Jesus walked and preached for 40 days after he arose. It's the missing gospel, the most important one.
Vatican archives I bet
Or some people do the literal ritual and actually eat the sons of man, aka little kids.
eat moar tampons, I hear you like your moms alot.
Jesus all the evil will be cast in to a lake of fire which burns with fire and brimstone forever and no man can cross to.
I say if you have ever seen the Milky Way it looks like a lake of fire, and brimestone is burning earth.
Welcome to hell….
Oh and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
So hell is right outside my face.
The kingdom of heaven is within.
So heaven is within me, hell outside me.
Thanks for playing.
A black at some point has a small weak spot. Which at that point millions of tons of matter escapes and is shot across the universe as a cosmic string, yes no
BAKER NOTABLE
Supreme Court Rules for Freedom of Speech
This ruling from 2002 applies today to the internet.
THE DECISIVE DAY came on June 17, 2002, when the Supreme Court published its written opinions. What was the decision? Newspaper headlines told the story. The New York Times proclaimed: “Court Strikes Down Curb on Visits by Jehovah’s Witnesses.” The Columbus Dispatch of Ohio stated: “High Court Invalidates Permit Requirement.” The Plain Dealer of Cleveland, Ohio, simply said: “Solicitors Don’t Need OK From City Hall.” The Op/Ed page of USA Today proclaimed: “Free Speech Wins.”
The lower-court decisions against Jehovah’s Witnesses were reversed by a vote of 8 to 1! The official 18-page Opinion of the Court was written by Justice John Paul Stevens. The decision was a sweeping reaffirmation of the First Amendment protection accorded the public ministry of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In its review the Court explained that the Witnesses did not apply for a permit because they claim that “they derive their authority to preach from Scripture.” Then the Court quoted the testimony cited in their brief: “For us to seek a permit from a municipality to preach we feel would almost be an insult to God.”
The Opinion of the Court stated: “For over 50 years, the Court has invalidated restrictions on door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering. It is more than historical accident that most of these cases involved First Amendment challenges brought by Jehovah’s Witnesses, because door-to-door canvassing is mandated by their religion. As we noted in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, . . . (1943), the Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘claim to follow the example of Paul, teaching “publicly, and from house to house.” Acts 20:20. They take literally the mandate of the Scriptures, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Mark 16:15. In doing so they believe that they are obeying a commandment of God.’”
The Opinion then quoted again from the 1943 case: “This form of religious activity occupies the same high estate under the First Amendment as do worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits. It has the same claim to protection as the more orthodox and conventional exercises of religion.” Quoting a 1939 case, the Opinion stated: “To require a censorship through license which makes impossible the free and unhampered distribution of pamphlets strikes at the very heart of the constitutional guarantees.”—Italics theirs.
The Court then made a significant observation: “The cases demonstrate that efforts of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to resist speech regulation have not been a struggle for their rights alone.” The Opinion explained that the Witnesses “are not the only ‘little people’ who face the risk of silencing by regulations like the Village’s.”
The Opinion went on to state that the ordinance “is offensive—not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society—that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so. . . . A law requiring a permit to engage in such speech constitutes a dramatic departure from our national heritage and constitutional tradition.” The Opinion then spoke of “the pernicious effect of such a permit requirement.”
Threat of Crimes
What about the view that the permit is a safeguard against burglars and other criminals? The Court argued: “Despite recognition of these interests as legitimate, our precedent is clear that there must be a balance between these interests and the effect of the regulations on First Amendment rights.”
sauce
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102003004
The ruling was against the state, morron.
The private company, a gated community, opened their gates for years and allowed people to use shortcuts and the parks.
Jehovah Witnesses came in and then they said they needed a permit and could not use the free access.
The court ruled that once the gates were open to all they could not require some to not use it.
Same applies to FascistBook, at one time they allowed all open speech, now they censor conservatives.
It's already settled law.