FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/23/2014 5:11:27 AM PDT by xzins
I very much agree, though I have to be honest I'm not hopeful:
- John Adams, a devout Christian, helped choose the bald eagle as the symbol for America. I believe it was an inspired choice.
- The bald eagle has come roaring back from near extinction.
- An eagle's youth is renewed as it gets older as researchers continue to discover and as the Bible tells us (Ps 103:5).
- Interestingly, the flying eagle is one of four faces described throughout the Bible (Eze 1:10,10:14; Rev 4:7) of "man-like" (Eze 1:5) creatures that surround the throne and ceaselessly say "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Rev 4:8). Well many believe that these four faces represent the four main characteristics of Jesus with each of the four gospels emphasizing one of the four. The flying eagle is thought to symbolize Jesus as the Son of God, emphasized in John's gospel, as the one who will fly back to us in his second coming.
To me, these are all very hopeful symbols and aspects that point to the possibility and hope of God, not man, reviving America and giving her "a new birth of freedom" until Jesus returns for his bride. (All bets are off after that.) I also have some personal reasons why I think America's freedom and prosperity may be renewed because of clear promises of God's blessing and greatly prospering me and others for the next 60 years or so before I go to Heaven.
Of course you can. Just laws in a free society only prohibit actions that interfere with another's life and liberty. Unjust laws interfere with adult individuals' own private free choice that does not interfere with other's freedom.
Abortion is murder, clearly interfering with the life of the unborn and, therefore, should be prohibited.
Sodomy done in private between consenting adults, though deviant and reprehensible behavior, does not interfere with another's freedom and, therefore, should not be illegal
Just laws in a free society only prohibit actions that interfere with another's life and liberty. Unjust laws interfere with adult individuals' own private free choice that does not interfere with other's freedom.
Abortion is murder, clearly interfering with the life of the unborn and, therefore, should be prohibited.
Sodomy done in private between consenting adults, though deviant and reprehensible behavior, does not interfere with another's freedom and, therefore, should not be illegal
I’m not, for this thread, discussing if homosexuality ought to be illegal. Should someone who believes homosexuality is evil and repulsive in God’s eyes be forced to celebrate homosexuality in his public life?
Can we only condemn sin as sin in private homes and churches, or can we act on our beliefs in the public sphere?
And remember - the pro-choice folks completely reject your belief that “Abortion is murder”. They liken it to removing a tumor. In fact, from a religious viewpoint, the Bible condemns homosexuality in strong terms and is largely silent on abortion.
Please notice I am NOT in any way supporting abortion. But from a religious freedom viewpoint, the religious argument against homosexuality is more explicit in the Bible, along with some other religions.
Disease does interfere with freedom. A propensity toward child abuse does interfere with freedom. Early death and mental disease does interfere with freedom.
The court will rule against Hobby Lobby. They’ll say something along the lines of “Providing insurance coverage that is not in line with their religious beliefs is no different from selling their product to people who don’t believe as they do.”
While a corporation is a legal entity, a corporation cannot carry a gun. A corporation can not vote. A corporation can not do a number of things that a individuals can do.
You should learn what “standing” means.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Double BUMP!
1) the private acts of consenting adults
versus
2) the public sanctioning and support of such acts.
What has happened is sodomites have fought for the first right but have also seemed to have successfully confused the first item with the second item, calling the second item a "right" (which it is not), and labelled it "gay rights", an oxymoron. Since it is a states' issue, not a legitimate federal issue, it is up to the people of each state to decide on these matters. But IMO, the first item is unjustly made illegal and the second item is unjustly made legal.
Abortion, on the other hand is murder regardless of what the perps call it. It is taking the life of another and should be illegal. But again, it is a state's issue so it's up to the people of each state to decide. In the case of abortion, the feds have illegally and unconstitutionally interfered with state laws that almost universally banned abortion.
(Federal law, BTW, in any of these social issues are invalid per se because they are unconstitutional, outside the bounds of constitutional delegation of power to the federal government.)
Not sure of the parallel. Disease, early natural death, and mental disease do not interfere with another's freedom nor are they issues of prohibition by law. Nor is "propensity."
But abusive acts against a child certainly should be illegal.
But who knows what "other" factors will come into play- It's a toss up.
Hm, thank you for sharing those.
What you say is quite encouraging.
Yes, I know what “standing” is.
The Supreme Court isn’t going to accept a case, hold hearings, write decisions and then announce the plaintiff has no standing.
A corporation is simply an association of individuals that happens to be recognized as a legal entity. I see no reason why an association of individuals should not have the same free rights as the individuals that make up the association.
> Yes, I know what “standing” is.
>
> The Supreme Court isn’t going to accept a case, hold hearings, write decisions and then announce the plaintiff has no standing.
I think you missed the dry cynicism [and possibly sarcasm] in my post — the underlying point I was illustrating is that this court has neither the integrity nor inclination to address the real problems in the case, they will avoid responsibility/accountability where they can, and when they cannot they will pull shit out of their asses whereupon we’ll be told that it’s the golden-standard of wisdom, that they’re the ones who decide what is and isn’t constitutional, etc.
You are mistaken - it doesn't "happen" to be anything. A corporation is an association of natural persons who want to avoid their personal responsibilities for their actions. Therefore they file an act to surrender their rights to the government, in exchange for limited privileges, and to be considered as "individuals" instead of natural persons, and their association as a "legal entity" that is thereupon seen as acting in their place.
It is very common, so it goes unnoticed. But it is literally black magic. It is sorcery. It is the creation, through words, of a fake "person" designed to enable wrongdoers to escape answering for their wrongs (if they should do any).
As such it is literally a deal with the devil. And it is the sole creation of the government, who owns it in its entirety. It has no rights, only privileges granted to it in order to support the needs of the government - not the corporation or its individuals.
People forget ALL of that, but the government does not. And then when the government decides what benefits IT, the people in the corporation try to claim their "rights."
They sold their rights for limited indemnification from suit - the "privilege" of not having to answer for their actions.
Deal with the devil, you're gonna get burned - and it's you're own fault.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.