Californians Plan Anti-Legislation Protest
- Thread starter ronwill
- Start date
- Status
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
You do realize that this is a desperate and futile gesture, eh?
The institutional and/or organizational conventions that support the status quo render conventional political action such as the protest march, sit-down blockade, or rally ineffectual and absurd.
Behind a facade of democracy lies what is essentially an oligarchic one-party state!
TraderJack
Member
I just recieved this email from Gwen Friesen at GOC:
Woooo-Hoooo!
Woooo-Hoooo!
MarcusWendt
Member
M14/11B
Member
Who cares if these dimwits "save face" for writing a bill that on ITS face is stupid. They should be shown up as a laughing stock that they are. CA is doomed...it's just a matter of when.
mojohand
Member
I'm with you Marcus. Sure California has A LOT of problems and we definately have an uphill fight. But fight we will. And although we all couldn't go to the capitol as we would have liked, obviously the efforts paid off. Going down to the capitol was only part of the fight...not even the most important part..barraging them with emails, letters, and phone calls was the other part.
If folks want to move out of the state, go ahead, but leave your criticism at the border.
If folks want to move out of the state, go ahead, but leave your criticism at the border.
M14/11B
Member
Having so many people leaving the state is half the reason CA is going broke...no one wants to do business in a hostile environment. You would think these guys would get it. Make CA a place to want to do business and the rest will take care of itself. Thats how it used to be and why we became such an economic power. So criticism is warranted.
mojohand
Member
I'm all in favor of CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, but with comments like those posted...mostly from defeated ex-californians, who are no longer willing to stay and fight, and move to easier more gun tolerant states...we just don't need your opinions unless your willing to help us. Just hiding behind comments like, "california's a lost cause" does nothing but piss off those of us who are fighting the good fight.
And I'm not knocking anyone for moving away either, just remeber where you came form, and the rest of us who are still here...still fighting
And I'm not knocking anyone for moving away either, just remeber where you came form, and the rest of us who are still here...still fighting
M14/11B
Member
mojo...I have been fighting the good fight for 45 years and if the elected people ignore you no matter how many times you elect new people you are wasting your time. CA is [was] a fine place to live at one time and I'll miss it. Just that its about to be liberalized out of existence. M14
joe4702
Member
NRA Members Councils
For those folks who want to do more, but aren't sure how to contribute beyond e-mails and phone calls, see if there's an active NRA Members Council in your area.
Here's a link to the main California site. On the left side of the page, there's a link which brings up a map showing all the local councils in California.
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/
As an example, here's some things the San Diego chapter is involved with:
- recruiting new NRA members at gun shows
- conducting Women on Target and youth shooting clinics
- voter registration drives
- setting up info booths at non-gun events.
We're considering a local airshow and next years Earth Day celebration (that should be interesting!).
All of these are designed to expose more folks to the shooting sports and the pro-gun viewpoint.
Everyone is a volunteer. If there's an active council in your area, they would probably be grateful to have more help.
For those folks who want to do more, but aren't sure how to contribute beyond e-mails and phone calls, see if there's an active NRA Members Council in your area.
Here's a link to the main California site. On the left side of the page, there's a link which brings up a map showing all the local councils in California.
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/
As an example, here's some things the San Diego chapter is involved with:
- recruiting new NRA members at gun shows
- conducting Women on Target and youth shooting clinics
- voter registration drives
- setting up info booths at non-gun events.
We're considering a local airshow and next years Earth Day celebration (that should be interesting!).
All of these are designed to expose more folks to the shooting sports and the pro-gun viewpoint.
Everyone is a volunteer. If there's an active council in your area, they would probably be grateful to have more help.
Harley Quinn
Member
This is needed also if you think about self defense, more likly to have to fight with your fists, than a gun.
We are really a republican state with democratic cities, the left in a few of the larger citys are where it prevails. So much population in those locations that vote.
We have a Republican Gov and a Supreme court of the state votes in a 4-3 for gay marriage
He was/is not happy with it. Who knows where that one will go nowLot of taxes and people who are receiving some sort of aid (major cities) so the vote in the cities are left of center not right.
Sacramento is the capitol and is going by way of DC which is one of the worst cities in the Americas.
Not good you say? Lots of jobs and money to be made in a State like this one.
If owning the illegal guns of the state is all you want out of life, moving is the best thing.
billwiese
Member
Several comments to some of the above posts, from someone 'in the fight':
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
- I don't know details of the Calgunner who donated to Obama's camapaign.
But you might in future see some other 'unusual' donations from certain individual Calgunners to get A Place At The Table in *California* politics.
Esp. given that CA Republicans (wholly aside from any national issues) seem to have given up on creating electable politicians: those perceived as creationist Bible thumpers from Orange County can't make it to statewide office, along with those continuing to rally around the antiabortion cause.
This is why CA Republicans are at risk of beings shyle of a few votes from going below 1/3rd - allowing 2/3 Demo override on budget, the only arena where CA Repubs have a chance of affecting things as it stands now.
(The 'choice' issue is a 100% dead issue in CA regardless of what you feel. It simply is no longer winnable - honestly, I don't care if there's a dead abortion doctor in my driveway, but making those sentiments a key issue in a CA election is a completely brain-dead losing cause in CA and actually affects gun rights: due to the nature of CA polity, an antiabortion politician must be regarded as antigun because of his rendering himself unelectable to statewide office - and thus being a useless POS to the larger gunrights cause.)
In CA, we do have some unusual friends in unusual places that can't show a lot of leg - but who are sympathetic and will be moving into new offices in the next two election cycles.
Having a successful Parker/Heller outcome, along with derivative successor cases filed afterward will enable these people to more fully justify (not that it should be needed) their position in not moviing forward, obstructing, etc. new gun bills.
- Yes, GOC's Sam Paredes is ENTIRELY responsible for the microstamping and lead ammo bills being passed. When a two-bit hack like Paredes tries to screw with the Governor Arnie at the wrong/critical time, he'll lose - and then he drags the rest of the 'gun people' (NRA, etc.) down with him. Fortunately a friendly 'someone' added some interesting text into the microstamping legislation that essentially ensures it's not implementable for decades (due to sole-source IP/patent restrictions, etc.)
- The GOC 'march on the Capitol steps' was around 60 - 80 people spread out thru the morning. They toured some offices and were, happily, treated politely.
But privately ask a legislative aide for either party if being part of a haranguing crowd on the Capitol steps does any good - and they'll say they're generally 100% ignored or derided. Whatever issue the crowd is touting or castigating receives no additional traction because of their action.
2062 got killed because of the alternate NRA (with Calgunner help, I know I and other folks had $40+ cellphone bills) calling and emailing during critical times. That burns staff resources and 'increases the pain' when thousands of calls tie up switchboards.
One of the other dangers of such 'march on the steps' tactics is that the cammy-wearing loons spouting militia rhetoric pop out. We were fortunate this didn't happen this time around. And sometimes such people may not be true progunners, but 'rent a mob' agitprop types hired by Bradyites.
- The GOC 'demonstration' appears more related to attention-getting to be noticed by Tom McClintock's campaign. Sam Paredes' wife needs a new legislative assistant job -IIRC, believe her current member will be termed out, and creating a bit of noise here and helping his campaign might help her. (Sam runs a lot of GOC out of the back of whatever legislator's office his wife is working for...)
- There was a comment about 'so many people leaving the state'. Maybe some are - but SF and San Jose area populations are increasing, real estate values haven't plunged like other areas of CA or USA, and tech/biotech job growth continues because those are seats of productivity & innovation. Many of the people moving out are lower-skilled or lower-effort folks that can't keep up and are not at the higher end of the tax base.
CA's budget problem is that spending has simply risen by 30% during periods when revenue was increasing at a normal percentage (or, recently, remaining flat). This is not only the fault of illegals and their supporters, but the basic idiotic soccer mom that wants 'wouldn't it be nice' free cookies for everyone - in cahoots with CA Republicans that have rendered themselves irrelevant for the last decade, and can't hold things back anymore.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
Last edited:
Yellowfin
Member
2062 is no longer dead. It needs to be killed again. Geez, this is like some kind of horror movie!
California is an extremely cultured place. I have to admit, the "live and let live" enlightenment idea is a popular philosophy among the people.
Arnie is a republican only in name. He's closer to a socialist in practice. Protesting against gay mirage is not a good example of conservative ideals. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If you want an example of a true conservative approach to this issue, look at Ron Paul's response to questioning about gay mirage: "I support all voluntary associations and people can call them whatever they want."
Actually, we had a huge amount of Ron Paul support throughout the cities. There were signs all over the place, rampant support groups all over the place and all over then news. Sadly, when it came voting day, hardly any of them showed up at the polls. It seams as though our cities are strongly populated by libertarians and constitutionalists, who apparently don't bother voting.
I live in the Sacramento area. Violence has gone up a bit in the last year, but not by mass proportions. I have seen more violence per capita in small towns.
California lifestyle is actually very insecure to say the least. It is a true police state. You can be arrested on next to no evidence and if you don't know how to fight, you can be held in jail for months. The police tend to get away with harassing anyone they please and show no signs of caring about right and wrong. It is a true bully government. As much as you hear about gang wars and the like, California is a place where people truly fear the government more then common criminals, and I can honestly say that I have met some common criminals who had stronger morals and better behavior then probably 1/3 of the police I have encountered around here. A common attitude among, say, shoplifter types is: "I know, I screwed up. I need to work on it." while a common attitude from LEOS around here is: "So what? I'm a cop. I don't have to show regard, so I won't."
Take guns completely out of the picture, and it is still a dangerous place to live, not necessarily because of common criminals, but because of the government. The behavior of the California government is an example of why the 2nd amendment was made.
In the 8 years of my adult life, apart from one missing person report a neighbor filed and someone who called them on a crackhead who took a dump on his car, I have never seen anyone see a cop car and think or say: "Oh, what a relief" or "Nice to see a good civil servant". It's always: "Oh, no, be careful, he'll bother you for anything." and "What now, can't they just leave people alone?"
It's kinda funny that they swear an oath to uphold the constitution without ever even reading it, and get offended when people call them on it. That all said, only 1/3 of them are all that bad. Another probably 40% of them are just plain professional and the rest are middle aged officers who are actually good decent folk. People still freak around the good ones, but that's because of the behaviors of the bad ones. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If mean cops bother you and the nice ones leave you alone, then the mean ones are what you'll remember.
TraderJack
Member
I can't agree with your statement that Mr. Paul's appreciation of gay marriage is conservative:
It may be his own view, but it certainly is not the view of conservative Americans who associate their political ideology with a strong faith in the Bible, and a reverence for the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence.
Nowhere in either document or book, do the relationships of gay people gain support.
There is no stated 'right' to marriage, gay or otherwise - anywhere.
Mr. Paul is certainly entitled to his opinion, but in my view, this is the very kind of issue that has kept the candidate from gaining wider support. His stated positions about national isolationism and his desire to return the United States to the 19th Century, have exiled Mr. Paul to the back of the bus where he belongs.
It may be his own view, but it certainly is not the view of conservative Americans who associate their political ideology with a strong faith in the Bible, and a reverence for the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence.
Nowhere in either document or book, do the relationships of gay people gain support.
There is no stated 'right' to marriage, gay or otherwise - anywhere.
Mr. Paul is certainly entitled to his opinion, but in my view, this is the very kind of issue that has kept the candidate from gaining wider support. His stated positions about national isolationism and his desire to return the United States to the 19th Century, have exiled Mr. Paul to the back of the bus where he belongs.
mpmarty
Member
California suffers from too many ills to single one out. There are simply too many solutions seeking problems and too many people who have no clue of what is contained in the US or for that matter the California Constitution(s) to even begin to see what they have lost already and stand on the cusp of losing sooner rather than later. I bailed out of that coo coo land in 1969 and never looked back.
Getting involved in gay mirage at all is a blatant violation of the first amendment since mirage is strictly a religious matter. It's up to religion to govened among themselves such matters. If gays want to independently have their unions and call it mirage, then just role your eyes and let them be. Declaring any branch of the government "Christian" is also a blatant violation of the 1st amendment.
While the constitution was written by Christians, they made it very clear that the government it's self is to know no religion. The ideas this country was based on (the enlightenment) are full of concerns posed by it's philosophers and our forefathers alike for the welfare of a country who has their hands in religion or religious rules at all.
In the bill of rights, only 2 amendments are focused on the rights of society at large, and the rest dealing with the justice system. This is because of 2 things. 1, the simplicity of civil rights and 2, the real rights of society are spelled out in the declaration of independence: "All men are created equal and possess the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" To make it simple, all people have the right to do and live as they please provided they do not pose harm to others. Again, the authors of the constitution were very vocal about this and the constitution of the US is just the tip of the iceberg to a large movement that proceeded that vastly reinforces the points I have made on this thread.
So basically, you are all for meddling in the affairs of other countries, doing military ops in conjunction with the UN and going to war with other countries, all without the congressional declaration of war that our constitution mandates? The oath to uphold the constitution means nothing to you? Bypassing constitutional security measures to change the law unconstitutionally is perfectly fine and dandy?
Tell me, (no I am not gay) but if you don't respect other peoples rights to follow their sexual preferences, then why should anyone respect your right to own guns? That's how the constitution works man. No one likes everyones rights, but you have to respect the ones you don't like if you want them to respect those that you DO like. It's the "live and let live" concept. Once you decide to bend the rules on the agreement between man and man (the constitution in this case) then no one values the agreement anymore, thus, no one feels restraint in violating your liberties. If you live by the sword, you parish by the sword. On the contrary, I found that even liberals and gun haters find themselves friendly to me owning guns upon realizing that in not just words, but in my actions, I respect their right to smoke pot, be lesbians (all the gays I know are lesbians) and basically anything non-aggressive. You'll be in awe at how much people will start respecting your rights once you start respecting theirs. IMHO, there is no better way to win the gun war. In fact, as one of the people who made the Ron Paul revolution happen, I noticed that the ultra conservative idea erupted so hard because the hard leftists, on top of frustration, discovered that constitutionalists and libertarians are contrary to how they were being depicted, respect ALL of their rights even if they didn't like them, and consistency of principal means allot to people of all walks of life.
BTW. The last congressional declaration of war was made on December 8th of 1941. The last time another country declared war against the US was Hungary on June 5th of 1942.
Long story short, everything that has happened since then (minus the hunt for Al Queda) has been a blatant violation of constitutional law. Even the hunt for Al Queda stretched beyond constitutional limits when we decided to metal with the infrastructures of countries that they were hiding in rather then just get the purps and get out like we were suppose to.
billwiese
Member
Oh gawd, another Paulista looking for the First Coming.
I do have to differ with Trader Jack:
Somewhere along the path we got confused and the definition of 'conservative' got taken over by Religious Right: conservatism, however, has nothing to do with religion or the Bible. I and many other conservatives are complete nonreligionists.
I'm a conservative, and my strong faith in the Bible is restricted to the knowledge that it'll reliably prop up the corner of my sofa.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
I do have to differ with Trader Jack:
TraderJack said:
Somewhere along the path we got confused and the definition of 'conservative' got taken over by Religious Right: conservatism, however, has nothing to do with religion or the Bible. I and many other conservatives are complete nonreligionists.
I'm a conservative, and my strong faith in the Bible is restricted to the knowledge that it'll reliably prop up the corner of my sofa.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
TraderJack
Member
Wow. I didn't mean to cause a forest fire with my dissagreement over the chartacterization of Mr. Pauls view of gay marriage.
I guess I hit a nerve, huh?!
Let's be clear about this...
brigadier said:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I said: "...it(his view) is not the view of conservative Americans who associate their political ideology with a strong faith in the Bible, and a reverence for the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence."
I didn't declare any branch of the government "Christian". There is no violation of any amendment at all in what I posted.
Your comment clearly distorts my post.
Then brigadier said:
So... the government is to know NO religion?
I wonder why we have so many reminders of our Christian faith in the trappings of our government?
For instance, let's look at the building that houses The Supreme Court of The United States...
There he is, chisled in stone - Moses holding the Ten Commandments!
And at the entrance to the high court we see images of The Ten Commandments on the huge oak doors.
Just look around Washington - References to Christianity are everywhere.
And what about ol' James Madison, the fourth president, the 'The Father of Our Constitution' and this wise crack he made:
' We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.'
The Christian faith is widely entertwined in our government. While we respect all faiths, America is Christian, through and through.
We are a Christian nation!
Then brigadier implied that I was for meddling?
I said that Mr. Paul's position on national isolation and his wanting to turn back the clock are not only impractical, the concept is narrow minded and flies in the face of everything we hold dear, our capitalist way of life.
Mr. Paul's position is archaic.
Then you want to lecture me about violations of constitutional law!
We are not about to allow them to be nationalized or threatened by thugs and bullies. We will protect America's soverignty.
And, billwiese, sir, I am not a member of the 'religious right' but my Bible is a companion.
I would never consider using it to 'prop up' my sofa!
Conservatism has everything to do with Christian values.
Conservatism is based on our culture, our religion, our history, our language and our traditions.
Merriam-Webster defines Conservatism thusly:
I guess I hit a nerve, huh?!
Let's be clear about this...
brigadier said:
This is what the 1st Amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I said: "...it(his view) is not the view of conservative Americans who associate their political ideology with a strong faith in the Bible, and a reverence for the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence."
I didn't declare any branch of the government "Christian". There is no violation of any amendment at all in what I posted.
Your comment clearly distorts my post.
Then brigadier said:
So... the government is to know NO religion?
I wonder why we have so many reminders of our Christian faith in the trappings of our government?
For instance, let's look at the building that houses The Supreme Court of The United States...
There he is, chisled in stone - Moses holding the Ten Commandments!
And at the entrance to the high court we see images of The Ten Commandments on the huge oak doors.
Just look around Washington - References to Christianity are everywhere.
And what about ol' James Madison, the fourth president, the 'The Father of Our Constitution' and this wise crack he made:
' We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.'
The Christian faith is widely entertwined in our government. While we respect all faiths, America is Christian, through and through.
We are a Christian nation!
Then brigadier implied that I was for meddling?
I didn't say anything like that. You are trying to put words in my mouth.
I said that Mr. Paul's position on national isolation and his wanting to turn back the clock are not only impractical, the concept is narrow minded and flies in the face of everything we hold dear, our capitalist way of life.
Mr. Paul's position is archaic.
Then you want to lecture me about violations of constitutional law!
The President has important inherent authority as leader of the Executive Branch and Commander-In-Chief. I emphasize Commander-In-Chief because we are at war. Did you forget we have several interests, both military and business interests in foreign lands?
We are not about to allow them to be nationalized or threatened by thugs and bullies. We will protect America's soverignty.
And, billwiese, sir, I am not a member of the 'religious right' but my Bible is a companion.
I would never consider using it to 'prop up' my sofa!
If you had treated the Muslim holy book with such disrespect I doubt you would have seen the next sunrise. There's something seriously wrong with America when Americans disdain the Christian Bible in such a fashion.
Conservatism has everything to do with Christian values.
Conservatism is based on our culture, our religion, our history, our language and our traditions.
Merriam-Webster defines Conservatism thusly:
While the one great tradition in America is freedom of religion, America is a Christian nation. It always has been, and it always will be.
Actually, I REALLY hope the republicans become strongly defined as a Christian fundamentalist party for 2 reasons. 1, the Muslim terrorists will have a better scope of who there real enemy is (the Muslims always have and always will be cautious of Christian fundamentalists, and for a good reason) hopefully leaving the rest of us alone and 2, the more they become an "in the name of religion" party, the more Christians, Atheists and people of other faiths alike will flock to the Constitutionalist and libertarian party. No good conservative in their right mind, Christian or non-Christian wants to see the middle ages revived here in the US, which (speaking as a Medieval historian and author), we are mimicking in our day to day lives in many ways already, mostly stuff related to radical paranoia, judgment and military philosophy.
Marked in bold is the key point. Please tell me, if religion or christian faith (religion) is not the motivation for wanting to ban gay mirage, then tell me, what is?
How about this:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp
And as they pointed out late in the article, there is no evidence that he made such claim, and the manner of the quotation is fishy at that. Reminds me of 2nd and 3rd century Roman propaganda.
Very well. Since he has spoken very strongly in support of free trade (far more free then today), friendship and travel throughout the world, what exactly are you suggesting to be isolation if not minding our own business like our constitution orders?
How about this. I want to visit Belgrade since I am writing a book that's climax takes place at. I want to visit the actual places I am writing about and converse with the historians and experts who specialize and study the physical evidence of the subject I am writing about, but I am repeatedly being advised not to visit Belgrade. Why? Because our military, for apparently no good reason, bombed the city, and now the people there have a very deep hatred towards Americans butting in to there business despite having never raised a finger against us.
With who? Who did Congress declare war against?
Sounds like tyranny to me. The only rightful military interest we have is to defend our borders and country from foreign attack.
Now that you mention it, having done the research myself, "our military and business interests" in these other countries, as our good friend Ron Paul was the first to point out on national television, really is the reason for 9/11 and the whole terror war. I challenge you to show me some verifiable (not some made up statement like the James Madison quotation) evidence that the terrorists (and not some big mouthed group that never does anything but talk) are out to conquer the world in the name of Ala. I am certainly prepared to back up my statements on the matter.
Sounds like a contradiction in it's self. "Allow them to be nationalized." Since when are other peoples domestic behavior any of our business? And who exactly is threatening our national security besides our own government? When did any Iraqi government ever in the history of our nation attack the American people off of American soil or the foreign battlefield? In fact, in which of the 2 wars did Iraq throw the first strike or Saddam Hussein threaten to nuke or gas us on our soil? While at it, might I ask you the same question about Viet Nam, Serbia, Bosnia or Somalia?
Now, might I ask you if the Soviet Union (who was mass murdering Christians and using unspeakable torture methods) ever threatened us with nukes and follow up by asking why we didn't go to war with them?
If you have a problem with the constitution, and your grievance is sincere and for the better of the people, then you shouldn't have any objections with going through the LAWFUL channels to change it, which hopefully will force you and your fellow supporters to make sure that the change in law you propose is going to get the results you propose it for BEFORE it becomes law. Going to war without a proper declaration or banning gay mirage on a petition is sidestepping and ignoring constitutional limitations, or otherwise, checks and balances, which every politician swears an oath to refrain from doing.
Mind you that the last change in the constitution by Christian fundamentalists (prohibition) was a total disaster and turned over because of the horrible results it produced, but they at least had the decency to make the change lawfully.
BTW.
I come from a Christian family, I understand Christian law, have read the bible from cover to cover and am even working on learning the Latin language. I am well schooled in Christian history (I am a historian in medieval history) study Christian philosophy, live on the cutting edge of the scientific studies in answering the question of whether or not there is a god etc. I am also in tune with some of the deeper christian theologians, teachers and authors, including but not limited to Elizabeth Clare (seen as an occultist, but a preacher of Christian themes none the less) Joseph Smith, Bishop Sheen, Fr. Croupy, GK Chesterton, Scott Hahn, Elron Hubbard, William Branham, Martin Luther etc. I even have a book out that involves St. Juan of Capistrano, a very fascinating person whom you probably know nothing about. And yes, I am also very well schooled in Christian prophecy and miracles. In fact, I LIVE in one of the biggest miracle hotbeds in the world.
However, as I have mentioned, I have also studied religious and world (particularly east European and Balkan) history, as well as things like the enlightenment. I am sure by this point you don't know what my spiritual beliefs are and that's the way I like it.
Studying these things will make it very clear to Christians and Atheists alike, why the religious associations are strictly prohibited in the US constitution, which not only protects religions from each other and non-believers from religions, but also protects the very quality of religious practice within themselves. Jesus himself encouraged that religious principals should be practiced on a voluntary basis. Our constitution supports this.
I come from a Christian family, I understand Christian law, have read the bible from cover to cover and am even working on learning the Latin language. I am well schooled in Christian history (I am a historian in medieval history) study Christian philosophy, live on the cutting edge of the scientific studies in answering the question of whether or not there is a god etc. I am also in tune with some of the deeper christian theologians, teachers and authors, including but not limited to Elizabeth Clare (seen as an occultist, but a preacher of Christian themes none the less) Joseph Smith, Bishop Sheen, Fr. Croupy, GK Chesterton, Scott Hahn, Elron Hubbard, William Branham, Martin Luther etc. I even have a book out that involves St. Juan of Capistrano, a very fascinating person whom you probably know nothing about. And yes, I am also very well schooled in Christian prophecy and miracles. In fact, I LIVE in one of the biggest miracle hotbeds in the world.
However, as I have mentioned, I have also studied religious and world (particularly east European and Balkan) history, as well as things like the enlightenment. I am sure by this point you don't know what my spiritual beliefs are and that's the way I like it.
Studying these things will make it very clear to Christians and Atheists alike, why the religious associations are strictly prohibited in the US constitution, which not only protects religions from each other and non-believers from religions, but also protects the very quality of religious practice within themselves. Jesus himself encouraged that religious principals should be practiced on a voluntary basis. Our constitution supports this.
TraderJack
Member
I just posted a comment about Mr. Paul.
If you persist in trying to bait me, I'll just reply with a quote from Jeff Cooper - “I would rather be your friend, but if you are not interested in that, I am prepared to be a capable and efficient enemy.”
You need my address?
If you persist in trying to bait me, I'll just reply with a quote from Jeff Cooper - “I would rather be your friend, but if you are not interested in that, I am prepared to be a capable and efficient enemy.”
You need my address?
mojohand
Member
That went for an intersting, inciteful, and spirited discussion/debate, right into the gutter...your last comment was uncalled for Tradejack
- Status
Similar threads
