Oh My. Freeper proposes amendment to the Constitution

[cali]

It is abundantly clear that the president, Congress and out uber-secular courts have twisted the Constitution into a pretzel. They also have completely disconnected the Constitution from the document upon which it (and ALL of our laws) were built.

So, I propose this Constitutional amendment. I call it the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment.

Religious liberty being essential to the functioning of a free, Christian nation, the rights of Christians to act upon their Christian values and to proclaim the Word of God shall not be infringed.

Congress shall make no law contradicting the Law of God as expressed in the Holy Bible or prohibiting the freedom of churches other institutions, or individuals who proclaim its principles.

The Judicial Branch will acknowledge the Biblical roots of all our law. Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to contradict the Law of God as revealed in the Holy Bible.

Congress shall pass no law contradicting the Law of God as revealed in the Holy Bible. Such laws will be deemed to be in contradiction to this Constitution.

The President and the Executive Branch shall take no independent actions and the president shall issue no Executive Orders contradicting the Law of God as revealed in the Holy Bible.

I can't stop laughing. After its pointed out to the author of this crap that this would establish a theocracy, the moran insists:

This would not make the U.S. a theocracy. It would merely require the government to adhere to the bedrock principles upon which America was founded. This country was founded as a Christian nation. That was well understood until around 1960. We need to return to the values that made us great.

The irony of this, considering the abuse that freepfucks heap upon Sharia law, is astounding. There's stupid and then there's freepfuck stupid.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. At least he's honest.

That's pretty much the Dominionist agenda, in a nutshell.

They control the base of the GOP; no question. But they usually try to soft-pedal the kookier parts of the agenda. The bottom line is, they drool over the idea of a Theocracy. If they could package Sharia law in a Jesus wrapper, they'd be all over it.

[wandy]

49. What's really funny, or sad...........

depending on you're state of the mind at the moment is that GOP co. is playing these fools like a mis-tuned fiddle.
Do they really think that the major stakeholders give a rats behind about their invisible cloud spirit.

My bet.
If Charles and David Koch could pocket the proceeds, that would be the end of churches tax exemptions.
If it contributed to the bottom line Wallmart would become the worlds leading abortion provider.

[onethatcares]

2. how does she/he

spell "Taliban"?

Apparently she/he thinks electing a Roman Catholic to the presidency changed a bunch of things.

[reformist2]

3. As the reactionary right wing is marginalized, they actually will get more extreme and dangerous.

This is what the Christian Identity-movement people were peddling 20 years ago. Now one gets the feeling, sadly, that these views are gaining broader acceptance among formerly conservative, now reactionary, segments of society.

[onenote]

7. Not as much as you think

A much more general version of a "Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment" was soundly defeated in a referendum in North Dakota in 2012.

[Fumesucker]

4. I wonder if this guy eats lobster and shrimp or wears mixed fiber clothing?

Doing those things is an abomination in the eyes of God according to the Bible.

[RC]

57. Or touched his wife during the wrong time of the month?

[Enthusiast]

63. When she was unclean?

Oh, the horrors!

[RC]

66. Yeah, really. How uncivilized can one get?

Well, the sex is still good anyway.

[mercuryblues]

5. Yes but which Holy

Bible will they defer to? And which laws? More than one wife? How about where God commands to kill every woman that has known man and all the male children; but keep the virgins for themselves?

At least under biblical law abortion is safe.


Better yet ask the guy this.... If you insist that this country was founded on Christian principles, How do you reconcile the fact a good number of our founding Fathers were Free Masons? What does Christianity say about Free Masonry? Oh. Yeah they worship the devil and is a cult. So it would be factually accurate to say this country was founded by devil worshipers from your point of view.

[JHB]

6. People like this rewrite the Bible to say what they want it to say...

...so of course they have on compunction against the wholesale rewriting of history and the Constitution.

[baldguy]

8. Howw soon do we start feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless & comforting the sick?

[cali]

10. on the far side of never.

[JHB]

23. The Bible he's referring to is the Holy Asterisk Edition

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2013, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)

If you're sufficiently holy, you see the asterisks marking the parts you can ignore.

[Enthusiast]

64. I like that.

The Holy Asterisk Edition!

[burnodo]

9. Religious liberty?

this guy must be hanging from a cross as he types

[stuckinodi]

11. Link? n/t

[cali]

15. sure

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3050663/posts

[stuckinodi]

17. Thanks! n/t

[watoos]

12. Does't that mean

that people who get a divorce are going to have to be arrested? What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.

[Mariana]

38. Anyone who divorces and remarries will have to be executed.

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matthew 5: 31-33

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20: 9-11

[Enthusiast]

65. Sounds pretty clear to me.

We have a lot of executing to do. Better get busy.

[Snarkoleptic]

13. The Christotaliban is on the march.

There is a lot of butthurt rhetoric in my area about how we're getting away from the religious vision the Founding Fathers had for our country, mostly from those who have IQ's around room temperature.

[TopHatCat]

14. I was born in 1960

so it must be my fault.

Oh my God! Could I be the Antichrist?

[qualitybeatsquantity]

16. I have never met a Republican who did not support enshrining Protestant Christian Religious

rules of one form or another into US law at all levels.

Hence from my POV all Republicans and mostly all Christians are a direct threat to my well being.

Oh you say you are a Liberal Christian and it does not apply to you, well it does because they are part of them and they are the only voice that is listened too anymore. Don't like it then remove the loons from your religion.

[cali]

18. I have. plenty of them. I've even voted for one

I happily voted for Senator Jim Jeffords, who while in the Senate was more liberal than the majority of the dems whom he served with- even before quitting the repub party.

But beyond that, your claim that liberal Christians are part of the threat that you delineate because they "part of you" is as silly and ugly as the attacks we see on Muslims. In fact, you sound just like those folks.

[qualitybeatsquantity]

21. OK that is your opinion but I see things differently.

Christians are the only Religious Group in America who actively work to restrict and remove people’s rights and freedoms and to codify their mythology into secular law.

Hence they are a threat to me and my well being.

Perhaps you want to live in a Theocracy, I do not.

[cali]

22. Quite often it's easy to see what sort of a poster

a person is right off the bat, and whether they're going to engage is honest discussion or not.

"Perhaps you want to live in a theocracy, I do not"

Yeah, because what I posted would logically lead the reader to come to that conclusion. Not.

[qualitybeatsquantity]

25. I do not know if you do or not but your admitted active support

of those who are part of the problem as I see it, establishes otherwise.

As I have become older and wiser and seeing the negative changes in America concurrently with the political activation of the Christians in America the gray areas have become more black and white.

We are just going to see things differently.

[cali]

30. man, talk about doubling down. way to demonstrate just what you are

what active support of those who are part of the problem? that's called making shit up. It's contemptible. I have demonstrated exactly no support radical xians,

I pointed out to you that demonizing liberal christians in this country is exactly the same tactic that wingnuts use when it comes to Islam. Many liberal Christians actively fight against the fundy xian activists. Are you unaware of the protests against the right wing crap going on at the statehouse in NC? Guess what? Instigated and led by liberal Christians.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/23/moral_mondays_the_liberal_protest_that_would_shock_the_right/

I don't like bigotry. I don't tolerate and I'll fucking call it out wherever I see it.

[qualitybeatsquantity]

35. So how is one supposed to ID liberal Christians which I assume for this discussion

are the 'good' ones from the 'bad' ones?

[cali]

44. gee, how about paying attention?

Is it really so difficult to tell the difference between Daniel Berrigan and Jerry Falwell or between the very left wing Garret Keizer and Tony Perkins.

[TalkingDog]

47. What you said.

n/t

[qualitybeatsquantity]

55. mmmm no all share the same world view and goals implementation is the only difference.

[cali]

59. yeah, like anyone is buying the mendacious shit

you're pushing. NOT. Or maybe you're just that uninformed.

[Bradical79]

46. If "Christians" actively tried to turn this country into a theocracy

It would already be one, and would always have been. "Christians" are not a unified religious group. But if you decide to lump them all together as your enemy, you might as well give up as you are hopelessly outnumbered

[qualitybeatsquantity]

51. and parts of this nation are passing theocratic laws just about every day.

yes reason is hopelessly out numbered and I will never give up as long as I am breathing.

[Jackpine Radical]

41. Yes.

Intolerance is anathema wherever it comes from. Including intolerance of Christians per se.

I know many liberal Christians who are mostly focused on Christ's message of love, are dismayed by the loony Fundamentalists, and have no particular quarrel with Buddhists, atheists, or anyone else of good will, seeing that there are many paths to spiritual fulfillment.

Just about every religion seems to have a bunch of self-righteous literalists attached to it--Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, whatever--that should not be mistaken for the entire group.

And, for that matter, even within evangelical Christianity, there are people more focused on the social-justice part of Christ's message than on the narrow and hateful sectarianism. Even though I don't agree with him on everything, and even though I don't consider myself any kind of Christian, I would name Jim Wallis (Sojourners Magazine) as an excellent example of the latter.

[JHB]

26. "Remove the loons for your religion"?

I'm an atheist, and your "advice" is the same used by those same people to associate atheism with all the oppression and mass murder that occurred under Stalinist regimes.

"Christian" covers a wide variety, but evangelicals in particular like to blur the divisions by pretending they are the One True Christians and calling themselves "Christian" rather than whatever denomination they are.

You are, of course, free to insist people abandon their beliefs because you want to treat it likes monolith, but it ain't gonna happen.

[qualitybeatsquantity]

32. If one wants to be associated with a public group or organization

If one wants to be associated with a public group or organization all group members are responsible for the actions of all members who do or say anything under that groups or organization’s moniker.

Otherwise how are those who are not part of the group or organization supposed to understand what that group or organization really stands for or believes? Maybe the members of the group or organization who does not believe in what the other members of the group or organization believe in should find some way to visually identify themselves and let everyone else know. Just a thought.

I really do not care what people want to believe in or not believe in just keep it to yourself and out of government at all levels. Keep it on private property where it belongs.

[cali]

40. bullshit of the worst kind.

it's absurd to claim that all those associated with a religion are responsible for the actions of any faction of that religion or any individual.

Do you hold all Muslims responsible for 9/11? Do you hold the Dalai Lama responsible for the violence engaged in against Muslims by some Buddhists in Myanmar? That's nothing but ugly bigotry.

As for understanding what a group or organization stands for, educate yourself to understand that religions are not monolithic in nature. simple for anyone with a few functioning brain cells. Fire them up.

I want religion out of government, but religious people are free to involve themselves in the political process. I may wish that the right wing xians didn't, but they don't need to stay on private property. Read the Constitution some day.

and just love the idea that people should wear some sort of visual identification to denote that they're the "good ones". Kind of the reverse of the Nazi pink triangle/yellow star shit.

Welcome to DU where bigotry gets called out.

[qualitybeatsquantity]

54. Do you always butt into other peoples conversations our are you now stalking me?

our conversation was above so I take it you are now stalking me so I am rightfully justified for being threatened by Christians.

Calling me a bigot makes you happy go for it, it does not make it true...sticks and stones and all that.

[cali]

56. sorry, but there aren't any private discussions on threads here on DU

stalking you? get a grip, dear.

[Motown_Johnny]

19. Exodus 21:22

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021&version=CEB

^snip^


22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman’s husband demands, as negotiated with the judges. 23 If there is further injury, then you will give a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25 a burn for a burn, a bruise for a bruise, a wound for a wound.






Looks to me as if "God's Law" demands that ending a pregnancy is not the same as ending a life, and that the penalty for it should be no more than a fine.

It also looks to me that the woman's husband could force the miscarriage and then demand no fine. Wouldn't that be a pro-choice law? The only problem here is that the woman isn't the one who gets to make the choice.



Jesus himself referred to this passage in the Bible/Torah and didn't bother to correct this whole thing about ending a pregnancy not being the same as ending a life. He did however have something to say about giving to those who ask. Lots of stuff about helping the poor, if you bother to look for it.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=CEB

^snip^

38 “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.[e] 39 But I say to you that you must not oppose those who want to hurt you. If people slap you on your right cheek, you must turn the left cheek to them as well. 40 When they wish to haul you to court and take your shirt, let them have your coat too. 41 When they force you to go one mile, go with them two. 42 Give to those who ask, and don’t refuse those who wish to borrow from you.





Whatever Conservative came up with the insane idea for this amendment needs to read his/her Bible.

[Riftaxe]

20. Silly guy, the Constitution is fine as it stands

Even written by a bunch of syphylitic old men, it truly has more wisdom in it then most people give it credit for.

While they were not prescient enough to envision today's politics they had a damned good idea of the men of the day, and after a few hundred years they still manage to thwart their worst excesses.

The founders can rest in their graves with a smile that while times change, the nut jobs on all sides have not changed a bit.

[davidn3600]

24. "Congress shall pass no law contradicting the Law of God as revealed in the Holy Bible"

[spanone]

27. move to iran.

[Marr]

28. Fundamentalists often seem to think that

the mere existence of a differing opinion is an assault upon their religion. It's very strange.

[brewens]

39. If you try and prevent them from forcing their religious beliefs on others,

they are being persecuted. Some Christians LOVE to be persecuted!

[Proud Public Servant]

29. You know, with just a quick bit of editing...

My substitutions bolded

It is abundantly clear that the president, Congress and out uber-secular courts have twisted the Constitution into a pretzel. They also have completely disconnected the Constitution from the ideas upon which it (and ALL of our laws) were built.

So, I propose this Constitutional amendment. I call it the Enlightenment Philosophy Restoration Amendment.

Enlightenment thought being essential to the functioning of a free, modern nation, the rights of rational people to act upon their reason and to proclaim the truth of science shall not be infringed.

Congress shall make no law contradicting logic as ascertained through reason and the scientific method or prohibiting the freedom of churches other institutions, or individuals who proclaim its principles.

The Judicial Branch will acknowledge the Enlightenment philosophical roots of all our law. Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to contradict reason as ascertained through reason and the scientific method.

Congress shall pass no law contradicting the principles of the Enlightenment as articulated in the works of Locke, Montesquieu, and Jefferson. Such laws will be deemed to be in contradiction to this Constitution.

The President and the Executive Branch shall take no independent actions and the president shall issue no Executive Orders contradicting principles of the Enlightenment as articulated in the works of Locke, Montesquieu, and Jefferson.

...

This would make the U.S. a sane country. It would merely require the government to adhere to the bedrock principles upon which America was founded. This country was founded as a modern nation. That was well understood until around 1980. We need to return to the values that made us great.

FIFY, as the kids would say!

[raging moderate]

31. The right wing manipulates Fundies to serve the purposes of our plutocracy.

The two right-wingers I know best, my brother and my son, are both atheists or close to it.

[raging moderate]

33. It is easy to manipulate Fundies.

Fundies are easily manipulated, because they allow themselves to think only certain thoughts housed in certain stock phrases.

Bertrand Russell wrote that he sometimes amused himself on long train trips by talking to Fundies. He knew of a particular doctrinal dispute which (to this day) splits them in two. He would discover which particular dogma his new acquaintance accepted, and then he would pretend to be a proponent of the opposite dogma. He wrote that a lively discussion always ensued.

[Jackpine Radical]

42. Interesting--What was the doctrinal dispute? Do you happen to know?

I wanna try this.

[BlueToTheBone]

34. my great something uncle and grandfather

were not Christians. Gouvenier was a theist and Lewis rebelled against his overly religious uncle/guardian. So, there's 2 down.

[brewens]

36. Isn't it Article Six that says no religious test would be applied to anyone seeking

high public office? I don't think I even need to look that one up. That's not even an amendment. It's in the main text.

That's ignored of course. Almost every politician feels compelled to make a display of their religious beliefs. So much so, that we can't really tell who's playing us and who isn't. You just know quite a few of them would never go to church if they didn't feel they had to.

[A HERETIC I AM]

37. You think that's nuts? Delve into the nutbag mind of one Robert T. Lee

http://www.tencommandments.org/


Take a bit of time and read that nonsense.

This guy's been at it since at least 1999 as well. Completely off the damned rails.

[CanonRay]

43. There goes the lobster industry

since you get stoned to death for eating it.

[Mariana]

71. Lobster, crab, clams, mussels

scallops, oysters, shrimp, catfish, eel, squid, octopus, etc. etc.

[Coyotl]

45. OP Headline revised: "Crazy Freeper posts crazy post on Freeperville discussion forum"

Yeah, a post in Freeperville is a serious effort to amend the constitution

[LondonReign2]

48. This is great news

Having two daughters, this means I'll finally be able to sell them into slavery and make a fortune!

Now excuse, I have to go fix the garden since I have two different crops planted out there.

[Just Saying]

50. No. Just no.

The irony of this, considering the abuse that freepfucks heap upon Sharia law, is astounding.

So true! The same people who screech about other people's theocracies wish for one here. IMO, religion is already allowed too large a role in our governing from climate deniers who use the bible as "proof" that science is wrong to abortion laws being based on religion instead of medicine.

[sufrommich]

52. They are the American Taliban and they

don't do irony.

[KinMd]

53. So if this passed I could sell my daughter into slavery?

..that''ll keep her in line

[Ruby the Liberal]

58. The primary for "national pastor" will be hilarious

Try getting any 2 to agree on anything.

[Fawke Em]

60. Hmm.. I thought we already had religious liberty.

It's called the First Amendment.

What this dude is proposing is an exemption of fundamental Christians from the rest of the Constitution that protects everyone else's rights.

[DirkGently]

61. Zowie. Have to get rid of that pesky First Amendment too then.

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

- James Madison, co-author of the First Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

The anti-Sharia laws are hilarious when they try to sound all religion - neutral, and therefore eliminate all the Christian theocratic nonsense the exact same right-wingers want.

[Enthusiast]

62. What an idiot............nt

[Heywood J]

67. Evidently, he thinks those values are slavery and tribal warfare, most of the Old Testament.

Why bother getting worked up over some shit who will already go to his grave tormented by visions of "evil libruls!" under every rock and behind every tree. He's already in his own version of Hell.

[Ratty]

68. Can you imagine the cost

Of setting up all those stoning stations in every city?

[Savannahmann]

69. Perhaps he doesn't know what a Theocracy is?

Ignorance of the meaning of words would not be unique to this situation.

[uppityperson]

70. "religious liberty" is being forced into 1 religion? Huh.

[Initech]

72. Somewhere our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves.