I see you are dangling for Rb ver. 2.0’s approval; it’s heartwarming to witness these Libertarian love-fests. Ahem, rights afforded by our “Constitution” (I much prefer that to COTUS as it is far less pretentious and doesn’t sound like a sex act) are not, nor were they intended to be, absolute. It is the likes of the ACLU and the Libertarians that have extended them into the realm of the absurd. Vile pornography, flag burning, abortion, what one does in one’s apare time with a dildo are just a few of the few things that come to mind. A moral, law-respecting state driven by CHRISTIAN values is what the framers had in mind, like it or not. Using the document to shield criminals, perverts and seditionists is the ultimate perversion and it will ultimately take us down.
I don’t give a rat’s hairy ass what RBV2 or anyone else thinks, per se. I was trying to be polite because he was part of the conversation you all were having.
I like COTUS for the convenience, but I think writing it out is more respectful, so that’s what I usually do, myself.
I agree that some things the Constitution has been deemed to allow or to protect are in fact incorrect (see Raich, Kelo, Eliot, etc.), but it seemed to me you were saying that since abortion is protected by the Constitution (I don’t believe it is, RvW or not), that we should look askance at stuff that really IS in there. You said “By the way, how can you you deem Constitutional rights so sacrosant when Abortion on Demand has been given such status?”
A Christian will render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and recognize that what is not his, he has to claim to. This is about what is and isn't Caesar's, not who is an isn't a Christian.