Anons were posting ninja scroll, yesterday. Coincidence? Also, how does Japan have borders when people just fly over them?
#WallsDontWork.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1692136029791338761
Just arrived in amazing 🇯🇵 Japan 🇯🇵
🤣🤣🤣
Helps with quitting smoking.
>>19375158
>>19375161
What better way to wake up a sleeping public than to enter into their place of worship and have them repeat a prayer that exposes the truth of what it is they are following.
Gen Flynn's a smart fella.
When that story broke people were suspecting foul play.
Smart move considering:
-
Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel. Guess who that is, Max?
-
A little more than half of the country still calls themselves Christian.
-
Of those, 90% also think they are conservatives, which you claim you are.
The US is a secular government. It practices religious tolerance and realizes a majority of its citizens are believers in one God.
>The Constitution is not Enforceable without a Creator.
Rule of Law doesn't require God. It just requires man to adhere and uphold the law.
A great number of the founders were irreligious, deist, agnostic, or even atheist.
>And why on earth would someone do that if they don't believe in God?
For the same reason they did it in the Old Testament. Under penalty of law.
>Laws don't keep people from being corrupt, it's what's waiting on the other side that does.
For all have sinned and fall short of the "glory of god". Nothing new under the sun.
>In a corrupt world people with no absolute moral center will go along to get along, as many are now.
Morality doesn't come from God. Like everything else we conceptualize, it comes from man's perceptions of what they imagine God would want. Hence the quote:
No, but there is an Establishment clause, and that prevents merging the state and religion. It is in the Declaration of Independence that nature's God, not the Christian one, is invoked. That god is the Enlightenment version of God - meant to be sort of all encompassing. A concept that is irreligious, and more rational (even scientific).
God is not mentioned one single time in the Constitution. That's because the United States is a secular government that practices religious tolerance.
>When your religious beliefs run counter to the nations fairness as a whole and you legislate morality to others based upon those beliefs that is a problem at some level
Ding ding ding.
>Saying your morals come from god shuts off the conversation automatically because you believe your god is correct.
Belief, as you astutely pointed out, is the problem. The founders knew this, and decided on a secular, non-biased system in which to serve as the highest authority of law. It wasn't without debate and controversy, and certainly many assumed that all believed in or ascribed to their specific denomination and doctrines, but these viewpoints and issues concerning them and their motivations were also known, and much was done so as to preserve the Republic; much to the chagrin of believers.
True story:
Rode a jet ski recently and for the first time ever, I felt the skin on my neck give way to the wind. I was mortified.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110904845212218957
Why doesn’t Fox and Friends show all of the Polls where I am beating Biden, by a lot. They just won’t do it! Also, they purposely show the absolutely worst pictures of me, especially the big “orange” one with my chin pulled way back. They think they are getting away with something, they’re not. Just like 2016 all over again…And then they want me to debate!
>Saying Anon's morals do not come from God shuts off the conversation automatically because you believe you are more correct than Anon.
Claiming something comes from an improvable entity proves your position as being based on belief instead of a provable understanding of fact based in logic. I have nothing against your beliefs, and I don't seek to destroy or diminish them. I have my own belief that belief, itself, leads to discovery and often logic/reason eventually gives evidence of what belief presumes to be fact. But not every time. Laws cannot be based on morals rooted in belief as enforcement would prove the inverse in it's immoral consequences; as has so often in the past.
Anon got some observation skills. They always give anons just enough to realize we're still watching a show.
I wonder if this will be the facial expression in the mug shot?
It angers me the lengths this man is having to go to in order to make this plan work, but I also have to remind myself that he probably had a significant role in helping draft it. Blood pressure and anxiety goes up, then down, then up, then down.
>This is fun
Conceptualizing an external God as the source of morality doesn't fix the problem of inconsistencies in application of law any more precisely than agreeing upon the observable evidence of how the laws of nature can also be applied to man, and how man can draw inspiration from that evidence for their own laws of governance - especially in the sense of self-governance. The goal, ultimately, isn't to project belief vs belief but to find common ground in the knowable based on what's provable and understandable. As the founders discovered, a scientific approach to civics was more accurate in remedying the issue of equal application of the law instead of giving way to doctrines, dogmas, and edicts at the whims of choice interpretations of beliefs. Of all the natures to tame in our quest for betterment, that of belief is the most consequential as those that are convinced of absurdities will often commit atrocities.
https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Voltaire_-_%C5%92uvres_compl%C3%A8tes_Garnier_tome25.djvu/422
“Certainement qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde est en droit de vous rendre injuste.”