Posted on 12/22/2011 3:04:51 PM PST by Federalist Patriot
I see your sense of justice, respect for local self government, and adherence to facts remains the same.
You must be proud of your ability to lie to yourself.
I would point out that Muslims assert that Christian devotion to the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is polytheistic. Some Protestants were offended at Catholic veneration of Mary and the Saints as approaching polytheistic practice. Iconography in Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic has long been a concern of the Iconoclasts, as resembling the pagan practice of worship of graven images.
You may disagree. Some followers of Greek and Roman religion asserted that the different G-ds were merely different aspects of a single divinity, in particular the Greeks put together their pantheon as one city’s worship became amalgamated with another, as a way of sharing a common culture, with their G-ds expressing a common family relationship sometimes squabbling, sometimes cooperating. Some would see them as being psychological (Cupid/Eros being descended from Venus/Aphrodite and Mars/Ares, for example).
Some Christians don’t see Mormons as Christians. Some don’t see Catholics as Christians. Some (Ron Paul) have a big problem with Jews.
I don’t know why you desire to drag religion into this thread. Please tell us.
Take your witches broom and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Some Christians don’t see Mormons as Christians. Some don’t see Catholics as Christians. Some (Ron Paul) have a big problem with Jews.
Just as you have an issue with traditional family values.
I don’t know why you desire to drag religion into this thread. Please tell us.
It was you that attacked Christianity.
How can we not question your behavior pictured above??
I don’t know why you desire to drag religion into this thread. Please tell us.
_________________________________
Are you on drugs? I didn’t drag religion into this thread. I, along with others, questioned why you keep calling Christianity a pagan religion and calling Christians pagans.
I didn’t attack Christianity. I called it pagan, as I am a pagan, seeing the commonalities.
I regret that you are offended by common threads in our beliefs.
I called it pagan,
Christianity is not Paganism.
as I am a pagan
Since you don't believe in any higher power than yourself -- What is your honest opinion about abortion, dishonestly, thievery, etc?
seeing the commonalities.
There are no commonalities. One believes in the Almighty and the other in chimpanzees.
I regret that you are offended by common threads in our beliefs.
i have warned Fresno for a decade that if u scratch the scales of these southern haters here you will find little conservatism
wlat...non sensical....sinkspur...illbay...and so it goes...yet another
You believe in G-d the Father, I believe in G-d as Zeus-Pater or Jupiter. You name other aspects of the divine as G-d the Son or the Holy Spirit. I use different names.
Higher power- check
Different aspects of G-d- check
Personal holiness as something owed to G-d in gratitude- Check
Personal relationship with G-d- check
First of all, the phrase "necessary to their happiness" does not appear in any Deep-South declaration of reasons for secession -- nor, for that matter do the words "injury or oppression" as specified in the Virginia ratification statement.
Second, I see you're still desperately hoping to fill my mouth with your own words.
You'll need to stop that.
In fact, every Founder understood that the new Constitution was a contract, so normal contract law applied, namely that mutual consent or a major breach of contract was required to dissolve it.
In Madison's words, the compact did not authorize its dissolution "at pleasure".
So this has less to do with "sovereignty" or "rights" or "powers", than with normal terms and conditions of a contract.
And in November 1860, there was no "mutual consent", no "usurpations" or "abuses" or "injury" or "oppression" -- or any other new condition which might constitutionally justify Deep-South slave-holders' declarations of secession.
What happened instead was one thing, and one thing only: the constitutional election of a new President, Abraham Lincoln.
This event was in no possible way a material breach of contract, and therefore Deep-South declarations of secession came unconstitutionally "at pleasure"
Indeed, southernsunshine, your whole argument here is that secession "at pleasure" is a "right" and "power" of "sovereignty" granted by the 10th Amendment.
But the 10th Amendment cannot grant a power to commit unlawful acts, which dissolving the constitution "at pleasure" clearly was, in the Founders' Original Intent.
Of course, you can easily prove me wrong -- simply produce quotes from your files showing actual Founders' expressions of support for unilateral secession "at pleasure."
So far as I know, there are none.
Finally, please remember: no Confederate soldier was killed by Union forces until after the Confederacy declared war on the United States.
At that point, the alleged constitutionality of unilateral secession "at pleasure" became utterly irrelevant.
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.