-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
You made the false assertion that it is morally wrong to discriminate against anyone for "any reason." I corrected your false assertion with scholarly explanation. But, I see that you've chosen denial respite with even more false assertions.
The fact that you simultaneously falsely assert that genuine Christians must be forced by the government to embrace and facilitate the immorality of immoral people who cannot be forced to embrace and facilitate a normative morality reveals how hypocritically fascist (e.g. the actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control) your position that the government can deny normatively moral people their rights really is.
And I wonder how you're assertion that "you can live your own life by whatever code you like" applies to say the Manson family and their denial of "services" by the government for the immoral (not to be confused with moral... a conflict inherent with your argument) conduct they engaged in.
Obviously, as I pointed out, immorality is not equitable to normative morality. Someone's "right" to engage in immoral acts does not supersede the genuine right, established in God's timeless normative morality (God's normative morality being an extension of His own character) to live a moral life; to live out God's normative morality in and with life; even when you and the government exercise autocratic or dictatorial control to attempt to make it so.
As stated, the normatively moral have a genuine de jure right to maintain God's normative morality in their lives and in their organizations notwithstanding your false assertion that they must accept, facilitate, and partner with immorality which puts you at odds with God Himself.
I wish you would adhere to your own assertion that "being gay is no more grounds for discrimination than being straight" and not autocratically discriminate against normatively moral people and their religious organizations in seeking to deprive them of their human rights under natural law to a free moral conscience, their religious liberty toward a normative morality, and their Constitutional religious protections.
Certainly pedophile and bestiality are immoral for the reason you specified and many others including the fact that they are serious immoral negative deviations from God's normative morality as are many other negative deviations from God's morality such as public exhibitionism (e.g. masturbating in public) that normatively moral people cannot accept as moral, facilitate, or partner with in their lives or their organizations for to do so is to disobey God Himself.
But then you seek to deny genuine Christians their human right to adhere to God's special revelation that "immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints" an instruction from God that you seek to deny them of in an autocratic manner.
Oh but many like yourself falsely and hypocritically assert that public exhibitionism is offensive but denying normatively moral people their human right to a free moral conscience, their religious liberty toward God's normative morality, and their Constitutional religious liberty with respect to homosexuality (an immoral behavior that tens of millions of Americans and several billion people around the world are offended by) is not offensive. How truly incorrect and intellectually bankrupt such an argument is as is your continuing false assertion that immoral man-made "power of law" overrides God's normatively moral law. Obviously not.
This toleration of immoral deviations from reasonable sexual standards rooted in God's normative morality is quite illogical and unfair. To be logical and fair requires a standard toleration of immoral deviations because the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency in nondiscriminatory equal treatment. This is why other groups formed around immoral behaviors are already clamoring for the secular special rights and protections homosexuals now receive. But as has already been explained to you numerous times these secular special rights and protections are presently violating the human rights of normatively moral people making your position logically non-sequester.
My goal posts never move for they are nothing less than my alignment with God's eternal goal posts. I've already corrected your false assertion that SECULAR law and a SECULAR definition of human rights are only as valid as their alignment with God's normatively moral law (see post #19).
Note the examples I gave which were that this is the ultimately meaningful reason why it was moral to disobey Nazi secular law to surrender Jews in the Third Reich for extermination and this is why it is immoral for government to intolerantly discriminate against genuine Christians for refusing to accept and facilitate immorality.
In your logic, all secular law trumps the creator God of the universe's normatively moral law making it immoral to disobey Nazi secular law to surrender Jews in the Third Reich for extermination, making it immoral to warn Christians having Bible studies in totalitarian nations which prohibited them that government goon squads are coming to assault and then imprison them, etc... (the list though not infinite is a very very long one) and autocratically misuse government to deprive normatively moral people of their human rights and religious liberty. If only liberal fascists, like yourself, would practice what they preach and stop hypocritically enforcing their immoral lifestyle choices on normatively moral people and their organizations, violating their human rights in the process.
Your false assertion that a de facto immoral man-made law that propagates immorality and deprives normatively moral people of their human right to a free moral conscience, their religious liberty toward God's normative morality, and their Constitutionally protected religious liberty which is in contradiction to and above God's de jure normative moral law is patently false. Those man-made laws should be overturned immediately.
The perseverance and martyrdom of the saints in the face of your ungodly immoral autocratic misuse of government to violate their god given right to normative morality and to live a holy life pleasing to God will be evidence of conviction of your hypocritical tyranny at the Great White Throne judgment.
The fact that you simultaneously falsely assert that genuine Christians must be forced by the government to embrace and facilitate the immorality of immoral people who cannot be forced to embrace and facilitate a normative morality reveals how hypocritically fascist (e.g. the actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control) your position that the government can deny normatively moral people their rights really is.
And I wonder how you're assertion that "you can live your own life by whatever code you like" applies to say the Manson family and their denial of "services" by the government for the immoral (not to be confused with moral... a conflict inherent with your argument) conduct they engaged in.
Obviously, as I pointed out, immorality is not equitable to normative morality. Someone's "right" to engage in immoral acts does not supersede the genuine right, established in God's timeless normative morality (God's normative morality being an extension of His own character) to live a moral life; to live out God's normative morality in and with life; even when you and the government exercise autocratic or dictatorial control to attempt to make it so.
As stated, the normatively moral have a genuine de jure right to maintain God's normative morality in their lives and in their organizations notwithstanding your false assertion that they must accept, facilitate, and partner with immorality which puts you at odds with God Himself.
I wish you would adhere to your own assertion that "being gay is no more grounds for discrimination than being straight" and not autocratically discriminate against normatively moral people and their religious organizations in seeking to deprive them of their human rights under natural law to a free moral conscience, their religious liberty toward a normative morality, and their Constitutional religious protections.
Certainly pedophile and bestiality are immoral for the reason you specified and many others including the fact that they are serious immoral negative deviations from God's normative morality as are many other negative deviations from God's morality such as public exhibitionism (e.g. masturbating in public) that normatively moral people cannot accept as moral, facilitate, or partner with in their lives or their organizations for to do so is to disobey God Himself.
But then you seek to deny genuine Christians their human right to adhere to God's special revelation that "immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints" an instruction from God that you seek to deny them of in an autocratic manner.
Oh but many like yourself falsely and hypocritically assert that public exhibitionism is offensive but denying normatively moral people their human right to a free moral conscience, their religious liberty toward God's normative morality, and their Constitutional religious liberty with respect to homosexuality (an immoral behavior that tens of millions of Americans and several billion people around the world are offended by) is not offensive. How truly incorrect and intellectually bankrupt such an argument is as is your continuing false assertion that immoral man-made "power of law" overrides God's normatively moral law. Obviously not.
This toleration of immoral deviations from reasonable sexual standards rooted in God's normative morality is quite illogical and unfair. To be logical and fair requires a standard toleration of immoral deviations because the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency in nondiscriminatory equal treatment. This is why other groups formed around immoral behaviors are already clamoring for the secular special rights and protections homosexuals now receive. But as has already been explained to you numerous times these secular special rights and protections are presently violating the human rights of normatively moral people making your position logically non-sequester.
My goal posts never move for they are nothing less than my alignment with God's eternal goal posts. I've already corrected your false assertion that SECULAR law and a SECULAR definition of human rights are only as valid as their alignment with God's normatively moral law (see post #19).
Note the examples I gave which were that this is the ultimately meaningful reason why it was moral to disobey Nazi secular law to surrender Jews in the Third Reich for extermination and this is why it is immoral for government to intolerantly discriminate against genuine Christians for refusing to accept and facilitate immorality.
In your logic, all secular law trumps the creator God of the universe's normatively moral law making it immoral to disobey Nazi secular law to surrender Jews in the Third Reich for extermination, making it immoral to warn Christians having Bible studies in totalitarian nations which prohibited them that government goon squads are coming to assault and then imprison them, etc... (the list though not infinite is a very very long one) and autocratically misuse government to deprive normatively moral people of their human rights and religious liberty. If only liberal fascists, like yourself, would practice what they preach and stop hypocritically enforcing their immoral lifestyle choices on normatively moral people and their organizations, violating their human rights in the process.
Your false assertion that a de facto immoral man-made law that propagates immorality and deprives normatively moral people of their human right to a free moral conscience, their religious liberty toward God's normative morality, and their Constitutionally protected religious liberty which is in contradiction to and above God's de jure normative moral law is patently false. Those man-made laws should be overturned immediately.
The perseverance and martyrdom of the saints in the face of your ungodly immoral autocratic misuse of government to violate their god given right to normative morality and to live a holy life pleasing to God will be evidence of conviction of your hypocritical tyranny at the Great White Throne judgment.
A
The perseverance and martyrdom of the saints in the face of your ungodly immoral autocratic misuse of government to violate their god given right to normative morality and to live a holy life pleasing to God will be evidence of conviction of your hypocritical tyranny at the Great White Throne judgment must be qualified, of course, as maintaining your unrepentant state outside of God's kingdom as an unregenerate facilitating immorality and discriminating against and persecuting God's Beloved (See Ephesians 5:1-20).
O
an interesting issue. i think that the first question we should ask is "why is a church contracting with the government to provide social services?" if that is done as a christian ministry we should ask why the church doesn't fund the ministry. if those services are provided to make that particular church a larger and more powerful social institution ..... then play by the rules of the people who fund you.
A
So if the "rules of the people who fund you" are that you have to condone, facilitate, and propagate sweeping immorality in direct opposition to God's holiness and scriptural admonitions not to then do it anyways? Obviously not.
So genuine Christians and their organizations must be officially discriminated against and excluded as government contractors for social services (and note Christians are also taxed to pay for these social services) because they cannot condone, facilitate, and propagate sweeping immorality in direct opposition to God's holiness and scriptural admonitions not to? Obviously not.
Me thinks you need to read your Bible more and stop relying on your flawed best thinking.
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’" [Jesus speaking] Matthew 7:13-23
So genuine Christians and their organizations must be officially discriminated against and excluded as government contractors for social services (and note Christians are also taxed to pay for these social services) because they cannot condone, facilitate, and propagate sweeping immorality in direct opposition to God's holiness and scriptural admonitions not to? Obviously not.
Me thinks you need to read your Bible more and stop relying on your flawed best thinking.
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’" [Jesus speaking] Matthew 7:13-23
O
So if the "rules of the people who fund you" are that you have to condone, facilitate, and propagate sweeping immorality in direct opposition to God's holiness and scriptural admonitions not to then do it anyways? Obviously not.
So genuine Christians and their organizations must be officially discriminated against and excluded as government contractors for social services (and note Christians are also taxed to pay for these social services) because they cannot condone, facilitate, and propagate sweeping immorality in direct opposition to God's holiness and scriptural admonitions not to? Obviously not.
Me thinks you need to read your Bible more and stop relying on your flawed best thinking.
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’" [Jesus speaking] Matthew 7:13-23
So genuine Christians and their organizations must be officially discriminated against and excluded as government contractors for social services (and note Christians are also taxed to pay for these social services) because they cannot condone, facilitate, and propagate sweeping immorality in direct opposition to God's holiness and scriptural admonitions not to? Obviously not.
Me thinks you need to read your Bible more and stop relying on your flawed best thinking.
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’" [Jesus speaking] Matthew 7:13-23
A
Most Christian religious organizations contracted to provide services DO while some do not but ALL are to be excluded by Obama (the defilers) unilateral executive order unless they disobey God and accept, condone, facilitate, and propagate sexual immorality which is blatant, unconstitutional, unholy government discrimination against normatively moral religious people and their organizations that ascribe to God's holiness (e.g. normative morality).
Take into account the rest of the human rights in conjunction with the one you are focusing on and then it might make sense. Anyone can believe what they like, but just like everyone else, they must respect another's human rights. For instance, a person may well believe that white people are supreme, but to respect the human rights of black people, they must not discriminate against those black people in any way that violates their human rights.
I can believe that Christianity is evil, but I could never discriminate against a christian just because they are christian. If the government stops me treating christians any differently than other citizens, it is because they are protecting the christian's human rights. The government's most prominent rules are the laws of America, or whatever country it may be.
Thus, religious opinion or religious belief is, in the eyes of the law, secondary to the law itself.
If a Christian organization is funded by the government, then they are effectively tied by the contractual agreements the government set out, just like every other business the government contracts to do work.
Thus, they must abide by said terms.
Now, I can certainly admit that forcing self-funding christian ministries, whose mission statements are clearly to propagate the christian religion, to forego the very tenants of that religion is wrong. A church, for instance, simply because it is a religious institution who holds the view that homosexuality is wrong, should not be forced to employ people who openly and daily go against that tenant. That we can agree on.
But as far as wider society goes, outside that church's grounds, there is absolutely no way that any member of that church can legally discriminate against homoesexuals.
Whether it is for-profit business who must abide by the business laws of America (whereby a person can buy goods under the same rights as any other citizen), or whether it is some other scenario, like a homosexual person applying to be a cleaner at a company, they cannot and should not be discriminated against, just like every other citizen.
The crux of this issue is proper cause. For instance, an employer whose company specifically works with children could refuse to hire a sex offender, because of the danger that offender presents to the children. But a cleaning company not hiring a homosexual simply on the basis of their sexual preference is not proper cause.
The point of the human rights are to form a basis for social equality, where each citizen is treated fairly and equally. That does not mean that there are not specific exceptions to that rule, but it seems to me that you do not have a sense of proportion.
A shop, let's say, refusing to sell goods to a homosexual because they are camp, is not proper cause. However, a shop refusing to sell to a customer because they are being rowdy or a member of the crowd has shoplifted before, or because the person who wishes to buy does not have sufficient money - those are proper causes.
What you're effectively saying is that an entire country should bow down to you religious beliefs and allow you to act outside the realms of common law because of them.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I can believe that Christianity is evil, but I could never discriminate against a christian just because they are christian. If the government stops me treating christians any differently than other citizens, it is because they are protecting the christian's human rights. The government's most prominent rules are the laws of America, or whatever country it may be.
Thus, religious opinion or religious belief is, in the eyes of the law, secondary to the law itself.
If a Christian organization is funded by the government, then they are effectively tied by the contractual agreements the government set out, just like every other business the government contracts to do work.
Thus, they must abide by said terms.
Now, I can certainly admit that forcing self-funding christian ministries, whose mission statements are clearly to propagate the christian religion, to forego the very tenants of that religion is wrong. A church, for instance, simply because it is a religious institution who holds the view that homosexuality is wrong, should not be forced to employ people who openly and daily go against that tenant. That we can agree on.
But as far as wider society goes, outside that church's grounds, there is absolutely no way that any member of that church can legally discriminate against homoesexuals.
Whether it is for-profit business who must abide by the business laws of America (whereby a person can buy goods under the same rights as any other citizen), or whether it is some other scenario, like a homosexual person applying to be a cleaner at a company, they cannot and should not be discriminated against, just like every other citizen.
The crux of this issue is proper cause. For instance, an employer whose company specifically works with children could refuse to hire a sex offender, because of the danger that offender presents to the children. But a cleaning company not hiring a homosexual simply on the basis of their sexual preference is not proper cause.
The point of the human rights are to form a basis for social equality, where each citizen is treated fairly and equally. That does not mean that there are not specific exceptions to that rule, but it seems to me that you do not have a sense of proportion.
A shop, let's say, refusing to sell goods to a homosexual because they are camp, is not proper cause. However, a shop refusing to sell to a customer because they are being rowdy or a member of the crowd has shoplifted before, or because the person who wishes to buy does not have sufficient money - those are proper causes.
What you're effectively saying is that an entire country should bow down to you religious beliefs and allow you to act outside the realms of common law because of them.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A
It doesn't matter if your beliefs align with objective metaphysical reality or fail to. I don't care if you think the Christian worldview is no different than the pagan worldview of Borneo headhunters in your obviously false, illogical, relativistic outlook.
The bottom line here is that you need to respect the human rights of Christians instead of seeking to use the government to deprive Christians of their humans rights and persecute them when they refuse to surrender their human rights which are not given them by the United Nations but Creator God.
Immoral laws and laws that injure the moral can and should be nullified and changed. Specifically, immoral laws that seek to deprive moral people and their religious organizations of their God given normative morality and persecute them for not surrendering it on behalf of immoral groups of people SHOULD be nullified and changed.
If you get a lot of immoral people to pass a blatantly immoral law that seeks to force me to condone, facilitate, engage in, or partner with immorality: I'm going to break your law because, as I have explained repeatedly but your elevator apparently doesn't go past the first floor so try to press the second floor button once in a while just to see what happens, you used a governmental de facto power to create an immoral law that is in violation with Creator God's de jure supreme, eternal, normative, moral law putting me in a position where I HAVE to break your de facto immoral law to align with Creator God's de jure moral law which supersedes your de facto authority (and immoral law).
This is authoritatively true no matter where I (or my religious association or organization) am geographically or politically located.
And the Supreme Court of the U.S. agrees, as they should, and as I explained to you repeatedly in their recent ruling. Note their terminology: "not only preaching but teaching and carrying out a religious group’s mission."
This means Obama's unilateral executive order in conflict with recent Supreme Court ruling for it bars religious organizations from "carrying out a religious group's mission [on or off their private property]" by forcing them to deny their mission and accept his redefined mission for them which is to seek out, hire, and promote individuals whose beliefs and immoral behaviors run counter to the religious group's mission and normative morality... the very heart of the Supreme Court ruling that religious organizations (e.g. churches, religious schools, religious employers) cannot be deprived in that way under the Constitution of the United States whether or not Obama says so or not.
Since this isn't rocket science, at some point, I imagine it will at least begin to sink in.
The bottom line here is that you need to respect the human rights of Christians instead of seeking to use the government to deprive Christians of their humans rights and persecute them when they refuse to surrender their human rights which are not given them by the United Nations but Creator God.
Immoral laws and laws that injure the moral can and should be nullified and changed. Specifically, immoral laws that seek to deprive moral people and their religious organizations of their God given normative morality and persecute them for not surrendering it on behalf of immoral groups of people SHOULD be nullified and changed.
If you get a lot of immoral people to pass a blatantly immoral law that seeks to force me to condone, facilitate, engage in, or partner with immorality: I'm going to break your law because, as I have explained repeatedly but your elevator apparently doesn't go past the first floor so try to press the second floor button once in a while just to see what happens, you used a governmental de facto power to create an immoral law that is in violation with Creator God's de jure supreme, eternal, normative, moral law putting me in a position where I HAVE to break your de facto immoral law to align with Creator God's de jure moral law which supersedes your de facto authority (and immoral law).
This is authoritatively true no matter where I (or my religious association or organization) am geographically or politically located.
And the Supreme Court of the U.S. agrees, as they should, and as I explained to you repeatedly in their recent ruling. Note their terminology: "not only preaching but teaching and carrying out a religious group’s mission."
This means Obama's unilateral executive order in conflict with recent Supreme Court ruling for it bars religious organizations from "carrying out a religious group's mission [on or off their private property]" by forcing them to deny their mission and accept his redefined mission for them which is to seek out, hire, and promote individuals whose beliefs and immoral behaviors run counter to the religious group's mission and normative morality... the very heart of the Supreme Court ruling that religious organizations (e.g. churches, religious schools, religious employers) cannot be deprived in that way under the Constitution of the United States whether or not Obama says so or not.
Since this isn't rocket science, at some point, I imagine it will at least begin to sink in.
Last edited:
B
Be patient. We have just 2.5 years left of him. And if I am correct a new president can reverse the previous president's executive order(s). The key should be winning the Senate and Obama would have to think twice about issuing some of these executive orders. The Republicans are fighting each and it is working into Obama's favor. I am hearing very little about the RNC's initiative to win the Senate.
J
J
I think the damage will be done. Even if we still have a Government
as we know it, so many young are coming in, I think they will continue
on. I personally do not see hope for us. But that shows lack of faith
in what God can do. That would be a miracle to see all turned around
to being a moral country. I wish I could agree with you, but I don't feel it.
Bless you ....
K
That is wrong as well. The president does not need approval of congress to declare war. He was going to declare war and go into Syria even though congress did not approve. The only thing that stopped him was the citizens of our country stood up and said no, and he had to back track because he got caught being behind some of the dirty dealing going on over there. He now has made it clear that he will go into Iraq if we need to with or with out congress approval.
J