Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Supreme Court of Sodom

Preach it baby!
http://www.channel3000.com/news/expastor-charged-in-wisconsin-child-porn-case/28985226

Thank you Sir.

Good post and you make some valid points.

Here in Pagan Land all a Pagan religious leader can do in marriage is bless the marriage. All marriages, in order to be valid in Pagan Land, must be validated in a State civil ceremony. We in Pagan Land do not have nor do we seek a 501(3) tax exempt status. Pagans prefer to operate individually or in very small groups either in outdoor sacred groves or homes. Pagans really have kept "Church" and State separate.

Perhaps Christians should try to do that same.

Your welcome. Hope all is well with you and the Lady.

We are having a great time with friends and family. I hope all is well with you.

Doing well thank you.

Blah blah blah

Jefferson said that American jurists read Blackstone more diligently than the moslem read the koran.

You guys have drunk the foolks cool-aid. Read Blackstone's introduction of what the law is and get back to me.

The Declaration is not the law of the land??? Says who? You? So what...

You cannot divorce our Constitution from the Declaration. Not and be honest with American law, history, heritage, and the founders.

Go back in time to when the Constitution was ratified and make these silly foolish shallow sodomite accomodating arguments. They would tar and feather you in Philly...

There was an intelligent deliberate pre-planned strategy by leftist lawyers from Harvard Law to make these anti-Declaration arguments; because the communist sympathizers had to destroy that document in the eyes of the American people.

And you arrogant ignorant dolts are manifestation of that deception.

And what is left? Scrapping clawing and scratching to be emporer or vote for the new emporer of sodom? Vanity vanity.

The only known record that I know of of sodomite deviant marriage other than the Theban soldiers prior to Christianity coming to Greece would be Nero.

He beat his beautiful young wife to death because she smarted off at him after he spent all day at the horse races. Then he mourned the loss of her beauty and found a young man that looked like her, castrated him and married him.

Wahooooo! Modern American! Here is your saviour! Nero!

Thomas Paine was persona non-grata after he wrote the age of reason. Then we went to live it out in France where most of you arrogant dolts belong; but Paine saw the terror of his "theology" and thought better of it. He, at the end of his life was the sworn enemy of George Washington! The greatest states-man that ever lived.

For those not totally pickled in porn, lewd coarse jest and communist drivel:

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Rights/dp/0967175968

But I know no one will read it. Any more than you would read Rutherford, Blackstone, or the Federalist, or Sydney or Puffendorf on natural law.

But you non readers know everything...

I will go repair my gaskets and all that crap and so forth and so on...

I've read Blackstone to a degree you probably can't fathom.

That still doesn't make the Declaration of Independence any form or basis of law in the US. The Constitution, as amended, is the law. The Declaration served one purpose, as mentioned earlier. It is not part of the Constitution, is not cited by the Constitution, and is not wedded to the Constitution. No matter how much YOU want to change fact, you cannot. The Declaration of Independence has no substance as law in the US, and it never has (SCOTUS history from the beginning establishes this, as it should).

You can't make an argument on fact. You can't make the argument on law. You can't make the argument on history. So, you resort to name calling and petulant insults. Yet, you claim that others are baseless and clueless. It is you that doesn't understand and you that are so blinded by ideology that the world is out of focus.

Coming up with the "go back in time..." line was funny. Go back then and try to convince them that slavery was an evil, too, why don'tcha? Or, that man could travel to the moon, or that we could and should keep and bear arms capable of what we have today. Also, no one is making any "sodomite accommodation arguments"; you simply knee-jerk to gay-hatred whenever your argument fails (as it does, repeatedly). You don't know the law, and you are too pig-headed to admit it. You have a hatred that shapes your every thought, and you try to bend the world to it. That just won't happen, and it drives you nuts.

Citing Jefferson as a source of "God's will" is positively funny, if you have any idea as to Jefferson's own beliefs.

So, if I read this correctly, You're a kinda MOUTHY azzwhole, aren't
you ?

WTF do you even hang around this place, Oral, or is it Anal ?

I think 4's term "Baptist Taliban" would cover your mode of operation pretty much to a T.

carry on, and GFY

GTC

I'm thinking RW is now the freakshow's "Most likely to end up on the evening news"..

If you have read Blackstone, then you either did not comprehend or your currently don't remember...

He affirms in launguage unassailable the laws of nature and the the laws of God as the foundation of all law. Just as John Locke did in his 2nd Treatise.

If you want me to dig up the chapter and verse quotation... it is not hard to do.

And what Blackstone says in plain language is that the laws of God, as Jefferson quotes nearly word for word from Blackstones introduction; that is the law of God as revealed in the scriptures as concerns the eternal moral law of God.

Plain flat and simple. If you contradict that statement then you are either prevaricating or ignorant.

Par for your course... ass

You never have articulated any positive statement of what you believe concerning anything except perhaps Lee factory crimp dies...

It is easy to be a cynic... just mock everyone and everything every day. No courage involved in that insanity. But I guess it makes you feel better...

Back at you.

The whole damn nation being over run by deviants teaching little kids in elementary school that mommy has a wife and that George Washington was a slave raper...

Get some perspective... ass

What an ignorant post. The framers intentionally adopted a Constitution that would have sufficient power to "put slavery in the course of ultimate extinction" [Lincoln]. They compromised on slavery because those compromises were prudential in the Aristotelian sense---they were in the service of a greater good and in that light, can only be seen as moral compromises. Without the compromises regarding slavery in the Constitution of 1787 there could and would never have been a Union and without Union (and the Constitution) there would never have been a Constitutional government sufficiently empowered to end slavery.

Whether Jefferson or Washington did or did not own (or impregnate slaves---and BTW there is little to no evidence Thomas Jefferson impregnated a slave. I've read all the analysis. Hatchet job by the Left) is irrelevant to whether the natural law and natural right principles of the Declaration are true. Jefferson and others may be guilty of some degree of hypocrisy, but that tells us nothing of whether the founding principles they promulgated are actually true principles.

On the premises of the sodomy rights movement, anything goes, including slavery and genocide.

It is impossible to not legislate morality. Even the decision to pass no "moral" legislation has the effect of authorizing behavior some people believe is immoral. Its not an either or proposition. The other problem is that virtually all legislation is about morals. The decision how high my taxes should be is not an empirical question, it is a moral one (or a philosophical one if you will). So its not logically possible to avoid legislating morality and we legislate morality every day in this country---without a peep from you Libertarians/Leftists---except when its natural or biblical morality, and then you go ape-[bleep] (not you Scott).

hear hear


it's about time someone chastised you heathens


and the beatings will continue until moral(s) improve!

Marriage (properly understood) in secular government is not a religious institution. It is an arrangement to which society gives preferential treatment because the participants (man and woman) are partners in the creation of future citizens. Because limited, Constitutional government depends on those citizens being self-reliant, law-abiding, self-supporting, hard-working and capable of self-governance (i.e., virtuous) we deem it essential to favor the union (natural marriage) of those who create and raise those future citizens (children) on the assumption (well proven over time) that this preferential treatment will sustain natural marriage and redound to the benefit of those children and hence the next generation and hence freedom and limited government.

The derelict citizenry we are raising now in this country is the product of the destruction of natural marriage which began 50 years ago when we re-defined marriage as a contract arrangement in the service simply of what is best, sexually, emotionally and psychologically for the adults. Sodomite marriage will simply hasten the trend which contract marriage doctrine started in the 1950s. Look at the statistics on the modern family and compare them with a half-century ago and then try and convince yourself that todays new citizens (children) are likely to create a society inclined toward independence (and limited government) or its opposite. Asking the question is sufficient to answer it and we all know what that answer is. And our taxes will continue to go up to pay the damage these libertarian/leftist policies have caused. You think the massive increase in the need for government social service intervention in society over the past 50 years is just a coincidence?

An ancient (and wise) philosopher said it best, "nature, expelled with a pitchfork, always returns". And it is returning to this country with a vengeance. And with sodomite marriage, it will only get worse, far worse. You would think the AIDS epidemic (to say nothing of veneral disease generally) would have been sufficient proof of nature's interest in that morality that is conducive to the family. But Leftists, Libertarians and moral relativists are nothing if not blind.

Jordan

So, where is this guy's freedom to decide what to do with his own life and property?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...ss-owners-should-leave-religion-at-home/

Queeranny is upon us.

From Blackstone's Introduction:

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy; for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to, the former. To instance in the case of murder; this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and from these prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. Those human laws that annex a punishment to it, do not at all increase its moral guilt, or superadd any fresh obligation in foro conscientiae to abstain from it's perpetration. Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine. But with regard to matters that are in themselves indifferent, and are not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws; such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the inferior legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose, and to make that action unlawful which before was not so.