The content of someone's beliefs has no bearing on their constitutional rights.
Any law against the content of beliefs is unconstitutional. The courts/justice system violate the constitution daily and are lawless and illegitimate if you haven't noticed.
>who told you that?
Likely A man of the cloth upholding the veil that was torn when Jesus died on the cross.
>state on your border that is dedicated to your destruction
>The United States would not tolerate it
>Who told you?
The Way, and the Truth, and the Life told me.
Let me guess, you think that knowledge comes from an incomplete book of scripture assembled "for your reading convenience" by the very people Jesus warned about right?
Light shines in the darkness, and darkness does not comprehend.
Everyone with hearing hears voices when people talk to them. Since you're implying I hear imaginary voices… no, you just fail to understand.
Your bit it old it's obvious what you were trying to lead into.
I said the Way, and the Truth, and the Life told me. YOU claim I said imaginary voices. You don't know what it means so you project nonsense.
When did I say three people. When did I say one person? You fail to understand so you just come up with nonsense and project.
When you seek an honest conversation rather than to project and attempt to discredit, maybe you'll find answers.
>trusts the history
>a desire to know and to quantify what truthfully occurred historically
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.
Look at you falsely accusing. Notice how hard you're trying to cover misunderstanding what other anon said.
>>>20814375
>Notice how hard you're trying to cover misunderstanding what other anon said
No, it means those three are unclean. It doesn't mean all frogs.
Not all anons are authentic (injected).
What if they were designed to give an excuse for the national guard to be deployed in 12 cities?