Featured Biblically Speaking, Would You Vote to Secede from the Union?

Where does the Bible say we have to vote for a Christian for President? I would like to see this scripture.

Oh, I see, in your mind it is perfectly alright to kill unborn children because they go to heaven? Have you read the scriptures and how God brought judgment on Israel for killing their children?

False, I had nothing to do with Romney being the Republican nominee, I did not vote for him in my state's primary. That said, when he did become the nominee, I certainly supported him more than Obama.

By the way, who did you vote for?

I don't know the family history, I am sure his wife was Mormon before they married. Their religion is their choice. We do live in America you know.

This is America, we are supposed to have freedom of religion here. I do not like Mormonism, or Islam, or Catholicism, but I support the freedom of every American to worship as they see fit.

If I could only vote for someone I agree with 100% on religion, I doubt there would ever be anyone I could vote for. Sure, I would love to have a good and devout Christian for President, but good and devout Christians do not often run for President. So, you have to pick the person you feel would be best for the country.

Again, who did you vote for? You have criticized those of us who voted for Romney, and we have been open about who we voted for. Who did you vote for?

 

Then if you haven't said it, then it must not apply to YOU.:thumbsup:

 

OK, so I'll expect you'll drop this ridiculous false premise that voting for Romney is sending people to Hell.

 

100,000 names won't do it. Texas has 25 million people, so at least a million, preferably more, might start to get the Governor and state legislature's attention. The names on the list will known to the White House, so some people are hesitant to sign, fearing future retribution to them, or possibly their kinfolks living in other states. Perry has already said no go, but he could be swayed by millions of voters I guess. Obama is from Chicago, so there is no trick too dirty for him. I hate so see it come to this, but 4 more years of Obama will do us in anyway, so what is there to lose? All imho.

 

No doubt, local Legislators and politicians will have to get in to the game at some point....We do not disagree here. I am not dedicated to the idea of some "seccessionist" movement myself at present mainly because I truly believe that the American Population simply hasn't the stones to do it....
Your arguments in the practical level are indeed correct IMO....I speak only in the Theoretical....Indeed, IMO, we are too scared of losing "Social Security" in this country.....

So, no doubt, there are few with the gumption to really take up the case. I only argue for it's legitimacy if it were to occur. As long as there are so-called "tea-party" activists with a death-grip on their Social-Security checks....than we are all Communists, and no one has a right to complain.......I will repeat myself...If you hold on to "Social-Security" and defend it, than you are merely one more "gimme-gimme" special interest group like anyone on welfare is.....You are a selfish "Well-fare Queen" like everyone else who isn't worth a single penny in this country is...."Freedom" doesn't mean a thing to the "Social-Security" dependent thug anymore than the pensions of the government or auto-workers means...it's still extrication of wealth from the young for your own benefit...It's still stealing from your children....It is still the utilization of government force to extract earnings from those younger than you to subsidize your own pay.....It has nothing to do with freedom. We don't want freedom in this Country...We are all fellow Communists now.

 

Heir,
First of all, give a Article in the Constitution that allows for succession. I agree with you about the swing states. Nine states were campaigned in basically. It was not the intent of the electoral college, but that is what has evolved. Obama could have spent every day and night in Kentucky, and he would have not had a chance. In fact in this state, the only time it becomes a swing is when a Democrat nominee is from the South, such as Carter and Clinton. Even then, it sometimes goes Republican.

Yes we are politically close except minor points. The whole thread would have been a good discussion except for one poster I will not name.

One point I would be interested in knowing your opinion on, is a Constitutional Convention for amending. Do you think succession would be possible through that process?

 

Of course....there is no article in the Constitution which "allows" for seccession....No reasonable "secessionst" would argue that there were.....Then again, there were no laws passed by the Parliament of Great-Britain and signed on to by the King of England which permitted any Colony of His Majesty or any collective of His Majestie's colonies to declare their Independence from British rule either...
We must be consistent..

I am arguing from the stand-point of the "consent of the governed"...It was an ideological war fought in the Revolution, and (believe it or not) it was an ideological war fought in the War Between the States, and it would be merely an ideological war now if a "secessionist movement" were to gain ground...It won't though...as too many of us are Government dependents....

The entire "swing-states" thing is incidental, and does not mean the system is inherently wrong.....I think the "electoral college" idea was ingenious.....but, I only bring it up because I think you are defending a Federal Government which is simply TOO powerful....and BTW...when it comes to the initial war our Nation fought over Secession....Do you claim they were "Un-Constitutional" to do so???? That is an Historically difficult position to defend....You can't make an "Argument from Silence"....Your demand that I provide:

Is a logically fallacious argument...It is an "argument from silence". The "Constitution" doesn't tell us that a man can't beat his wife either...No-where sir, is it written in our Constitution that you can't rape a 5-year-old virgin either....

There is NO Federal Law against beating a woman sir...

Believe it or not....there shouldn't be either. A Constitution is a document which outlines the political theory of Governance...It doesn't spell out which particulars of Law any given State signatory might impose...... There is no Federal Law against adultery either. There IS, however a LAW against it in the UCMJ........."Uniformed Code of Military Justice"...and the UCMJ is right to have it....But, guess what??? It would be "wrong" for the "Constitution" to have such a law.....

Why is "Roe vs. Wade" wrong????
Because, simply put, our Constitution no more guarantees a woman's "Reproductive Privacy" than the man in the moon.... It was a fake B.S. idea then, and it is a fake B.S. idea now....
Roe v. Wade was based on attrocious political theory:
It wasn't based on the Constitution...it was based on a previous Case "Ward v. Connecticut" (I think it was called) wherein the free and Sovereign State of Connecticut had outlawed contraceptives of any kind....and someone decided NOT to use the legitimate power of making a case of the issue, and decided to (rather than convince the people and by extension the Legislature of the State).... To deman that some random idiot in a Federal Court impose their Philosophy on that State...

Was Connecticut "wrong"?
Yes, but there was a "right way" and a "wrong way" to fix the situation...and those who worship the entrenched power of the "Feds"...acted wrongly...Connecticut was "stupid" to illegalize ALL forms of contraceptives...but it wasn't the Federal Governments job to rule against Connecticut either.....

So, I ask you...Where in the U.S. Constitution is is written that Connecticut can't have a relatively stupid law against all contraception, and where is is "written" in the Constitution that every woman has the right (without ANY PATERNAL consent) to slaughter their own progeny in the womb????

Dis-like it???? Than the only solution might be secession....maybe not...but "Arguments from silence" don't work...

As I said before....much love, and I agree with you on the ultimate goals...I just think your politcal theory is off...God bless you brother:wavey:

We refuse to understand what the difference is between a Constitution...and a body of LAW:
They are not the same...

I would confidently tell you two things:
1.)It should NOT be "un-Constitutional" to beat your wife
2.)It should be Illegal to beat your wife

Both of those statements are true........

 

When you prove it to not be true, i'll drop it.

 

Are you in the first grade? No, wait, I'll bet your name is really Holden Caulfield.

 

The name is as it appears in the upper left corner. I swear every one on here thinks their stupid cuts serve as some sort of wit.

 

Really? And I just knew you were Holden Caulfield. My bad.

 

People are going to Hell as the default condition because they are sinners and don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God. Voting for Romney does not send people to Hell.

18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

So quit it already.

 

People are going to hell because they reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And if voting for Romney puts a stumbling block in front of them that continues to lead them to reject His truth, then voting for Romney is sending folks to hell.

And I'll use the very same Scripture you quoted. So placing before folks a stumbling block that hinders their acceptance of the RIGHT Jesus really does send folks to hell and keeps them on that same path.

Thanks for the Scriptural agreement.:thumbs:

 

Your constant trolling, argumentative comments and general silliness has collectively, been a stumbling block for many people on this board. Are you leading some to hell by encouraging people to avoid this place with your belligerent demeanor?

No, really! I'm washed by the blood, secure in Christ but you (yes, you specifically and your behavior) keep people like me from participating in this community. There used to be an individual with "Free" as part of their name, that carried your sort of "torch". Congratulations, now it's you.

As to the OP...absolutely I'd be happy to be involved in in a succession movement that focused on freedom. I never grew up believing in "GOD bless America" rather it seemed more correct to believe in "GOD bless your people that are IN America". For those outside of this country, the same goes. GOD bless you, not the dirt you live upon or the "higher order" of man's governance.