Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
i never said you said immigration wasn't an issue 
you said it was an apple
and not to beat a dead horse...but if you read the actual wording of the Constitution and apply it to these cases...it appears as though Congress and federal law have no role in these matters of religious issues... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....in fact, what the left is doing is using Congress and the Federal Government to establish and entrench their own "religion" and "religious issues" regarding which they are very much zealots and radicals as we've witnessed...they just pray to a different type of god...that's all.....make no mistake about it |
And it is so open, in your face, and obvious. Unlike the clerk who is practicing the tradition of civil disobedience (or not, since the Kentucky constitution does not allow gay marriage), and paying the price for it, this new type of statist god is ALLOWED to disregard laws with which it disagrees, or doesn't like, or endangers its power.
The current progressive administration is openly transforming society, entrenching its own secular religion, by not enforcing existing laws such as it did with DOMA, immigration law, federal welfare law, drug laws, not prosecuting Black Panther voting intimidation, not opposing sanctuary cities, and using executive orders to override congressional decisions of established law, and much more.
Earlier in this thread, JohnR asked: "So how do we square the circle and allow both people's rights and beliefs to be respected? One does not want their religious beliefs to be contradicted, one does not want their personal/ legal beliefs constrained. How do we let both sides win? Does it have to be zero sum?"
There is, not to beat a dying horse, the Constitution. It is a legal foundation that provides the solution to John's question. But the encroaching statist god cannot abide such a legal foundation. It is an impediment to entrenching its power. As are such things as religion, especially Christianity, individualism, individual freedom (which first can be combated with collective rights), "traditional" family values (which can be diluted or destroyed by making gay marriage or lifestyle superior when the two conflict). Much, if not all, of past American culture and legal foundation must be, bit by bit, removed from the path to governing by the new religion.
Every aspect of our lives, which once were a matter of choice, personal belief, must be subservient to the godlike State. This is a religion which is tolerant of no other. What collectivists who oppose others not like them, and are now given power over others by the State, don't foresee, is that they are next in line to bend their knees to the new god. They are the useful idiots who are enlisted against the original American order. When that order has been fully ground into legal dust, even the little minority collectives will have to divest themselves of differences, and all will become the progressive ideal of worker bees in the uniform hive of State.
I doubt that Eben wants to be part of such a State. Yet when he belittles others who need a "little book" for guidance, he fails to see how he subscribes to the book of an all-powerful state when he justifies government suppression of one belief in favor of another. Or when he so enthusiastically supports the book of socialism when he chooses Sanders as a presidential contender. When Eben says freedom is the buzzword of fools, he doesn't see that that is the message that the god of State, or socialism, very much has as a footnote in their little book (or maybe he does). And when he doesn't care what the founding intentions were in the Constitution, but rather what it "says" (more precisely what progressive judges say it says) that he is following chapter and verse the book of this new religion.
But I think Eben is still evolving. There is definitely a ray of hope shining through a lot of his other comments.