Religious Freedom meets Civil Rights

Jammer wrote:How do you tell the difference between a plain old stupid INACCURATE liberal statement and a liberal lie?

 FLIP A COIN  

When an atheist tells you that that Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be, was that just plain old liberal stupidity or was it an evil cretin trying to defend his evil ways?

  Does it really make a difference?  EVIL IS EVIL    

Jammer wrote:How do you tell the difference between a plain old stupid INACCURATE liberal statement and a liberal lie?

 FLIP A COIN  

When an atheist tells you that that Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be, was that just plain old liberal stupidity or was it an evil cretin trying to defend his evil ways?

  Does it really make a difference?  EVIL IS EVIL    

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:According to Mr. Webster, gay has a wide variety of different meanings:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay

These meanings include everything from homosexuality, to being overjoyed, to being licentious, or having a sexuality that others find offensive.  Being a transgender person certainly fills that slot.  

In regard to actual homosexuality, if a transvestite man leaves his house identifying as a woman,  and finds a sexual partner then he is by default a homosexual no matter who he finds.  If a man has a gender reassignment to a woman, was he ever really a man?   What makes you a man?   Your brain or your penis?  In the same respect, is a homosexual man actually a man?  Is gender completely defined by sex organs?  Does it really matter?  People are who they are.  How about a transexual male that is fine with his body but finds comfort in dressing up as a woman.  Is that any different than a homosexual man who is fine with his body but finds comfort in having relationships with men.  It's all a sexuality/gender variance that is generated in your chromosomes and/or childhood experiences and is cut from the same cloth.

Either way,  "gay" is a very broad term, and "gaydar" is as well.

One of the principles this country was built on was that the only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is NATURAL LAW.  Homosexual behavior and transgender transgressions are an outright perversion of nature and runs counter to our Founding Principles.  The people who support this behavior and activities should be called exactly what they are – PERVERTS.

The communist liberals in this country can try to pass all the legislation and enact all the political correct policies they want, but in the end they will FAIL if they run counter to Natural Law and the laws of Nature’s God.  Natural law trumps everything, especially stupidity and the evil communist agenda in this country.

I don't think natural law means what you think it does.

Plato, in contrast, argued that unchanging truths underpin the flux of the material world. Reality, including eternal moral truths, is a matter of phusis. Even though there is clearly a great degree of variety in conventions from one city to another (something ancient Greeks became increasingly aware of), there is still an unwritten standard, or law, that humans should live under.

In the Laws, Plato applies the idea of a fixed, natural law to sex, and takes a much harsher line than he does in the Symposium or the Phraedrus. In Book One he writes about how opposite-sex sex acts cause pleasure by nature, while same-sex sexuality is “unnatural” (636c). In Book Eight, the Athenian speaker considers how to have legislation banning homosexual acts, masturbation, and illegitimate procreative sex widely accepted. He then states that this law is according to nature (838-839d).

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:According to Mr. Webster, gay has a wide variety of different meanings:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay

These meanings include everything from homosexuality, to being overjoyed, to being licentious, or having a sexuality that others find offensive.  Being a transgender person certainly fills that slot.  

In regard to actual homosexuality, if a transvestite man leaves his house identifying as a woman,  and finds a sexual partner then he is by default a homosexual no matter who he finds.  If a man has a gender reassignment to a woman, was he ever really a man?   What makes you a man?   Your brain or your penis?  In the same respect, is a homosexual man actually a man?  Is gender completely defined by sex organs?  Does it really matter?  People are who they are.  How about a transexual male that is fine with his body but finds comfort in dressing up as a woman.  Is that any different than a homosexual man who is fine with his body but finds comfort in having relationships with men.  It's all a sexuality/gender variance that is generated in your chromosomes and/or childhood experiences and is cut from the same cloth.

Either way,  "gay" is a very broad term, and "gaydar" is as well.

One of the principles this country was built on was that the only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is NATURAL LAW.  Homosexual behavior and transgender transgressions are an outright perversion of nature and runs counter to our Founding Principles.  The people who support this behavior and activities should be called exactly what they are – PERVERTS.

The communist liberals in this country can try to pass all the legislation and enact all the political correct policies they want, but in the end they will FAIL if they run counter to Natural Law and the laws of Nature’s God.  Natural law trumps everything, especially stupidity and the evil communist agenda in this country.

I don't think natural law means what you think it does.

Then you haven't read any Plato, Aristotle or Aquinas. For example Plato:

Plato, in contrast, argued that unchanging truths underpin the flux of the material world. Reality, including eternal moral truths, is a matter of phusis. Even though there is clearly a great degree of variety in conventions from one city to another (something ancient Greeks became increasingly aware of), there is still an unwritten standard, or law, that humans should live under.

In the Laws, Plato applies the idea of a fixed, natural law to sex, and takes a much harsher line than he does in the Symposium or the Phraedrus. In Book One he writes about how opposite-sex sex acts cause pleasure by nature, while same-sex sexuality is “unnatural” (636c). In Book Eight, the Athenian speaker considers how to have legislation banning homosexual acts, masturbation, and illegitimate procreative sex widely accepted. He then states that this law is according to nature (838-839d).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/#NatLaw

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:According to Mr. Webster, gay has a wide variety of different meanings:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay

These meanings include everything from homosexuality, to being overjoyed, to being licentious, or having a sexuality that others find offensive.  Being a transgender person certainly fills that slot.  

In regard to actual homosexuality, if a transvestite man leaves his house identifying as a woman,  and finds a sexual partner then he is by default a homosexual no matter who he finds.  If a man has a gender reassignment to a woman, was he ever really a man?   What makes you a man?   Your brain or your penis?  In the same respect, is a homosexual man actually a man?  Is gender completely defined by sex organs?  Does it really matter?  People are who they are.  How about a transexual male that is fine with his body but finds comfort in dressing up as a woman.  Is that any different than a homosexual man who is fine with his body but finds comfort in having relationships with men.  It's all a sexuality/gender variance that is generated in your chromosomes and/or childhood experiences and is cut from the same cloth.

Either way,  "gay" is a very broad term, and "gaydar" is as well.

One of the principles this country was built on was that the only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is NATURAL LAW.  Homosexual behavior and transgender transgressions are an outright perversion of nature and runs counter to our Founding Principles.  The people who support this behavior and activities should be called exactly what they are – PERVERTS.

The communist liberals in this country can try to pass all the legislation and enact all the political correct policies they want, but in the end they will FAIL if they run counter to Natural Law and the laws of Nature’s God.  Natural law trumps everything, especially stupidity and the evil communist agenda in this country.

I don't think natural law means what you think it does.

Then you haven't read any Plato, Aristotle or Aquinas. For example Plato:

Plato, in contrast, argued that unchanging truths underpin the flux of the material world. Reality, including eternal moral truths, is a matter of phusis. Even though there is clearly a great degree of variety in conventions from one city to another (something ancient Greeks became increasingly aware of), there is still an unwritten standard, or law, that humans should live under.

In the Laws, Plato applies the idea of a fixed, natural law to sex, and takes a much harsher line than he does in the Symposium or the Phraedrus. In Book One he writes about how opposite-sex sex acts cause pleasure by nature, while same-sex sexuality is “unnatural” (636c). In Book Eight, the Athenian speaker considers how to have legislation banning homosexual acts, masturbation, and illegitimate procreative sex widely accepted. He then states that this law is according to nature (838-839d).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/#NatLaw

No,  in haven't.   Thx for asking.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:How do you tell the difference between a plain old stupid INACCURATE liberal statement and a liberal lie?

 FLIP A COIN  

When an atheist tells you that that Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be, was that just plain old liberal stupidity or was it an evil cretin trying to defend his evil ways?

  Does it really make a difference?  EVIL IS EVIL    

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

Aquinas bases his doctine on the natural law, as one would expect, on his understanding of God and His relation to His creation. He grounds his theory of natural law in the notion of an eternal law (in God).

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:How do you tell the difference between a plain old stupid INACCURATE liberal statement and a liberal lie?

 FLIP A COIN  

When an atheist tells you that that Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be, was that just plain old liberal stupidity or was it an evil cretin trying to defend his evil ways?

  Does it really make a difference?  EVIL IS EVIL    

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

Thomas Aquinas would beg to differ.

Aquinas bases his doctine on the natural law, as one would expect, on his understanding of God and His relation to His creation. He grounds his theory of natural law in the notion of an eternal law (in God).

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:How do you tell the difference between a plain old stupid INACCURATE liberal statement and a liberal lie?

 FLIP A COIN  

When an atheist tells you that that Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be, was that just plain old liberal stupidity or was it an evil cretin trying to defend his evil ways?

  Does it really make a difference?  EVIL IS EVIL    

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:How do you tell the difference between a plain old stupid INACCURATE liberal statement and a liberal lie?

 FLIP A COIN  

When an atheist tells you that that Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be, was that just plain old liberal stupidity or was it an evil cretin trying to defend his evil ways?

  Does it really make a difference?  EVIL IS EVIL    

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

Thomas Aquinas would beg to differ.

Aquinas bases his doctine on the natural law, as one would expect, on his understanding of God and His relation to His creation. He grounds his theory of natural law in the notion of an eternal law (in God).

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html

I'm sure he would.   That's the beauty of natural law.   It allows you to view everything through a religious lens, or not, it's entirely your choice.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:How do you tell the difference between a plain old stupid INACCURATE liberal statement and a liberal lie?

 FLIP A COIN  

When an atheist tells you that that Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be, was that just plain old liberal stupidity or was it an evil cretin trying to defend his evil ways?

  Does it really make a difference?  EVIL IS EVIL    

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

Thomas Aquinas would beg to differ.

Aquinas bases his doctine on the natural law, as one would expect, on his understanding of God and His relation to His creation. He grounds his theory of natural law in the notion of an eternal law (in God).

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html

I'm sure he would.   That's the beauty of natural law.   It allows you to view everything through a religious lens, or not, it's entirely your choice.

You are contradicting yourself ((no surprise) Fcukstik. Here's a reminder (emphasis yours):

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

There are good arguments against natural law, but you haven't posted any of them. Keep digging.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:How do you tell the difference between a plain old stupid INACCURATE liberal statement and a liberal lie?

 FLIP A COIN  

When an atheist tells you that that Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be, was that just plain old liberal stupidity or was it an evil cretin trying to defend his evil ways?

  Does it really make a difference?  EVIL IS EVIL    

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

Thomas Aquinas would beg to differ.

Aquinas bases his doctine on the natural law, as one would expect, on his understanding of God and His relation to His creation. He grounds his theory of natural law in the notion of an eternal law (in God).

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html

I'm sure he would.   That's the beauty of natural law.   It allows you to view everything through a religious lens, or not, it's entirely your choice.

You are contradicting yourself ((no surprise) Fcukstik. Here's a reminder (emphasis yours):

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

There are good arguments against natural law, but you haven't posted any of them. Keep digging.

I'm not contradicting myself at all.  It doesn't have anything to do with God....unless that's the way you want to perceive it.  Then for you,  it does.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:How do you tell the difference between a plain old stupid INACCURATE liberal statement and a liberal lie?

 FLIP A COIN  

When an atheist tells you that that Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be, was that just plain old liberal stupidity or was it an evil cretin trying to defend his evil ways?

  Does it really make a difference?  EVIL IS EVIL    

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

Thomas Aquinas would beg to differ.

Aquinas bases his doctine on the natural law, as one would expect, on his understanding of God and His relation to His creation. He grounds his theory of natural law in the notion of an eternal law (in God).

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html

I'm sure he would.   That's the beauty of natural law.   It allows you to view everything through a religious lens, or not, it's entirely your choice.

You are contradicting yourself ((no surprise) Fcukstik. Here's a reminder (emphasis yours):

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

There are good arguments against natural law, but you haven't posted any of them. Keep digging.

I'm not contradicting myself at all.  It doesn't have anything to do with God....unless that's the way you want to perceive it.  Then for you,  it does.

Bwahahahaha.  Let the equivocation begin.

Jammer wrote:

  FOR CONSERVATIVES ONLY  

Here is a good easy to understand 10 minute video review of what natural law is:

http://www.nccs.net/natural-law.php


There is no need for any liberal assholes to view this as we all know that you believe Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be.  So don't waste our time with your stupid and evil objections to the TRUTH.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

  FOR CONSERVATIVES ONLY  

Here is a good easy to understand 10 minute video review of what natural law is:

http://www.nccs.net/natural-law.php


There is no need for any liberal assholes to view this as we all know that you believe Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be.  So don't waste our time with your stupid and evil objections to the TRUTH.

First and foremost, his entire philosophy violates the First Amendment, which throws out the entire video.  Secondly, government cant outlaw gravity?!?  No shiit Sherlock.  What's your point?  These abstract nothingness points bore me.  Third, what's natural?  Is eating red meat natural?  Were our bodies really made for that?  Should that be regulated as well?  If a LGBT person is born that way, isn't that natural?

What a load of bull...  

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

  FOR CONSERVATIVES ONLY  

Here is a good easy to understand 10 minute video review of what natural law is:

http://www.nccs.net/natural-law.php


There is no need for any liberal assholes to view this as we all know that you believe Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be.  So don't waste our time with your stupid and evil objections to the TRUTH.

First and foremost, his entire philosophy violates the First Amendment, which throws out the entire video.  Secondly, government cant outlaw gravity?!?  No shiit Sherlock.  What's your point?  These abstract nothingness points bore me.  Third, what's natural?  Is eating red meat natural?  Were our bodies really made for that?  Should that be regulated as well?  If a LGBT person is born that way, isn't that natural?

What a load of bull...  

WTF? How in any shape or form is a religion being established by natural law?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:How do you tell the difference between a plain old stupid INACCURATE liberal statement and a liberal lie?

 FLIP A COIN  

When an atheist tells you that that Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be, was that just plain old liberal stupidity or was it an evil cretin trying to defend his evil ways?

  Does it really make a difference?  EVIL IS EVIL    

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

Thomas Aquinas would beg to differ.

Aquinas bases his doctine on the natural law, as one would expect, on his understanding of God and His relation to His creation. He grounds his theory of natural law in the notion of an eternal law (in God).

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html

I'm sure he would.   That's the beauty of natural law.   It allows you to view everything through a religious lens, or not, it's entirely your choice.

You are contradicting yourself ((no surprise) Fcukstik. Here's a reminder (emphasis yours):

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

There are good arguments against natural law, but you haven't posted any of them. Keep digging.

I'm not contradicting myself at all.  It doesn't have anything to do with God....unless that's the way you want to perceive it.  Then for you,  it does.

Bwahahahaha.  Let the equivocation begin.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

  FOR CONSERVATIVES ONLY  

Here is a good easy to understand 10 minute video review of what natural law is:

http://www.nccs.net/natural-law.php


There is no need for any liberal assholes to view this as we all know that you believe Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be.  So don't waste our time with your stupid and evil objections to the TRUTH.

First and foremost, his entire philosophy violates the First Amendment, which throws out the entire video.  Secondly, government cant outlaw gravity?!?  No shiit Sherlock.  What's your point?  These abstract nothingness points bore me.  Third, what's natural?  Is eating red meat natural?  Were our bodies really made for that?  Should that be regulated as well?  If a LGBT person is born that way, isn't that natural?

What a load of bull...  

WTF? How in any shape or form is a religion being established by natural law?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:How do you tell the difference between a plain old stupid INACCURATE liberal statement and a liberal lie?

 FLIP A COIN  

When an atheist tells you that that Natural Law is not the order in nature by which the Creator made everything to work properly but it is whatever a dumbass liberal wants it to be, was that just plain old liberal stupidity or was it an evil cretin trying to defend his evil ways?

  Does it really make a difference?  EVIL IS EVIL    

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

Thomas Aquinas would beg to differ.

Aquinas bases his doctine on the natural law, as one would expect, on his understanding of God and His relation to His creation. He grounds his theory of natural law in the notion of an eternal law (in God).

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html

I'm sure he would.   That's the beauty of natural law.   It allows you to view everything through a religious lens, or not, it's entirely your choice.

You are contradicting yourself ((no surprise) Fcukstik. Here's a reminder (emphasis yours):

Natural law has nothing to do with God.

There are good arguments against natural law, but you haven't posted any of them. Keep digging.

I'm not contradicting myself at all.  It doesn't have anything to do with God....unless that's the way you want to perceive it.  Then for you,  it does.

Bwahahahaha.  Let the equivocation begin.

You don't know what equivication means do you? I don't know if you looking it up would help.

In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote:   When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
 

Jammer wrote:It is very interesting to read the comments by the evil progressive liberal regarding Natural Law.  They reveal many things about the workings of a communist mind.   If you carefully analyze them you see the threads of commonality that run through the communist/democratic socialist ideology and come to understand why they do some of the things they do.

The first thing a communist regime must do is remove God from America if they hope to destroy it.  

In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote:   When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
 

Since this statement clearly shows that America was founded on the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, it is clear to the socialists that they must destroy the concept of Natural Law.  To accomplish this, the easiest path is to refrain from teaching this concept in our educational system and also remove God from the Equation.  Once those things are done, the “Fundamental Transformation” of America can be completed.

Some may ask, just why do they need to destroy the concept of Natural Law?  Well it is quite simple, every progressive socialist program and policy runs counter to Natural Law.  Don’t take my word for it, study the things they put in place.  Be it their welfare system that destroys the human instincts to be productive, the loss of property rights and all the way to gun control to deny Americans the right to defend their lives and liberty, they all run counter to Natural Law.

Therefore, if the communists can remove God from our society and eradicate the concept of Natural Law from the minds of Americans, they have removed the biggest prevailing headwind they were facing.  These evil cretins have a systematic plan and their useful idiots like Jackoff Jones and the “tree hugging” bitch who lives down the street are actively involved in the process.  Notice how Jackoff Jones has gone to great lengths to fulfill his duties as a true democrat socialist in just this one effort to demonize Natural Law.  These disgusting cretins are PURE EVIL and deserve our contempt.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:It is very interesting to read the comments by the evil progressive liberal regarding Natural Law.  They reveal many things about the workings of a communist mind.   If you carefully analyze them you see the threads of commonality that run through the communist/democratic socialist ideology and come to understand why they do some of the things they do.

The first thing a communist regime must do is remove God from America if they hope to destroy it.  

In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote:   When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
 

Since this statement clearly shows that America was founded on the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, it is clear to the socialists that they must destroy the concept of Natural Law.  To accomplish this, the easiest path is to refrain from teaching this concept in our educational system and also remove God from the Equation.  Once those things are done, the “Fundamental Transformation” of America can be completed.

Some may ask, just why do they need to destroy the concept of Natural Law?  Well it is quite simple, every progressive socialist program and policy runs counter to Natural Law.  Don’t take my word for it, study the things they put in place.  Be it their welfare system that destroys the human instincts to be productive, the loss of property rights and all the way to gun control to deny Americans the right to defend their lives and liberty, they all run counter to Natural Law.

Therefore, if the communists can remove God from our society and eradicate the concept of Natural Law from the minds of Americans, they have removed the biggest prevailing headwind they were facing.  These evil cretins have a systematic plan and their useful idiots like Jackoff Jones and the “tree hugging” bitch who lives down the street are actively involved in the process.  Notice how Jackoff Jones has gone to great lengths to fulfill his duties as a true democrat socialist in just this one effort to demonize Natural Law.  These disgusting cretins are PURE EVIL and deserve our contempt.

Laws of nature(secular) and of nature's God(divine)....isn't it wonderful how they distinguished between the two?  

Endowed by their creator.....I suppose it could mean God, or Allah, or simply nature....   the possibilities are endless.  

Again we find ourselves also back at the First Amendment to provide further context for all of this.

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:It is very interesting to read the comments by the evil progressive liberal regarding Natural Law.  They reveal many things about the workings of a communist mind.   If you carefully analyze them you see the threads of commonality that run through the communist/democratic socialist ideology and come to understand why they do some of the things they do.

The first thing a communist regime must do is remove God from America if they hope to destroy it.  

In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote:   When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
 

Since this statement clearly shows that America was founded on the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, it is clear to the socialists that they must destroy the concept of Natural Law.  To accomplish this, the easiest path is to refrain from teaching this concept in our educational system and also remove God from the Equation.  Once those things are done, the “Fundamental Transformation” of America can be completed.

Some may ask, just why do they need to destroy the concept of Natural Law?  Well it is quite simple, every progressive socialist program and policy runs counter to Natural Law.  Don’t take my word for it, study the things they put in place.  Be it their welfare system that destroys the human instincts to be productive, the loss of property rights and all the way to gun control to deny Americans the right to defend their lives and liberty, they all run counter to Natural Law.

Therefore, if the communists can remove God from our society and eradicate the concept of Natural Law from the minds of Americans, they have removed the biggest prevailing headwind they were facing.  These evil cretins have a systematic plan and their useful idiots like Jackoff Jones and the “tree hugging” bitch who lives down the street are actively involved in the process.  Notice how Jackoff Jones has gone to great lengths to fulfill his duties as a true democrat socialist in just this one effort to demonize Natural Law.  These disgusting cretins are PURE EVIL and deserve our contempt.

Laws of nature(secular) and of nature's God(divine)....isn't it wonderful how they distinguished between the two?  

Endowed by their creator.....I suppose it could mean God, or Allah, or simply nature....   the possibilities are endless.  

Again we find ourselves also back at the First Amendment to provide further context for all of this.

Oh comrades, the central committee is going to be so proud of Jackoff Jones.  It is only a true and committed useful idiot that will get up at 3:25 in the morning to defend communism and atheism.  And did you notice how he followed all of the rules put out by the central committee (aka demoncrat party)?

The first thing he does is take God out of the equation by referring to the Laws of Nature as SECULAR.   Those crazy Americans who still believe that the laws of nature that God has created by which his universe is controlled and need to be learned by man thru his investigation, must be re-educated.    The principles like “what goes up must come down” and “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” must be rebranded as SECULAR.

If you want to have a conversation about Creationism vs. Evolution, you'll need to start another thread. 

He then goes on to divide the country by trying to get them to pit one God against another instead of acknowledging there is ONE CREATOR to whom we are all responsible.  Although the central committee is probably a little bit worried that comrade Jackoff is getting a little too fond of this Allah.  

Again,  the First Amendment...

And to make sure the re-education of these crazy Americans takes hold, Jackoff Jones once again distorts and outright lies about the First Amendment falsely using it in an attempt to take God out of the fabric of America.  Jackoff Jones is such a good useful idiot that I am sure the central committee is thinking about increasing his monthly subsidy.

Not at all.  It's an undeniable Christianity does and always has ruled the roost.  It's also undeniable that our forefathers paid homage to God in numerous ways throughout the process of creating this great country.  But it's also undeniable that they understood the dangers of mixing politics and religion, which is why they took the steps that they did to make sure our government was not a religious establishment.