Can a good Christian be a good American or a good Citizen?
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Yahweh, the warrior god of Samaria.
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his God except Christianity (Exodus 20:3)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the Ten Commandments and the Bible.
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to heaven, to which he looks up in prayer multiple times a day.
Socially - no. Because his intolerant worldview forbids him to make friends with Muslims or Atheists.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to Leviticus, who teaches destruction to nations living in sin, such as the homosexual and womb-harvesting America.
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on secular principles and he believes secularism to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because his pastor does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Old Time Religion cannot co-exist. Every church is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation … perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL CHRISTIANS in this country. They obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Christians and ‘good’ Americans. Call it what you wish it’s still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.
The religious war is bigger than we know or understand! Footnote:
The Christians have said they will destroy us from within… SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
Please copy past n send out
Can a good Christian be a good American or a good Citizen?
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Yahweh, the warrior god of Samaria.
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his God except Christianity (Exodus 20:3)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the Ten Commandments and the Bible.
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to heaven, to which he looks up in prayer multiple times a day.
Socially - no. Because his intolerant worldview forbids him to make friends with Muslims or Atheists.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to Leviticus, who teaches destruction to nations living in sin, such as the homosexual and womb-harvesting America.
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on secular principles and he believes secularism to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because his pastor does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Old Time Religion cannot co-exist. Every church is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation … perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL CHRISTIANS in this country. They obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Christians and ‘good’ Americans. Call it what you wish it’s still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.
The religious war is bigger than we know or understand! Footnote:
The Christians have said they will destroy us from within… SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
Please copy past n send out
[/quote]
**
Haha! Please let us know what your crazy aunt says in response ;)
I mean, is there really any step worth not taking to prevent a Trump presidency? It’s a hopeless enterprise, but I sympathize with the notion entirely.
Let’s be frank, it is easy to concoct scenarios where any action becomes permissible. The problem is, once unleashed, many steps are oft turned upon their originators.
Look at the Roman Republic. The Gracchi brothers brought in the use of populist riots and violence to fight against elites. That violence, once unleashed, would be turned back upon them. It would also lay the seeds for further changes. Marius and Sulla, they set the precedents that a man named Gaius Julius Caesar would use to justify him donning the mantle of Princeps, first citizen.
Look at the French Revolution. The saying ‘the revolution are her own’ exists for a reason. Factions would ascend on populist ire against ‘reactionary’ factions, only months later to be branded the conservative enemies of state by another new faction gaining power. The National Razor would not just trim royalist heads, after all.
So be very certain, there are some forces best left unopened. For once unleashed, they can never be brought back. Case in point? Protests against Obama’s election being mirrored here. Justified, I may add, but the same basic principle.
So be damn sure, and damn careful, about what we do to oppose Trump. Because the wrong choices lead down the paths to how republics fall.
I agree with what you wrote and yet I still think trying to get the electors to do what they were intended to and keep an unprepared, unstable, authoritarian from running the country is not subverting the system.
Trump won the election as the rules specify. As much as I think he will be dangerous, corrupt, and incompetent, I cannot be supportive of the idea of faithless electors. Yeah, it sounds good now because I feel like I’m staring at the abyss, but so did a lot of people who voted against Obama when he was elected. They were wrong, but they nevertheless felt that he was going to destroy the country. Put yourself back in 2008 or 2012 and imagine if a sizable electoral victory was reversed by faithless electors who put McCain and Palin in charge in order to save us from a Muslim Manchurian candidate. That would have led to very bad things.
So here we have Trump. I’m extremely worried about him and feel like his rhetoric has already caused serious harm to the country. That being said, I believe the way forward is to vote in a congress to oppose him in 2018. Donate to watchdog groups that can keep an eye on his administration, and if and when he crosses constitutional bounds, impeach his ass and throw him out of the White House.
While I realize electors can technically change their vote, that’s just not how things are done. That’s a dangerous precedent to set.
Gotta agree with CraigM and KevinC here. We have to play by the rules, or we’re exactly what we accuse them of being. Unless and until something truly beyond the pale–and I mean, tear up the Constitution and institute President for Life or something level bad–there’s nothing but bad things that could happen from jumping the rails.
A faithless elector scenario would cause a cosmic shitstorm. Probably unrest on a level not seen since the '60s – the 1860s.
Extreme steps in the service of liberty or revanchism can often tip the scale back the other way. Consider how the Liberatores, in stabbing to death the dictator Caesar, hastened the arrival of the Empire.
The problem is, such changes are always incremental – the boiling frog. First they stack the supreme court, then they start changing the constitution: eliminate birthright citizenship for example (seems popular and they have already proposed it). Then start permanently removing voting rights from felons, immigrants, students, etc, redefine the role of journalism and make ‘dissent’ illegal, start shutting down opposition press, lock in gerrymandering to assure permanent majority and change electoral rules so ‘red’ areas always have dominance in govt, confiscate assets of Native Americans, and dissenters, and criminals (hey look, they can make anyone a criminal by executive order now); use security services to root out dissent and encourage good citizens to spy on each other; infiltrate social media and shutdown communication means of opponents; make all levels of judiciary subject to appointment from the top; etc.
By the time they start the ‘President for Life’ changes, they will have torn down all the other means to protest or oppose their actions and the only options are literally tolerate it or armed revolution. This is a well-understood process of dismantling a democracy, and we are fools if we think it could never happen here because we are somehow special.
Quite probably. But the choice is between a potential and a certainty, and I’m not at the point yet where I see the potential of tyranny outweighing the certainty of destroying the system.
