We Can and Will Force Christians to Act Against Their Faith

[TheJPRD]

No one in the administration said that they were going to make Christians act against their will.

You're right that "No one in the administration said they were going to make Christians act against their will". The folks in the present administration are stupid and incompetent in most ways, but they're "political" experts. Everything that might be considered vile and unconstitutional is couched in sweet and misleading terms. When a Muslim terrorist murders US soldiers, it's not terrorism, it's "workplace violence". The piece of unaffordable garbage commonly referred to as "Obamacare" is called "The AFFORDABLE Care Act". When it comes to the issue of "religious freedom", the leftist attempt to justify their unconstitutional actions on the basis of "church and state separation", a term that isn't even defined properly.

Perhaps the best example of what our founders intended the 1st Amendment of the Constitution to mean is the historical regard given to "conscientious objectors". Military draft laws did not and do not supersede a citizen's Freedom of Religion. If a citizen's religious affiliation mandates that members do not fight and kill, he can be excused from serving in military positions that might require such action. As the government cannot legally force an Amish farm owner to fight and kill, it cannot legally force any other religiously-dutiful business owners to commit acts that oppose their religious doctrines.

Obviously, the key word in the above explanation is "legally". Our government has been stomping on religious rights for many years. Judges have ruled that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says. Such despicable rulings allow the government to then claim "legality" as they spit on religious freedom. One can call a pig a kitty cat, but it's still a pig.

 

[Texas_tea]

It may seem minor ..... but in context to Obama's communist agenda it's not only unacceptable ..... it's downright scary!

There is a reason Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech is the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[dogtowner]

It may seem minor ..... but in context to Obama's communist agenda it's not only unacceptable ..... it's downright scary!

There is a reason Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech is the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

yes, it was nkt first by random selection. and like it should be, its being dealt with in the courts as has happened all these times over the years.

 

[PLC1]

You're right that "No one in the administration said they were going to make Christians act against their will". The folks in the present administration are stupid and incompetent in most ways, but they're "political" experts. Everything that might be considered vile and unconstitutional is couched in sweet and misleading terms. When a Muslim terrorist murders US soldiers, it's not terrorism, it's "workplace violence". The piece of unaffordable garbage commonly referred to as "Obamacare" is called "The AFFORDABLE Care Act". When it comes to the issue of "religious freedom", the leftist attempt to justify their unconstitutional actions on the basis of "church and state separation", a term that isn't even defined properly.

Perhaps the best example of what our founders intended the 1st Amendment of the Constitution to mean is the historical regard given to "conscientious objectors". Military draft laws did not and do not supersede a citizen's Freedom of Religion. If a citizen's religious affiliation mandates that members do not fight and kill, he can be excused from serving in military positions that might require such action. As the government cannot legally force an Amish farm owner to fight and kill, it cannot legally force any other religiously-dutiful business owners to commit acts that oppose their religious doctrines.

Obviously, the key word in the above explanation is "legally". Our government has been stomping on religious rights for many years. Judges have ruled that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says. Such despicable rulings allow the government to then claim "legality" as they spit on religious freedom. One can call a pig a kitty cat, but it's still a pig.

I'd have to agree that the government has a history of calling laws by the opposite of what they really are. The "Patriot Act" springs to mind readily.

The fourth and fifth amendments are under siege currently, and have been for some years now. I really don't see the separation of church and state being in jeopardy, though. No one is going to succeed in making religious entities pay for birth control when it's against their teachings.

 

[Texas_tea]

yes, it was nkt first by random selection. and like it should be, its being dealt with in the courts as has happened all these times over the years.

How is it that a president and congress who take an oath to up hold the Constitution can then attempt to pass laws that are blatantly against the Constitution?

Shouldn't that be considered a violation of that Oath? Obviously, the Oath means nothing .... but, come to think of it ..... neither does the Constitution to these Marxist.

 

[Texas_tea]

No one is going to succeed in making religious entities pay for birth control when it's against their teachings.

This may be true this time ..... but, how many more Sotomayer and Keagan like Supreme Court nominees from this regime will it take to change that forever?

 

[PLC1]

This may be true this time ..... but, how many more Sotomayer and Keagan like Supreme Court nominees from this regime will it take to change that forever?

That's hard to say.
I think the real issue is whether anyone is willing to challenge unconstitutional laws in court or anywhere else. The Catholics made quite a fuss over being required to pay for birth control, and so that one got some attention. No one seems to care about indefinite detention without trial, so that one gets pushed back to the bottom of the pile. The same is true of asset forfeiture. People seem to have the false notion that, as long as they aren't engaged in illegal activities, asset forfeiture doesn't affect them. As long as they're not terrorists, then indefinite detention doesn't affect them. The Patriot Act doesn't affect them, so they think, as long as they aren't doing anything wrong.

 

[cashmcall]

That's hard to say.
I think the real issue is whether anyone is willing to challenge unconstitutional laws in court or anywhere else. The Catholics made quite a fuss over being required to pay for birth control, and so that one got some attention. No one seems to care about indefinite detention without trial, so that one gets pushed back to the bottom of the pile. The same is true of asset forfeiture. People seem to have the false notion that, as long as they aren't engaged in illegal activities, asset forfeiture doesn't affect them. As long as they're not terrorists, then indefinite detention doesn't affect them. The Patriot Act doesn't affect them, so they think, as long as they aren't doing anything wrong.

And that is a big mistake..Apathy

 

[Texas_tea]

And that is a big mistake..Apathy

Good point cash ....

But, how can someone have apathy towards something they don't know anything about? Despite whether a person believes if "indoctrination" is going on in our schools, one thing is for certain. What is not be taught is American exceptionalism.

They are not taught why this County is great and what makes this Country great. Children can no longer pray in schools anymore and most schools don't even cite the Pledge of Allegiance anymore. Most young people today believe our Founding was unjust and by a bunch of racist old white guys.

I don't see how young people with these kinds of skewed views of America could be apathetic towards the eroding of our Freedom and Liberties when most don't even know what that is, and even worse some believe these things are part of an unjust founding and need to be changed.

But, more importantly those of us who do see what is going on and are not apathetic towards it are labeled as extremist and terrorist by the current regime.

The TEA Parties supports limited government and the Constitution. Not exactly an apathetic group when it comes to our Freedoms and Liberties. And, we all know what the current regime has done and continues to do to them.

 

[dogtowner]

How is it that a president and congress who take an oath to up hold the Constitution can then attempt to pass laws that are blatantly against the Constitution?

Shouldn't that be considered a violation of that Oath? Obviously, the Oath means nothing .... but, come to think of it ..... neither does the Constitution to these Marxist.

nothing new about this. thats why the scotus us an equal branch so as to hold this sort of thing in check.

 

[Texas_tea]

nothing new about this. thats why the scotus us an equal branch so as to hold this sort of thing in check.

How's that working out for us at the moment?

 

[dogtowner]

How's that working out for us at the moment?

about as well as usual. at least usual post populat vote of senators and indiscriminant sufferage.

 

[PLC1]

Good point cash ....

But, how can someone have apathy towards something they don't know anything about? Despite whether a person believes if "indoctrination" is going on in our schools, one thing is for certain. What is not be taught is American exceptionalism.

They are not taught why this County is great and what makes this Country great. Children can no longer pray in schools anymore and most schools don't even cite the Pledge of Allegiance anymore. Most young people today believe our Founding was unjust and by a bunch of racist old white guys.

I don't see how young people with these kinds of skewed views of America could be apathetic towards the eroding of our Freedom and Liberties when most don't even know what that is, and even worse some believe these things are part of an unjust founding and need to be changed.

But, more importantly those of us who do see what is going on and are not apathetic towards it are labeled as extremist and terrorist by the current regime.

The TEA Parties supports limited government and the Constitution. Not exactly an apathetic group when it comes to our Freedoms and Liberties. And, we all know what the current regime has done and continues to do to them.

None of that is true of the schools I've worked in.
Prayer is perfectly acceptable, as long as it is voluntary. Surely, anyone can see that mandatory prayers are a violation of the First Amendment.

We recited the pledge every morning, complete with "under god", as directed by the school board.
American history is a part of the California state standards.
8th. graders have to pass a test on the US Constitution.

 

[Texas_tea]

None of that is true of the schools I've worked in.
Prayer is perfectly acceptable, as long as it is voluntary. Surely, anyone can see that mandatory prayers are a violation of the First Amendment.

We recited the pledge every morning, complete with "under god", as directed by the school board.
American history is a part of the California state standards.
8th. graders have to pass a test on the US Constitution.

Yes PLC1 ....

You made your egocentric views very clear in the Indoctrination thread.

But, despite what your experience is or even if some schools in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington state are still saying the Pledge ... it has been ruled unConstitutional and illegal to recite in public schools by the 9th Circuit Court in 2002!

 

[PLC1]

Yes PLC1 ....

You made your egocentric views very clear in the Indoctrination thread.

But, despite what your experience is or even if some schools in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington state are still saying the Pledge ... it has been ruled unConstitutional and illegal to recite in public schools by the 9th Circuit Court in 2002!

got a link to that court decision?