Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

GOD as sovereign source of law above all laws in usa,is this acceptable?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
mirror Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:22 PM
Original message
GOD as sovereign source of law above all laws in usa,is this acceptable?
biblical law to apply in america,what message would that send to the world?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. That God isn't in charge, but that people are
and that these people are not interested in the blessings of democracy and liberty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirror Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. its already in the house and senate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirror Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. its people who are making the change,your
president!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. "start building fallout shelters" EOM
Edited on Wed Feb-02-05 06:24 PM by K-W
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirror Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
29. MUSLIM COUNTRIES WHO APPLY SHARIA LAW
HOW THE HELL WILL THEY REACT?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sandpiper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. The Constitution explicitly states
That it is the supreme law of the land in the United States of America, and is devoid of a single reference to the sovereignty of a deity.

I'm sure "strict constructionists" like the Republicans won't have any trouble with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. Of course not
Congress shall pass no laws establishing a state religion. (Part of the First Amendment, paraphrased.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
5. Absolutely not. If God's in charge, then why bother with Democracy? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirror Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. isnt this interesting!!
How to Destroy the Social Security Program





On August 14, 1985, Pat Robertson unveiled his ingenious program on how to get rid of Social Security. The plan amazingly resembles sections of the Bush Administration’s Medicare Prescription Drug bill passed in December of 2003. Robertson, however, outlined what to do twenty years ago as follows:





1. “We should say to all the elderly, ‘You’re going to be taken care of. The government’s going to pay you. Don’t worry about it. get your Social Security like you’re expecting, ‘cause you’re counting on it.”



2. “There should be a gradual moving of age to reflect the fact that we’re healthier and we live longer and people should have dignity and be allowed to work a little bit longer.”



3. “The last thing we should do is to begin to let the younger workers slowly but surely go into private programs where the money is tax sheltered and over the years build up their own money and that would in turn, through the intermediary organizations, banks, insurance companies, would invest in American industry. They would buy plants and equipment, put people to work and it would help a tremendous boom. Imagine …$100 billion dollars a year flowing into American industry. It would be marvelous.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. Just like the tech boom, when they marketed stocks to the middle class...
We're about to get suckered and raped again. Mark my words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOteric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. No, it most certainly is not. Luckily, no one's proposing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. The Dominionists are.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirror Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. i think your right,this link is an interesting read
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Have you read the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004?
It says Judges will be able to make that ruling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOteric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:52 PM
Original message
Yes. It specifically prohibits
"a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than the constitutional law and English common law."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03799:@@@L&summ2=m&

Saying that a court cannot be bound to relief in a circumstance is somewhat different than saying a court is free to and encouraged to engage in behaviours leading to such a circumstance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
20. It also says
This Act "Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government or officer of such government by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03799:@@@L&summ2=m&
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirror Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
17.  Medicare and Medicaid Programs the futire!
The Immorality of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs





If the blithe acceptance of slavery isn’t shocking enough, here is one of the coldest attitudes I ever heard expressed in an interview on American television. I can’t help reading it in light of the coercive bullying tactics resorted to by Dominionist leaders in the House of Representatives to get the necessary votes to pass the controversial new Medicare Prescription Drug law.<63> The following interview reveals the deep seated hatred Dominionists have against governmental medical assistance to the elderly. The interview was conducted on August 1, 1985 with Dr. Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University and author of thirty-five books. Danuta Soderman was a co-host on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club. She began the interview with a question about Medicare and Medicaid fraud, suggesting cost possibly “millions and billions” of dollars:





Williams: “Well, I think that the abuse and fraud in and of itself is a relatively minor problem. That is, the bigger problem is the whole concept of funding somebody’s medical care by a third party. And I might also mention here, that is, I saw in the audience many older and senior citizens. Now whose responsibility is it to take care of those people? I think it lies with their children and it also lies with themselves. That is, I think Christians should recognize that charity is good. I mean charity, when you reach into your pocket to help your fellow man for medical care or for food or to give them housing. But what the government is doing in order to help these older citizens is not charity at all. It is theft. That is, the government is using power to confiscate property that belongs to one American and give, or confiscate their money, and provide services for another set of Americans to whom it does not belong. That is the moral question that Christians should face with not only Medicare, Medicaid. But many other programs as well….Well, people should have insurance. But I would say if our fellow man is found in need, does not have enough, well that’s a role for the church, that’s a role for the family, that’s a role for private institutions to take care of these things.”



Danuta Soderman: “I thought it was interesting you talked about Medicare and Medicaid as not being a moral issue. A lot of people would think that to want to eliminate the program is rather uncompassionate—that there is something immoral about taking away something that people are relying so heavily upon, but you said that there is no moral issue here.”



Williams: “I think the moral issue runs the other way. That is, we have to ask ourselves, ‘What is the moral basis of confiscating the property of one American and giving it to another American to whom it does not belong for whatever reason?’ That is, I think we Americans have to ask ourselves is there something that can justify a legalized theft? And I think that even if the person is starving in the street that act, in and of itself, doesn’t justify my taking money from somebody else.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
7. well, SOMEbody needs to smack the SCOTUS
at least five of them. God has my permission. He/she also has my permission to rid US of our tyrant and establish a democracy and a free society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. If that happens, they should change the name of the country...
to "Christian Iranistan" or something like that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anakin Skywalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. Christianistan!
Edited on Wed Feb-02-05 07:01 PM by Anakin Skywalker
:) Or Fundamentalistan!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #23
34. I thought they already changed the name to: Dumbfuckistan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
11. I don't accept it.
Edited on Wed Feb-02-05 06:28 PM by DrWeird
But then again, I'm an American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
12. Not Acceptable To Me
There are too many people that will not allow this to happen, even if it means revolution. And if we win, we make sure that this kind of thing cannot happen ever again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
16. non-negotiable not acceptable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
18. Take that, foreign shellfish industry! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
19. Let's bring back TRIAL BY ORDEAL!
--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
21. Never.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirror Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. never say never! with this clown in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
da_chimperor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
22. That we're crazy and more dangerous than ever
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Should the U.S.A. follow these concepts?
Old Testament


Slave Quotes

Psalm 123:2
As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirror Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. exactly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Speck Tater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
25. Who's interpretation of which part of the Bible?
Does this mean we would have to sacrifice a pidgeon on the altar if we told a lie?

Clearly that idea is unworkable because you will never get two people to agree about what laws the Bible decrees.

Not to mention that such a move would be the first step down into a new Dark Age. Of course it has long been the goal of Christian leadership to keep the masses obedient, powerless and ignorant, so maybe a new Dark Ages is what they want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
28. That is completely fucked. America is going backwards !
"biblical law" What's next sacrifices when the Crops don't come in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirror Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. america giving the impression of spreading
freedom around the world! whilst for there own citizens its back to the dark ages and yet no is talking about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirror Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. thats funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. thats funny & scary at the same time
If it wasn't for Science where would

Medicine be
Transportation
Communication
Crop Production
Engineering
Space Exploration
Sanitation
Electricity
Industrial Manufacturing

To name a few. Yes all these things have positive & negative consequences that come with them but humankind would still be living in the Dark Ages if it were not for Science and great Scientists like Nikola Tesla http://www.pbs.org/tesla/

Isaac Newton
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Newton/RouseBall/RB_Newton.html
and countless others.

Something has gone terribly wrong in America when some teachers are hesitant to teach Evolution for fear of reprimand.

Creationism aka (cretinism) is back with it's semi-retarded claim that the World was created 6 to 10 thousand years ago.
It's called "intelligent design" now, same shit different assholes.

For all those that doubt Evolution take away all that Science has given you ( ALL OF IT ) and see how long it takes for you to give up your "intelligent design"

Welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-05 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
35. Sounds like Christian Taliban to me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirror Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. just what i was thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mojaverose Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
38. God Already Is In Charge
It's called Us, no matter what anybody says or thinks. Ever wonder why Jesus called himself the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man" interchangably? Ever wonder why the New Testament talks so much about the "Word"? Jesus said himself that we are the part of the vine which bears fruit.
Our job is to make sure that we bear good fruit. As our fruit becomes more good, our society becomes more good, compassionate, merciful, and just.

That's what I know. I don't speak out unless I'm asked by a friendly source, however. Jesus also said to live in peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Nope, the Old Testament God will be in charge.
These "Christians" really don't believe in Jesus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpbrown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
39. The Fundamentalist Christian Taliban has Triumphed
That's the only message that sends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
40. Which God? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
41. Of course not.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
43. Democracy replaced by Theocracy
Where not the people but "god" makes the law.

While the US claims to be spreading democracy over the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. More crap from the bible
Any religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment to codify marriage, as they enjoin, on biblical principals:


A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one
or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)


B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his
wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)


C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a
virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num

25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this constitution nor the constitution of any
State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he
refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen. 38:6- 10; Deut 25:5-10)


AS soon as you bring up all of the things that the Old Testament says are sinful (eating shellfish, touching a pig, wearing blended fabrics, etc.), and all the things that it says are not sinful (polygamy, slavery, etc.) they say that Jesus freed them from having to live by the Old Testament.

Thats when this passage comes in handy:

Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC