CAMP: Roy Moore Is Not A Constitutional Conservative

[musiclady]

A bit self-satisfied and presumptuous, that.

@Jazzhead

What an odd response to a post by a Believer in Jesus, quoting Jesus Himself.   

Might I suggest that, before you engage in any further battles against the dreaded hate group known as Christians, you actually read Scripture so that you don't come off like a blindfolded man groping about in a dark room?

@Chosen Daughter was merely quoting what Jesus, Our Lord, told His followers about how Christians would be treated. 

But because you are ignorant of God's Word, you accuse with nothing but your own derision and arrogance to back it up..

You have oft used that Gandhi quote, but have made it obvious that your problem is not with Christians............ it is with Jesus Himself.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

What an odd response to a post by a Believer in Jesus, quoting Jesus Himself.   

Might I suggest that, before you engage in any further battles against the dreaded hate group known as Christians, you actually read Scripture so that you don't come off like a blindfolded man groping about in a dark room?

@Chosen Daughter was merely quoting what Jesus, Our Lord, told His followers about how Christians would be treated. 

But because you are ignorant of God's Word, you accuse with nothing but your own derision and arrogance to back it up..

You have oft used that Gandhi quote, but have made it obvious that your problem is not with Christians............ it is with Jesus Himself.

What problems, pray tell, do you think I have with Jesus?   I have problems with Christians who think they have license to persecute my neighbors when Christ said to love them and exhibit compassion.   I have problems with Christians who put the rabbit in the hat, insulating themselves from criticism with self-satisfied declarations that "Jesus said we'd be hated" . . .

I hate no one who treats his fellow man like a brother.   I hate no one who recognizes that the worst sins of all are pride and hubris.   You say I'm ignorant - fine, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.   And you're right,  I am hopelessly ignorant and always will be.  But I am not willfully so.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Laws are made by the peoples' elected representatives, checked by the Constitution's protections of individual liberty and autonomy.  The system works well enough.

So you agree that since no elected representatives of the people passed a law regarding 'lawful' abortion and instead it was fabricated by unelected judges in Roe v Wade, it is not a law?

Then we are in agreement.

[txradioguy]

So you agree that since no elected representatives of the people passed a law regarding 'lawful' abortion and instead it was fabricated by unelected judges in Roe v Wade, it is not a law?

Then we are in agreement.

[Jazzhead]

So you agree that since no elected representatives of the people passed a law regarding 'lawful' abortion and instead it was fabricated by unelected judges in Roe v Wade, it is not a law?

Then we are in agreement.

No, not a law but a right - and like all rights under the Constitution, it is subject to reasonable regulation.  I believe that all of the states have laws of one sort or another that regulate abortion, and even prohibit it once the pregnancy is far enough alone. 

There is also the ability of Congress to pass laws that the national level that regulate abortion or prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to subsidize it.   Finally, there is the Constitutional amendment power, by which two-thirds of the states can choose to uproot the Constitution's abortion right entirely.

[Bigun]

Roe v Wade is an OPINION (that's all they have the power to render) of the court that was made up out of whole cloth!  It has absolutely ZERO constitutional underpinnings!

[musiclady]

What problems, pray tell, do you think I have with Jesus?   I have problems with Christians who think they have license to persecute my neighbors when Christ said to love them and exhibit compassion.   I have problems with Christians who put the rabbit in the hat, insulating themselves from criticism with self-satisfied declarations that "Jesus said we'd be hated" . . .

I hate no one who treats his fellow man like a brother.   I hate no one who recognizes that the worst sins of all are pride and hubris.   You say I'm ignorant - fine, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.   And you're right,  I am hopelessly ignorant and always will be.  But I am not willfully so.   

I know you have a problem with Jesus (the Scriptural Jesus, that is.... the real Jesus) because multiple times you have attacked Christians who are quoting His very words, and accused them of all sorts of things.

My recommendation to you, again, is that you get to know the One who sacrificed His life for you, and stop the pretense of knowing who He is.

Nothing I've said is to make me 'feel better about myself.'  Rather it is to help open your eyes to what you are really fighting against.

As far as pride and hubris go.... if I were ranking those who suffer most from that problem on this forum, you'd be very close to the top.   Not only do you think you're smarter than the Founders of this country, but you think you know more than your Creator and Savior.

Not good, @Jazzhead .   The arrogance and derision you have for Jesus is not good at all.

[Jazzhead]

  Not only do you think you're smarter than the Founders of this country, but you think you know more than your Creator and Savior.

Then you're misreading my words.  I reasonably believe that Christ does not command me to persecute my neighbors, as INVAR believes.   Are you saying I'm wrong about that and INVAR is right?   Well, maybe.  But in the absence of any definitive answer before I've assumed room temperature, you'll forgive me if I go with my heart on that one. 

As for the Founders,  my views are in concordance with the Founders.   I keep recommending that folks read the Everson case for a description of the origin of the Establishment Clause.   I make no claim to being smarter than the Founders; indeed I am willing to accept their own rationale for why this is a secular Republic.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Then you're misreading my words.  I reasonably believe that Christ does not command me to persecute my neighbors, as INVAR believes.   

You are cramming words in @INVAR's  mouth, assigning motives to him so you can cast him in a bad light.  That's what demagogues do.  It's little wonder he just gets more hostile with you on every new thread.

[Jazzhead]

You are cramming words in @INVAR's  mouth, assigning motives to him so you can cast him in a bad light.  That's what demagogues do.  It's little wonder he just gets more hostile with you on every new thread.

He's called me the devil, CL.  Don't be his lickspittle. 

[musiclady]

Then you're misreading my words.  I reasonably believe that Christ does not command me to persecute my neighbors, as INVAR believes.   Are you saying I'm wrong about that and INVAR is right?   Well, maybe.  But in the absence of any definitive answer before I've assumed room temperature, you'll forgive me if I go with my heart on that one. 

As for the Founders,  my views are in concordance with the Founders.   I keep recommending that folks read the Everson case for a description of the origin of the Establishment Clause.   I make no claim to being smarter than the Founders; indeed I am willing to accept their own rationale for why this is a secular Republic.

@Jazzhead

@INVAR doesn't believe that Christ commands him to "persecute his neighbors."  That statement in and of itself shows your hubris.

I find it interesting that you would prefer to go "with your heart" rather than the truth given you by your Creator.  Do you actually believe that your feelings supersede God's commands, and the very words of Jesus Himself?  Hubris.

I have seen you in post after post deny the truth of the Christian roots of this Republic.  I have seen you deny in post after post what the Founders actually said in favor of what FDR's renegade court did to distort what this country was founded on.  You seem to be unteachable, and that is solely because of your own pride.

When @Chosen Daughter cited what Jesus said to His followers in John 15:18-19, you accused her of pride.  The only reason for you to have done that is because of your own prideful ignorance of God's Word, and His commands and teaching.

Since you are arguing purely from a secular humanist perspective, because that is clearly all you know, I would suggest that you stop accusing followers of Jesus Christ who are quoting HIM, out of your own ignorance.

Make your secular case, if your pride requires that of you, and leave the Jesus bashing out of your discussion.  It just makes you look bad.

A word to the wise?? 

[Emjay]

What problems, pray tell, do you think I have with Jesus?   I have problems with Christians who think they have license to persecute my neighbors when Christ said to love them and exhibit compassion.   I have problems with Christians who put the rabbit in the hat, insulating themselves from criticism with self-satisfied declarations that "Jesus said we'd be hated" . . .

I hate no one who treats his fellow man like a brother.   I hate no one who recognizes that the worst sins of all are pride and hubris.   You say I'm ignorant - fine, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.   And you're right,  I am hopelessly ignorant and always will be.  But I am not willfully so.   

I have never clicked on nor entered this thread before.  I couldn't figure out how people could have that much to say about Moore.

OMG.  I see it has disintegrated into stupid religious controversy where NO ONE wins and everyone gets mean, just like Jesus told us to do.

Well, I like you @Jazzhead even if I don't always agree with you.

Sometimes you're a voice of sanity crying in the wilderness.

[Cyber Liberty]

He's called me the devil, CL.  Don't be his lickspittle.

Just pointing out who's being an A-hole, here.  You are just quibbling on who's worse or who "started it," like a five-year-old.

[Jazzhead]

I have seen you in post after post deny the truth of the Christian roots of this Republic.  I have seen you deny in post after post what the Founders actually said in favor of what FDR's renegade court did to distort what this country was founded on.  You seem to be unteachable, and that is solely because of your own pride.

Not so.   I have never "denied the truth of the Christian roots of this Republic".   Indeed, I've explicitly acknowledged those roots on this very thread.   But our Christian roots - so-called Judeo-Christian ethics - are irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is the Establishment Clause.   The Establishment Clause doesn't relate to ethics, it relates to the sad history of religious tribalism and tyranny that led the Founders to conclude that the government should never, ever pick sides.  They did so to ensure YOUR freedom of conscience, ML.   

And what you call "FDR's renegade court" is nothing of the sort - Everson is consistent with jurisprudence both before and after.  Congress has never exercised its power to dismantle the wall of separation.   And more to the point, Everson bases its conclusion firmly in the VERY WORDS OF THE FOUNDERS.   I have asked several times for folks to read the case and tell me exactly what they take issue with.   I haven't received a response.   

[musiclady]

I have never clicked on nor entered this thread before.  I couldn't figure out how people could have that much to say about Moore.

OMG.  I see it has disintegrated into stupid religious controversy where NO ONE wins and everyone gets mean, just like Jesus told us to do.

Well, I like you @Jazzhead even if I don't always agree with you.

Sometimes you're a voice of sanity crying in the wilderness.

Could you explain what you believe is "sanity" and why you call discussions about moral values "the wilderness?"

This thread has had rich discussion about the moral values.... the Christian values...... this country was founded upon.  It has been loaded with a great deal of information and things worth discussing.

How is that in any way, shape or form, "wilderness?"

[Jazzhead]

Well, I like you @Jazzhead even if I don't always agree with you.

Sometimes you're a voice of sanity crying in the wilderness.

Thanks so much, Emjay. 

[Emjay]

Not so.   I have never "denied the truth of the Christian roots of this Republic".   Indeed, I've explicitly acknowledged those roots on this very thread.   But our Christian roots - so-called Judeo-Christian ethics - are irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is the Establishment Clause.   The Establishment Clause doesn't relate to ethics, it relates to the sad history of religious tribalism and tyranny that led the Founders to conclude that the government should never, ever pick sides.  They did so to ensure YOUR freedom of conscience, ML.   

And what you call "FDR's renegade court" is nothing of the sort - Everson is consistent with jurisprudence both before and after.  Congress has never exercised its power to dismantle the wall of separation.   And more to the point, Everson bases its conclusion firmly in the VERY WORDS OF THE FOUNDERS.   I have asked several times for folks to read the case and tell me exactly what they take issue with.   I haven't received a response.   

I have a bit of a connection with the religious roots of the country.  My ancestors came over from Wales very, very early in the Republic.  They were 7th Day Baptists.  Most Baptists were 7th Day back then.  My great-great-great grandfather was converted to lst Day in an outdoor revival by a river that probably lasted many days.  I have newspaper clippings.

People have always argued about Religion which is stupid because everyone can't be right and I don't think God meant for us to hassle each other about it.

[musiclady]

Not so.   I have never "denied the truth of the Christian roots of this Republic".   Indeed, I've explicitly acknowledged those roots on this very thread.   But our Christian roots - so-called Judeo-Christian ethics - are irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is the Establishment Clause.   The Establishment Clause doesn't relate to ethics, it relates to the sad history of religious tribalism and tyranny that led the Founders to conclude that the government should never, ever pick sides.  They did so to ensure YOUR freedom of conscience, ML.   

And what you call "FDR's renegade court" is nothing of the sort - Everson is consistent with jurisprudence both before and after.  Congress has never exercised its power to dismantle the wall of separation.   And more to the point, Everson bases its conclusion firmly in the VERY WORDS OF THE FOUNDERS.   I have asked several times for folks to read the case and tell me exactly what they take issue with.   I haven't received a response.   

If you still don't understand that there is no "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution, and you don't believe that FDR's progressive packed renegade court was a problem, there isn't much you have in common with Conservatism.

But I do care about your rejection of Jesus..... the Christ of the Christian Scriptures....... and your attempts to insert your own religion (secularism) into discussions where you aren't well enough informed to enter the discussion, but still have the hubris to claim you know what Jesus wants of us.

I know you won't stop doing this, because you are convinced that your own feelings supersede the Christian Scriptures, but I will continue to ask you to put down your pride and read God's Word.  That's the only source of real freedom and truth, and it will set you free.

[Emjay]

So, I hope the Mods will step in and return the topic to Judge Roy Moore because this is getting ridicuous.

[Jazzhead]

I have a bit of a connection with the religious roots of the country.  My ancestors came over from Wales very, very early in the Republic.  They were 7th Day Baptists.  Most Baptists were 7th Day back then.  My great-great-great grandfather was converted to lst Day in an outdoor revival by a river that probably lasted many days.  I have newspaper clippings.

People have always argued about Religion which is stupid because everyone can't be right and I don't think God meant for us to hassle each other about it.

I was reading recently about the Christian camp meeting movement;  a fascinating phenomenon of the nineteenth century.   Thousands of folks would gather for days and immerse themselves in revival.   My favorite place is Ocean City, New Jersey - I spend many weekends there - which was founded by Baptists in the 1880s as a camp meeting by the shore, and has remained a dry and very Christian town ever since.   

Now all the Jersey Shore towns have their unique character.  Some are rowdy, some are upscale, and then there's Ocean City - clean,  prosperous, sober, fun and heaven on earth for families.   If this is how a town based on Christian values operates, then count me in.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

So, I hope the Mods will step in and return the topic to Judge Roy Moore because this is getting ridicuous.

Am curious.  What do you believe is the chief objection to Roy Moore being in the Senate?

[Emjay]

Am curious.  What do you believe is the chief objection to Roy Moore being in the Senate?

I think Moore is the kind of person that the 'moderates' hate.

He doesn't behave.  He says what he thinks and sometimes he has unorthodox opinions.

I like him.

[Emjay]

I was reading recently about the Christian camp meeting movement;  a fascinating phenomenon of the nineteenth century.   Thousands of folks would gather for days and immerse themselves in revival.   My favorite place is Ocean City, New Jersey - I spend many weekends there - which was founded by Baptists in the 1880s as a camp meeting by the shore, and has remained a dry and very Christian town ever since.   

Now all the Jersey Shore towns have their unique character.  Some are rowdy, some are upscale, and then there's Ocean City - clean,  prosperous, sober, fun and heaven on earth for families.   If this is how a town based on Christian values operates, then count me in.   

I got interested in pursuing my Baptist history because of my Mother.  She had heard stories all her life about her Great Grandfather, Elnathan Davis, who was a Baptist preacher in North and South Carolina.  He died at the age of 90 while mounting his horse to go preach at one of the churches he pastored.

Mother couldn't find out much.  She didn't have the Internet.  How did we live?? 

Anyway, I picked up the torch and did a lot of research.  I have a huge file on Elnathan, his ascendants and his descendants.  But I haven't messed with genealogy for years.

And yes, those camp and tent meetings were legendary.  We wouldn't have the patience to do it now.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I think Moore is the kind of person that the 'moderates' hate.

He doesn't behave.  He says what he thinks and sometimes he has unorthodox opinions.

I like him.

I had thought in reading all the material I have to date about him, it was his strong belief in humanity's need for a Creator to guide us properly.

Could that be the reason he doesn't 'behave' like most politicians, has 'unorthodox' opinions or is hated by moderates?

[Emjay]

I had thought in reading all the material I have to date about him, it was his strong belief in humanity's need for a Creator to guide us properly.

Could that be the reason he doesn't 'behave' like most politicians, has 'unorthodox' opinions or is hated by moderates?

I haven't read anything much about his religious beliefs.  Probably a good thing.