out the threat of Islam, ---
Just because one is anti-Catholic doesn't make one a Christian, either. It's just more difficult to discern.
pennned wrote: --- you should see the things they say about the "masses"! at one point zuckerberg, founder mocked his users for trusting him with their personal information. "they trust me--- dumb #@#%$" -- yep, that's how they see the users.
Oh dear, penny, you said masses. Surely that will remind someone of the Mass, the RCC, and not far behind, Franklin Graham, presently leader on the revolving list of untouchables.
Dorcas wrote: It is continually being posted by JohnY. that the RC organization worships a biblical and historical Jesus. From their (RC) own catechism I will post a few of the statements about the 'Jesus' of the RC organization: The mass makes present Christ in His death and VICTIMHOOD[1353, 1362, 1364] The mass is an unbloody sacrifice which atones for the sins of the living and the dead.[1367, 1371,1414] Each sacrifice of the mass appeases God's wrath against sin.[1371, 1414] God desires that consecrated bread and wine be worshiped as divine. [1378-1381] Christ has ordained certain men to a ministerial priesthood to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross. [ 1142, 1547,
But John Y doesn't participate in the unscriptural parts to the Mass. I wonder what the scriptural parts are?
From the news: "The ban means that same-sex couples miss out on medical and financial benefits available to heterosexual married couples, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said as he issued the injunction."
In an era when hetero couples don't bother marrying, why is this a problem? If it's not a medical or financial burden for unmarried heteros, most of whom are not at all rich, why is it a problem for "gays"? Oh, but that isn't the issue, and the judge knows it.
What a deal. Hundreds of thousands or millions of voters approve a Constitutional amendment, and a lawless leftist judge(but I repeat myself) says no? Hey Jim, haven't you put forth the suggestion that other States should get an amendment as Nebraska did, to avoid all this? Sounds like the law doesn't apply to judges. What do you think should be done now?
John for JESUS wrote: Franklin Graham has been on a roll with his comments as of late. I'm thankful that he is out there using his "fame" as an opportunity to speak the truth.
Some, not knowing they have been influenced by postmodernism, question truth if it is spoken by someone they don't like. Apparently truth is pliable according to the source, so the focus shifts to the truth teller's defects to avoid the subject.
The purpose of banning one type of cartridge has nothing to do with the particular caliber, or the rifle that fires it, no matter what the liars in this administration say. It has to do with establishing the precedent. Once it is accepted, it can be used for others, even the lowly 22. It's the honorable pres's way of sneaking around the law, something he is very fond of doing. Other emotion driven anti-gun types will miss the point of lawlessness entirely.
Their mistake was in issuing a policy on sexuality in response to the public revealing of the "gay" students. They can't very well ban a student for one type of sin without doing so for all other types. Now that would be hypocritical, and would leave the school unattended.
luther wrote: I'm a protestant and the antichrist is the Pope. So, if you don't want this teaching then protestant in you is dead and stop calling yourself a protestant.
Great idea. Who wants to be known merely as a protester against the RCC? Though naturally one who does see himself primarily as said protester, will say the last Antichrist is the pope. I do hope you're not too disappointed if the Antichrist turns out to be a political, not a religious leader.
John UK wrote: Dorcas, you ought to have put a LTRU after your post, as I do sometimes. You were quite right IMHO. Deception is always worse than persecution.
Bro, if a born again or a will be born again could be long deceived, I'd agree. Since both religions deceive, we can make assumptions about the level or type of differences, but as I said earlier, evil is as evil does. One obvious distinction remains, in that one deceiver beheads. Where does the physical act come from, but spiritual evil playing out in physical life? This brings up a question for another day, why do we separate the spiritual from the physical?
Islam is growing fast, RCism has peaked. So no, I don't see RCC as 1000 times more evil. Is it God, or man who makes this kind of assumption? Even if we pretend Islam is less evil, does this make difference to God?
Dorcas wrote: Catholic people are not the problem....it is their soul damning satanic religion that masquerades as Biblical Christianity that is a problem a thousand times more evil than ISIS.
Why don't we then say Muslim people are not the problem, it is their soul damning satanic religion that teaches them to cut heads off anyone who is not of it, Christian or not? How can we separate what Catholics do from the from the source of their learning, but not do it with Muslims? Catholic people are the Catholic religion. Muslim people are the Islamic religion. Evil is as evil does. Prior to grace and faith, all are in the very same boat.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Baby-face Bush sat on his hands when he didn't support Freedom of Religion in Iraq. Published over three years ago, but still true today, The forgotten Christians of the East.
Sorry, nothing in the link about Bush. Who's in charge the past 6 years, anyway? Your concern seems thin.
For your enlightenment-The Iraqi constitution has freedom of religion in it. From Iraq's Permanent Constitution, (March 2006, posted by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom)
"This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights to freedom of religious belief and practice of all individuals such as Christians, Yazidis, and Mandean Sabeans"
But like your Caesar, theirs doesn't care what it says, so Christians are persecuted. Keep trying.
Dorcas wrote: Heard you had slurpee type waves come ashore... Global warming indeed..
I live where the snow gets as thick as fog sometimes, what with the cold air coming over the "warm" lakes. Now that they are mostly frozen over, we're just getting regular snow. Almost daily. If tomorrow is March, someone tell the weather.
Dorcas wrote: We are getting a winter mix in my neck of the woods. Is expected to last till Wednesday. Much needed though...we are most grateful, as we live up in the high country among all the beautiful pines. Stay warm~
Speaking of winter, in this area February has set a record as the coldest February ever. Where is global warming when you need it?
pennnned wrote: how can you all debate a 300 page document..... that has been written in SECRET, that even your own "representative government", that is Congress has not seen? and yet this Nazi investor who is also funding Ukraine destabilization has his money all over what you the people cannot even know what it is?? rhetorical question.
Another rhetorical question. How many self justifying documents from the same self justifying sources do we need to read before we know where they lead?
Barry from KY wrote: Actually Mike, it is the government that protects liberties, if not for our government, you or I would have no liberties. They have accomplished this by wielding the army, navy, air force and marines. It's not the NRA that gave you liberties! From what I've seen of the net neutrality thing, isn't it dealing with band width and has nothing to do with content, or am I reading it wrong???
Unprofitable Servant commented on the net neutralty thing much more ably than I can, Barry. Mine basically is that it works well without FCC help, so why "improve" it?
I might make issue with one thing, for clarity. The government as understood does not protect our liberties, we do. It's our job. We enable the military to do so for us, through, but not for, those we hire to serve the people. Govt, i.e. hired public employees is composed of fallen men and women, who lust for power. It is in the nature of them to take liberty away. That's why the Constitution, which some bemoan, was written, to place limits on the ability of our employees to gain excess power. It's us who are actual govt, and it's us responsible for keeping our liberty. Govt of, by, for the people is more than a nice phrase. PS I enjoy your thoughtful posts