Texas, Five Other States Considering Secession

[Sam]

That's a STATE decision. The Federal government has nothing to do with it. Exactly how it should be in limited government.

Well, that really sums it up.

"We're the party of limited government, meaning we support states' power to mandate religious practice and we oppose the federal government enforcing individuals' rights to be free of such state cohesion."

A rather bespoke usage of "limited" in modern day.

-Sam

[Sam]

The political pendulum seems to be swinging back towards the conservatives. People are getting sick and tired of the left's wokeness, letting crime run rampant, and their economic disasters.

ScreenShot00011.png

ScreenShot00052.png

[Sparko]

Well, that really sums it up.

"We're the party of limited government, meaning we support states' power to mandate religious practice and we oppose the federal government enforcing individuals' rights to be free of such state cohesion."

A rather bespoke usage of "limited" in modern day.

-Sam

There is no religious "practice" or ritual involved with posting the 10 commandments. The states still have to abide by the US constitution, so they can't make laws that violate it.

[Mountain Man]

The Feds are failing spectacularly in that mission.

I also like the interpretation of Article IV Section 4 which says that the Democrat party is unconstitutional because it is the job of the federal government to "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government".

[Mountain Man]

Well, that really sums it up.

"We're the party of limited government, meaning we support states' power to mandate religious practice and we oppose the federal government enforcing individuals' rights to be free of such state cohesion."

A rather bespoke usage of "limited" in modern day.

-Sam

I wish I could say that I find it surprising that you, as a Christian, are opposed to the public display of God's Word, but it's exactly what I've come to expect from you. Sad.

[Sam]

There is no religious "practice" or ritual involved with posting the 10 commandments. The states still have to abide by the US constitution, so they can't make laws that violate it.

Mandating the placement of religious icons and laws in public areas sure seems to violate US constitutional protections but your argument was that the federal government should have "nothing to do with" such decisions. What does "limited government" mean? Strict federalism, even at the expense of individual liberties, or strict liberalism, even at the expense of state powers?

-Sam



ScreenShot00053.png

[Sam]

I wish I could say that I find it surprising that you, as a Christian, are opposed to the public display of God's Word, but it's exactly what I've come to expect from you. Sad.

Let's make it abundantly clear, then:

As a Christian, I wholeheartedly oppose, on principle and historical experience, any state endorsement of the Christian religion.

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

Let's make it abundantly clear, then:

As a Christian, I wholeheartedly oppose, on principle and historical experience, any state endorsement of the Christian religion.

-Sam

Like I said, I wish I could find it surprising that you would take this sort of anti-Christian stance.

[Sam]

Like I said, I wish I could find it surprising that you would take this sort of anti-Christian stance.

"anti-Christian stance"

If Jesus had wanted to marry His kingdom to the State, He would have acted and answered differently.

Scripture Verse: John 18:36, NASB

³⁶ Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

© Copyright Original Source

Perhaps you're thinking of Supply-side Jesus, though. Different guy.

-Sam

[Sparko]

Mandating the placement of religious icons and laws in public areas sure seems to violate US constitutional protections but your argument was that the federal government should have "nothing to do with" such decisions. What does "limited government" mean? Strict federalism, even at the expense of individual liberties, or strict liberalism, even at the expense of state powers?

-Sam



ScreenShot00053.png

No I said we want the government to "stop interfering with our constitutional freedoms like free speech and religion"

[rogue06]

The political pendulum seems to be swinging back towards the conservatives. People are getting sick and tired of the left's wokeness, letting crime run rampant, and their economic disasters.

Usually such swings take a decade or longer to start but old Joe has done it in record time.

Possibly his biggest actual accomplishment.

Well, that and managing to make OMB look good.

[Cow Poke]

On that point, it is actually in the Constitution that one of the jobs of the federal government is to defend the states from invasion, which I think hundreds of thousands of people illegally flooding across the border certainly qualifies.

Article IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion...

https://constitution.congress.gov/co...ion/article-4/

Along with Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Ooooooops - I said "insurrections"

[Mountain Man]

"anti-Christian stance"

If Jesus had wanted to marry His kingdom to the State, He would have acted and answered differently.

Scripture Verse: John 18:36, NASB

³⁶ Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

© Copyright Original Source

Perhaps you're thinking of Supply-side Jesus, though. Different guy.

-Sam

Which, of course, has nothing at all to do with with Christian observances by the government.

I wish I could also say I'm surprised to see you taking scripture out of context to score cheap debate points, but I'm not.

[Sparko]

Which, of course, has nothing at all to do with with Christian observances by the government.

I wish I could also say I'm surprised to see you taking scripture out of context to score cheap debate points, but I'm not.

Considering that the history of Israel, God's people, is that of a theocracy, living under The Law. God didn't seem to have a problem with that until they stopped obeying him.

[Sam]

No I said we want the government to "stop interfering with our constitutional freedoms like free speech and religion"

The government posting literal religious commands to its citizens doesn't infringe on their personal religious practices?

Hrm.

Also, I believe I mentioned the Republican effort and support for the government surveil religious communities and ban entry on the basis of religion.

-Sam