Non-separation of church and State.

[maquiscat]

It would be nice to see some of the Conservatives on here condemn him. Their silence speaks volumes.

Most of us are. I am condemning his view as a Christian myself. It is his views that have put Christianity in such a poor light of late.

 

[rjay]

I don’t think there should be a separation. Our country was founded on religion. It would help unite our country as well as restore morals and values.

Like Iran, you mean?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So if the woman says, "no", regardless of whether she is supposed to or not, and the man engages in sex with her anyway, with her struggling to stop him, regardless of whether or not she is supposed to, then how is that not violence?

such a thing should not happen. However a married party should never refuse sex for any reason, and therefore while an act as you described it would be wrong the solution is seperation. The criminal justice system is not equipped to deal with a case like you describe.

for there to be such a thing as spousal rape in law you have to presuppose that a case exists where

A) a spouse refuses sex which should not happen
B) physical force is used to overcome a refusal, which should not happen
C) that the violates party does not file for divorce or seperation
And D) that evidence constituting proof beyond a doubt exists that such a thing happened.

Virtually no cases of this exist which is why feminists invented the concept

 

[maquiscat]

You are mistaken the right to gather is covered under the First Amendment's "right of the people peaceably to assemble." Our freedom of association allows us to associate with whomever we please, in as large of a number as we please, for any reason we please, providing it is both peaceful and lawful.

If government were to ban all groups of people (regardless of the number), even without religious reasons, it would still violate the First Amendment. All this means is that in Democrat-controlled States (and it is only in Democrat-controlled States) they are violating the First Amendment on multiple grounds. As well as violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Democrats are stomping all over the Bill of Rights with complete disregard. Which is not a particularly bright move during an election year.

As with all rights, there are limits, and they stop when your exercise of them would threaten or harm another without their consent. Such is the case now as it was in 1919. The high potential harm of the disease to others from your desire to gather is sufficient to limit that right for the time being.

 

[maquiscat]

Well, there's more of everybody, right? But like that guy said, the birth rates in Europe are the lowest in the world, in some cases negative. Without immigration some countries would be losing population every year.

You need to make a case where that is a negative thing, despite the subjectiveness of such an evaluation. If the country is considered overpopulated then losing population is a good thing.

 

[Lursa]

such a thing should not happen. However a married party should never refuse sex for any reason, and therefore while an act as you described it would be wrong the solution is seperation. The criminal justice system is not equipped to deal with a case like you describe.

for there to be such a thing as spousal rape in law you have to presuppose that a case exists where

A) a spouse refuses sex which should not happen
B) physical force is used to overcome a refusal, which should not happen
C) that the violates party does not file for divorce or seperation
And D) that evidence constituting proof beyond a doubt exists that such a thing happened.

Virtually no cases of this exist which is why feminists invented the concept

In other words, the man denies his part and the church believes him over her and women go on being abused and raped.

And since when can Catholics divorce? And what is Catholic 'separation?'

 

[maquiscat]

Hardly the last!

Are you claiming that DeMolay was not the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar, or something else?

 

[Glitch]

As with all rights, there are limits, and they stop when your exercise of them would threaten or harm another without their consent. Such is the case now as it was in 1919. The high potential harm of the disease to others from your desire to gather is sufficient to limit that right for the time being.

Except that as I have already demonstrated, the Supreme Court has already held that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights may not be violated for any reason. Not even declared emergencies.

That means States cannot deny anyone the free exercise of their religious beliefs or the people's freedom to associate with as many or as few people as they desire. Government certainly has no right to deny anyone their right to due process by mandating quarantines, masks, and "social distancing." If government wants to quarantine someone they must present evidence on an individual by individual basis that proves beyond a reasonable doubt before a court of law that the individual is infected, contagious, and a public threat. Then, and only then, can government mandate a quarantine, masks, or "social distancing." Anything less is a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

 

[maquiscat]

such a thing should not happen. However a married party should never refuse sex for any reason, and therefore while an act as you described it would be wrong the solution is seperation. The criminal justice system is not equipped to deal with a case like you describe.

for there to be such a thing as spousal rape in law you have to presuppose that a case exists where

A) a spouse refuses sex which should not happen
B) physical force is used to overcome a refusal, which should not happen
C) that the violates party does not file for divorce or seperation
And D) that evidence constituting proof beyond a doubt exists that such a thing happened.

Virtually no cases of this exist which is why feminists invented the concept

Your first mistake is "should not happen". Murder "should not happen", yet it does. Theft "should not happen", yet it does. Your claims of what should not happen are irrelevant to what does actually happen. And sadly, there are tons of cases of both spousal abuse to the point the one fears to leave due to threat on their or their children's lives, and many conviction obtained via withnesses.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

In other words, the man denies his part and the church believes him over her and women go on being abused and raped.

And since when can Catholics divorce? And what is Catholic 'separation?'

catholics cannot, Divorce is a civil designation.

you think men should be arrested and imprisoned on the sole basis of a woman’s accusation?

well of course you do, that requires no answer.

This is not a refutation of anything. There is no possible way to prove a “rape” even occurred inside of a marriage in a criminal trial. Therefore this should not be a criminal issue.

 

[maquiscat]

That means States cannot deny anyone the free exercise of their religious beliefs or the people's freedom to associate with as many or as few people as they desire.

Well damn! if I had known that I could not be denied the exercising of my religious belief that anyone who does not agree with me should be put to death, I would have started my cleansing long ago!

Government certainly has no right to deny anyone their right to due process by mandating quarantines, masks, and "social distancing." If government wants to quarantine someone they must present evidence on an individual by individual basis that proves beyond a reasonable doubt before a court of law that the individual is infected, contagious, and a public threat. Then, and only then, can government mandate a quarantine, masks, or "social distancing." Anything less is a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

By this logic, then we could never arrest someone on suspicion of a crime, or even upon witnessing a crime since it first has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Your first mistake is "should not happen". Murder "should not happen", yet it does. Theft "should not happen", yet it does. Your claims of what should not happen are irrelevant to what does actually happen. And sadly, there are tons of cases of both spousal abuse to the point the one fears to leave due to threat on their or their children's lives, and many conviction obtained via withnesses.

really? You have evidence of many spousal rape convictions being obtained due to direct witnesses to the act itself?

 

[maquiscat]

catholics cannot, Divorce is a civil designation.

you think men should be arrested and imprisoned on the sole basis of a woman’s accusation?

well of course you do, that requires no answer.

This is not a refutation of anything. There is no possible way to prove a “rape” even occurred inside of a marriage in a criminal trial. Therefore this should not be a criminal issue.

By your logic, there is no possible way to prove a rape period. I guess rape doesn't occur anywhere in your world?

 

[vegas giants]

catholics cannot, Divorce is a civil designation.

you think men should be arrested and imprisoned on the sole basis of a woman’s accusation?

well of course you do, that requires no answer.

This is not a refutation of anything. There is no possible way to prove a “rape” even occurred inside of a marriage in a criminal trial. Therefore this should not be a criminal issue.

There can he no video or audio or witnesses?


Really?

 

[vegas giants]

really? You have evidence of many spousal rape convictions being obtained due to direct witnesses to the act itself?

I bet I can find one

 

[Highlanders]

Are you claiming that DeMolay was not the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar, or something else?

No, he wasn't the last.

 

[Highlanders]

Why lie?

Why defend liars.?

 

[Lursa]

catholics cannot, Divorce is a civil designation.

you think men should be arrested and imprisoned on the sole basis of a woman’s accusation?

well of course you do, that requires no answer.

This is not a refutation of anything. There is no possible way to prove a “rape” even occurred inside of a marriage in a criminal trial. Therefore this should not be a criminal issue.

Who said sole basis? You just said that no one ever accepted it. Because they chose to believe the men. You believe that women should remain trapped with abusive rapists called husbands on the sole basis of a man's denial? Well of course you do, that requires no answer.

Again you even type it...if the man denies his behavior, it's accepted. It's disgusting and you are clearly an indoctrinated follower of that cult.

 

[Glitch]

By this logic, then we could never arrest someone on suspicion of a crime, or even upon witnessing a crime since it first has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

I realize that you are sorely disappointed to find out that government may not make people disappear at their whim, but you will just have to learn to live with disappointment. Everyone arrested for the suspicion of a crime has their day in court where government must present evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of committing the alleged crime BEFORE they are convicted and sentenced. It is also on an individual by individual basis. If someone is suspected of committing a crime we don't arrest the entire city and force punishment upon them. Unless you happen to be a leftist fascist freak, like those in the Democrat Party.

Accused criminals get their due process rights upheld. Shouldn't everyone?

It is also not my logic, but that of the Supreme Court.

 

[Fledermaus]

Why defend liars.?

You misspelled scientists, engineers and investigators.

Here. I'll explain why the "seven foot hole" is harder to find these days.

The idiots proposing the "no plane" and "seven foot hole" idiocy have retreated from the "theory" almost to a man.

It proves the saner of the loony bin have some capability to learn.

The only question is can you?

Does not bode well that you refuse to even look at the evidence.

 

[Fledermaus]

No, he wasn't the last.

Don't be shy.

Name his successors.

 

[Highlanders]

Don't be shy.

Name his successors.

It's something I have a keen interest!

Scottish Templars | The Knights Templar

The Order of the Temple in Scotland 1128 – 1313: Prosperity of the Knights Templars in Scotland The Templar Order was first established in Scotland in 1128, with its main Preceptory at Ballantrodoch, now the Midlothian village of Temple. With the support of succeeding Scottish kings...

www.theknightstemplar.org

The Great Priory of Scotland

greatprioryofscotland.co.uk

 

[Highlanders]

You misspelled scientists, engineers and investigators.

Here. I'll explain why the "seven foot hole" is harder to find these days.

The idiots proposing the "no plane" and "seven foot hole" idiocy have retreated from the "theory" almost to a man.

It proves the saner of the loony bin have some capability to learn.

The only question is can you?

Does not bode well that you refuse to even look at the evidence.

You see, the obvious mistake made, was to show the damage on the pentagon, but not only basing my opinion on that, the impossibility of flying a 757 into the front of the building takes some stretch of the imagination....which you obviously have....or perhaps the stealing of all the videos of any aircraft hitting the pentagon, by the CIA and FBI another necessary stretch of the imagination.... but doesn't it hide the facts, and doesn't it allow you, to hide from justice! I think I mentioned this a number of times, the criminals don't want or like to be caught and rely on paid members of staff to mitigate the obvious, and ridicule the thoughtful! Just like you my German friend of Zion.
Now can we please stay on thread, so you won't be able to complain to moderators.
You have a nice day!

 

[Highlanders]

You notice, I never mentioned the aircraft folding itself in mid air.....9 foot engines through a seven foot hole, one behind the other...... and honey.... I shrunk the engines, seats, bodies, ...... Hollywood..... Hollywood....

 

[maquiscat]

No, he wasn't the last.

Who was then? Records show he was the last and was killed on the order of the king of France, burned at the stake.