[TheRealThing]

At the time, Mohammed Ali was a conscientious objector. At the time, he was called many names. The term "draft dodging coward" has been applied in this thread, circa 2016.

1) The premise that Mohammed Ali was and is viewed as taking a heroic stand, as being a hero, within the African American community, then and now, is not revisionist.

2) The premise that calling Ali a "draft dodging coward" will not create trust for one in the African American community is not revisionist. Nor is the idea that "get my goodies" is the reason African Americans overwhelmingly vote Democratic.

3) The reach back into the actual time of Ali's decision, and the mooning over actually being there? The reference to the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X? Mohammed Ali always contended the decision to conscientiously object was his, and his alone.

4) The latest polls show the race tightening. With Johnson and Stein together, let's say, grabbing collectively 13% of the vote, aggregate polls give Clinton around a 46% to 41% edge. It is likely that whomever wins will not push over 50%. The "Big Tent" is a shrinking one, a white one.

As to your opening statement, I was there, you weren't. All you have to contribute relative to what people were saying privately and in the media on the matter, is whatever you read. There is a big difference between actually experiencing something and just reading about it. That fact does not seem to give you pause though, as the guy who got all of his information secondhand, doggedly insists on lecturing those who saw and heard with their own senses.

1- As I said, you're wrong. Ali took incoming from every quarter for his so-called stand, and that certainly included the black community. Any argument which states that Ali was held in heroic context "then" is, is, revisionist, in it's purest form. I will concede that he is considered heroic "now". And that further, such is proof positive of the effectiveness of the revisionist reinventions of the very history many of us actually lived through.

2- I have posted extensively on both subjects and I'm not dusting those arguments off again for the sake of helping you to create a dust storm sufficient enough to provide cover for a graceful exit from this discussion. I heard JFK tell the entire citizenry of this nation to be self sufficient. A scant few years later I heard LBJ initiate the Great Society programs, which BTW, constituted a slap in the face of Kennedy's now timeless inaugural remarks. So, I know when the goody switch was thrown, I was there. LBJ, ever the quintessential liberal, was fairly bursting each day with flowing oratory detailing the great promises that the state was outright guaranteeing the black community.

It only takes two stats to prove just how abysmally the liberal failed to deliver on those guarantees. Stat - At the time of LBJ's Great Society Initiative, the number of blacks born into homes without fathers was a near invisible 7%. Today that number has exploded to a mind numbing 73%. Stat - In 1964 there were again, a near invisible 336,000 total recipients receiving food stamps across the entire breadth of the land. Under W. that percentage had gone up to 23 million. By 2012 the number was 47 million, and now it is a staggering 55 million, more than doubling on the Obama watch. If it isn't about the freebies you could have fooled me.

3) Get real. There are any number of books out there on the subject. And I can assure you I didn't author the Wiki article cited. Most people prefer to be decent about the matter but, the facts are what they are. And as usual, the liberal finger points to call out Republicans for the very thing they are so very guilty of. The Dems were the segregationist crowd, not the Republicans. Heck, your girl San Fran Nan is at it again as we speak. Zika control funding is attached to a bill cutting funding to the baby slayers there at Planned Parenthood, and so the Dems are blocking passage. But what does ol Nancy say about it? Why it's the obstructionist Republicans at work again of course.

4) Polls are tightening. And sadly, the liberal has been successful in robbing many Americans of the true sense of their own heritage. Too many are therefore, gravitating to the Dems and the poisonous and deceitful universe of misinformation which is of course, their stock-in-trade. I do not at this point accept the media version as to the inevitable outcome of this election season. I hold out hope that my gut is right, and far more Americans are voting for Trump than the media will admit this side of the vote tally.

[The Urban Sombrero]

As to your opening statement, I was there, you weren't. All you have to contribute relative to what people were saying privately and in the media on the matter, is whatever you read. There is a big difference between actually experiencing something and just reading about it. That fact does not seem to give you pause though, as the guy who got all of his information secondhand, doggedly insists on lecturing those who saw and heard with their own senses.

1- As I said, you're wrong. Ali took incoming from every quarter for his so-called stand, and that certainly included the black community. Any argument which states that Ali was held in heroic context "then" is, is, revisionist, in it's purest form. I will concede that he is considered heroic "now". And that further, such is proof positive of the effectiveness of the revisionist reinventions of the very history many of us actually lived through.

2- I have posted extensively on both subjects and I'm not dusting those arguments off again for the sake of helping you to create a dust storm sufficient enough to provide cover for a graceful exit from this discussion. I heard JFK tell the entire citizenry of this nation to be self sufficient. A scant few years later I heard LBJ initiate the Great Society programs, which BTW, constituted a slap in the face of Kennedy's now timeless inaugural remarks. So, I know when the goody switch was thrown, I was there. LBJ, ever the quintessential liberal, was fairly bursting each day with flowing oratory detailing the great promises that the state was outright guaranteeing the black community.

It only takes two stats to prove just how abysmally the liberal failed to deliver on those guarantees. Stat - At the time of LBJ's Great Society Initiative, the number of blacks born into homes without fathers was a near invisible 7%. Today that number has exploded to a mind numbing 73%. Stat - In 1964 there were again, a near invisible 336,000 total recipients receiving food stamps across the entire breadth of the land. Under W. that percentage had gone up to 23 million. By 2012 the number was 47 million, and now it is a staggering 55 million, more than doubling on the Obama watch. If it isn't about the freebies you could have fooled me.

3) Get real. There are any number of books out there on the subject. And I can assure you I didn't author the Wiki article cited. Most people prefer to be decent about the matter but, the facts are what they are. And as usual, the liberal finger points to call out Republicans for the very thing they are so very guilty of. The Dems were the segregationist crowd, not the Republicans. Heck, your girl San Fran Nan is at it again as we speak. Zika control funding is attached to a bill cutting funding to the baby slayers there at Planned Parenthood, and so the Dems are blocking passage. But what does ol Nancy say about it? Why it's the obstructionist Republicans at work again of course.

4) Polls are tightening. And sadly, the liberal has been successful in robbing many Americans of the true sense of their own heritage. Too many are therefore, gravitating to the Dems and the poisonous and deceitful universe of misinformation which is of course, their stock-in-trade. I do not at this point accept the media version as to the inevitable outcome of this election season. I hold out hope that my gut is right, and far more Americans are voting for Trump than the media will admit this side of the vote tally.

Actually, several documentaries are just full of all manner of "real time" interviews of all manner of people at the time.

You and I mostly agree on "something for nothing" welfare programs that end up doing little or nothing to break cycles of generational poverty. However, "goodies" do not explain the overwhelming preference African Americans show for the Democratic Party.

Republicans still use "the southern strategy." Both parties, TRT, appeal to the base, and, often, not in the most virtuous of ways. The desire to win and truthfulness and integrity are often at odds.

I personally view Ali as heroic in his conscientious objecting to the Viet Nam War from his perspective. Nothing we've exchanged here has changed your mind or mine. That isn't always the purpose of debate. In this case, it certainly wasn't mine. I leave the Ali debate remembering that you use "Cassius Clay" as a taunt, and with the Ali directed "loud mouth coward" phrase echoing in my head. The "Big Tent" is shrinking.

[Bob Seger]

Actually, several documentaries are just full of all manner of "real time" interviews of all manner of people at the time.

You and I mostly agree on "something for nothing" welfare programs that end up doing little or nothing to break cycles of generational poverty. However, "goodies" do not explain the overwhelming preference African Americans show for the Democratic Party.

Republicans still use "the southern strategy." Both parties, TRT, appeal to the base, and, often, not in the most virtuous of ways. The desire to win and truthfulness and integrity are often at odds.

I personally view Ali as heroic in his conscientious objecting to the Viet Nam War from his perspective. Nothing we've exchanged here has changed your mind or mine. That isn't always the purpose of debate. In this case, it certainly wasn't mine. I leave the Ali debate remembering that you use "Cassius Clay" as a taunt, and with the Ali directed "loud mouth coward" phrase echoing in my head. The "Big Tent" is shrinking.

:Thumbs:

:Clap:

[TheRealThing]

Actually, several documentaries are just full of all manner of "real time" interviews of all manner of people at the time.

You and I mostly agree on "something for nothing" welfare programs that end up doing little or nothing to break cycles of generational poverty. However, "goodies" do not explain the overwhelming preference African Americans show for the Democratic Party.

Republicans still use "the southern strategy." Both parties, TRT, appeal to the base, and, often, not in the most virtuous of ways. The desire to win and truthfulness and integrity are often at odds.

I personally view Ali as heroic in his conscientious objecting to the Viet Nam War from his perspective. Nothing we've exchanged here has changed your mind or mine. That isn't always the purpose of debate. In this case, it certainly wasn't mine. I leave the Ali debate remembering that you use "Cassius Clay" as a taunt, and with the Ali directed "loud mouth coward" phrase echoing in my head. The "Big Tent" is shrinking.

Well, I don't know how to break this to you gently, but watching an interview on the internet, ain't quite got the same feel to it as did that runway wheel-skid when the C130 that was delivering us 'green horns' to Da Nang during the war touched down. Looking out that little window at the jungle below, and realizing that within minutes I was to be dropped into a real life war zone chilled my 23 year old bones to the marrow. Let's just say I latched onto the first of several beers and lit up a smoke as soon as I could. I liked the movie Top Gun and I've watched it several times. Having been a crew chief for the F4 Phantom, I can tell you first hand that a crew chief hop aboard my aircraft was a bit different from the movie. But I'm sure you could straighten me out on that too. I don't care if you've made it your life's pursuit to watch every inch of film about Viet Nam on the planet. It's not even close to the real life experience.

Cassius Clay was wildly popular, right up until the influence of his unfortunate affiliation with the NOI forced him to spurn his call to serve his country. I only mentioned his birth name because in my mind, he had the perfect name to go with a magnificent talent. I'll give you another since we're still dancing on the head of the same liberal pin. Lou Alcindor, another classic name for a pro.

I leave the Ali debate remembering that your assertion of having great respect for those who serve, is as hollow as the blast of liberal air that shot metaphorically out of both sides of your mouth during said debate. Heroes serve and sacrifice in love, duty and homage to their nation in time of need. Cowards refuse to serve, make excuses and hide behind them.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Well, I don't know how to break this to you gently, but watching an interview on the internet, ain't quite got the same feel to it as did that runway wheel-skid when the C131 that was delivering us 'green horns' to Da Nang during the war touched down. Looking out that little window at the jungle below, and realizing that within minutes I was to be dropped into a real life war zone chilled my 23 year old bones to the marrow. Let's just say I latched onto the first of several beers and lit up a smoke as soon as I could. I liked the movie Top Gun and I've watched it several times. Having been a crew chief for the F4 Phantom, I can tell you first hand that a crew chief hop aboard my aircraft was a bit different from the movie. But I'm sure you could straighten me out on that too. I don't care if you've made it your life's pursuit to watch every inch of film about Viet Nam on the planet. It's not even close to the real life experience.

Cassius Clay was wildly popular, right up until the influence of his unfortunate affiliation with the NOI forced him to spurn his call to serve his country. I only mentioned his birth name because in my mind, he had the perfect name to go with a magnificent talent. I'll give you another since we're still dancing on the head of the same liberal pin. Lou Alcindor, another classic name for a pro.

I leave the Ali debate remembering that your assertion of having great respect for those who serve, is as hollow as the blast of liberal air that shot metaphorically out of both sides of your mouth during said debate. Heroes serve and sacrifice in love, duty and homage to their nation in time of need. Cowards make excuses and hide behind them.

It is possible to support soldiers but not policy.

Mohammed Ali was not afraid, made no excuses, did not hide. He was a conscientious objecter, with cause and principle.

I have great respect for soldiers, and show it in practical ways, your vented spleen notwithstanding.

[TheRealThing]

It is possible to support soldiers but not policy.

Mohammed Ali was not afraid, made no excuses, did not hide. He was a conscientious objecter, with cause and principle.

I have great respect for soldiers, and show it in practical ways, your vented spleen notwithstanding.

There is no such thing.

[Bob Seger]

It is possible to support soldiers but not policy.

Mohammed Ali was not afraid, made no excuses, did not hide. He was a conscientious objecter, with cause and principle.

I have great respect for soldiers, and show it in practical ways, your vented spleen notwithstanding.

Good grief Travolta, that's about the most childish post that I've seen you make....Are you sure you're not still in elementary school?

How would you know if he "was not afraid"?...How do you know he "made no excuses?...How do you know he "did not hide"?

You know none of any of the above. It's amazing of all the stuff that you put on here that you have absolutely no clue about anything that you are talking about.

You sound like a little kid arguing with another little kid with the "my dad can beat up your dad" back and forth going on....

My gosh man, grow up.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Good grief Travolta, that's about the most childish post that I've seen you make....Are you sure you're not still in elementary school?

How would you know if he "was not afraid"?...How do you know he "made no excuses?...How do you know he "did not hide"?

You know none of any of the above. It's amazing of all the stuff that you put on here that you have absolutely no clue about anything that you are talking about.

You sound like a little kid arguing with another little kid with the "my dad can beat up your dad" back and forth going on....

My gosh man, grow up.

Fish ain't bitin'

[Bob Seger]

Fish ain't bitin'

lol...Wasn't fishin..

"And that's the way it is, Thursday, September 1, 2016.."

[TheRealThing]

lol...Wasn't fishin..

"And that's the way it is, Thursday, September 1, 2016.."

Explain it to him Bob, he might not be bitin but trolling in these parts is fishin. I'm too mad to. :biggrin:

[Bob Seger]

Explain it to him Bob, he might not be bitin but trolling in these parts is fishin. I'm too mad to. :biggrin:

TRT, I am afraid all I would be doing is wasting my time..It would be so far over his head he would need a telescope.

Besides if I did tell him, he would argue with me for 3 days telling me what I told him is not what I told him....nicker:

[The Urban Sombrero]

TRT, I am afraid all I would be doing is wasting my time..It would be so far over his head he would need a telescope.

Besides if I did tell him, he would argue with me for 3 days telling me what I told him is not what I told him....nicker:

You guys sure you oppose gay marriage?

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ That's a joke

[Do-double-gg]

I'm also a devout believer. What are you trying to say? Are you now questioning my faith?

No offense and I have no dog in this fight but you confuse me. You say your a devout believer yet you are voting demacrat. The same Democratic party who is trying to shove homosexuality rights down our necks and letting perverts go in our little girls bathrooms. The same Democratic party that is getting more and more anti religion by the day and a standing president who is probably the most anti religion president in modern times. I have no clue what religion you claim nor what Bible you read but the King James Bible I read speaks loud and clear on vile things such as this. I am about sick of hearing all this separation of church and state stuff. Yes we are supposed to follow the laws of the land but the church and Christians of this land need to find what backbone they have left and start taking a stand for what they believe. If you believe Like I do that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confes then I also believe that going along with said vile things will definitely be a part of my judgment. To me going against everything I believe and have read in the Bible to vote for a party and not speaking against things like this is no joke and I don't think crying separation of church from state is going to cut it in his eyes but maybe it's just me. For those reasons alone I could never vote Democratic. I don't vote anymore and some may call me foolish but I don't like either party at this point. Both are in my opinion currupt and full of power hungry politicians who will say and do anything to get elected. Both parties at this point seam more interested in power and party then they are in getting this country back on track to what it once was. This is all my opinion but it's what I believe.

[Bob Seger]

No offense and I have no dog in this fight but you confuse me. You say your a devout believer yet you are voting demacrat. The same Democratic party who is trying to shove homosexuality rights down our necks and letting perverts go in our little girls bathrooms. The same Democratic party that is getting more and more anti religion by the day and a standing president who is probably the most anti religion president in modern times. I have no clue what religion you claim nor what Bible you read but the King James Bible I read speaks loud and clear on vile things such as this. I am about sick of hearing all this separation of church and state stuff. Yes we are supposed to follow the laws of the land but the church and Christians of this land need to find what backbone they have left and start taking a stand for what they believe. If you believe Like I do that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confes then I also believe that going along with said vile things will definitely be a part of my judgment. To me going against everything I believe and have read in the Bible to vote for a party and not speaking against things like this is no joke and I don't think crying separation of church from state is going to cut it in his eyes but maybe it's just me. For those reasons alone I could never vote Democratic. I don't vote anymore and some may call me foolish but I don't like either party at this point. Both are in my opinion currupt and full of power hungry politicians who will say and do anything to get elected. Both parties at this point seam more interested in power and party then they are in getting this country back on track to what it once was. This is all my opinion but it's what I believe.

Excellent!!

[Granny Bear]

No offense and I have no dog in this fight but you confuse me. You say your a devout believer yet you are voting demacrat. The same Democratic party who is trying to shove homosexuality rights down our necks and letting perverts go in our little girls bathrooms. The same Democratic party that is getting more and more anti religion by the day and a standing president who is probably the most anti religion president in modern times. I have no clue what religion you claim nor what Bible you read but the King James Bible I read speaks loud and clear on vile things such as this. I am about sick of hearing all this separation of church and state stuff. Yes we are supposed to follow the laws of the land but the church and Christians of this land need to find what backbone they have left and start taking a stand for what they believe. If you believe Like I do that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confes then I also believe that going along with said vile things will definitely be a part of my judgment. To me going against everything I believe and have read in the Bible to vote for a party and not speaking against things like this is no joke and I don't think crying separation of church from state is going to cut it in his eyes but maybe it's just me. For those reasons alone I could never vote Democratic. I don't vote anymore and some may call me foolish but I don't like either party at this point. Both are in my opinion currupt and full of power hungry politicians who will say and do anything to get elected. Both parties at this point seam more interested in power and party then they are in getting this country back on track to what it once was. This is all my opinion but it's what I believe.

Very well said, sweetheart!!

[The Urban Sombrero]

No offense and I have no dog in this fight but you confuse me. You say your a devout believer yet you are voting demacrat. The same Democratic party who is trying to shove homosexuality rights down our necks and letting perverts go in our little girls bathrooms. The same Democratic party that is getting more and more anti religion by the day and a standing president who is probably the most anti religion president in modern times. I have no clue what religion you claim nor what Bible you read but the King James Bible I read speaks loud and clear on vile things such as this. I am about sick of hearing all this separation of church and state stuff. Yes we are supposed to follow the laws of the land but the church and Christians of this land need to find what backbone they have left and start taking a stand for what they believe. If you believe Like I do that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confes then I also believe that going along with said vile things will definitely be a part of my judgment. To me going against everything I believe and have read in the Bible to vote for a party and not speaking against things like this is no joke and I don't think crying separation of church from state is going to cut it in his eyes but maybe it's just me. For those reasons alone I could never vote Democratic. I don't vote anymore and some may call me foolish but I don't like either party at this point. Both are in my opinion currupt and full of power hungry politicians who will say and do anything to get elected. Both parties at this point seam more interested in power and party then they are in getting this country back on track to what it once was. This is all my opinion but it's what I believe.

I call you a sincere, angry person who harbors within a very dangerous misunderstanding about human nature, human freedom, and how, in the name of religion, and for the sake of God, human nature, with a stated zeal for God, and an actual non-respect for essential liberty, has perpetrated some of the darkest atrocities of human history.

[TheRealThing]

^^ I'll let DD speak for himself, except for the following. Your notions of essential liberty constitute a vast gray wasteland of heresy. Both in the way it applies spiritually, and in doing proper homage to the founders in light of their sacrifice and their intent. The Bible certainly has in no way been left unclear in this matter, and neither have the founding documents been found to be in any way lacking. Man was made in God's image. History is a matter of record. The revisionist seeks to remake both in the liberal view.

[The Urban Sombrero]

^^ I'll let DD speak for himself, except for the following. Your notions of essential liberty constitute a vast gray wasteland of heresy. Both in the way it applies spiritually, and in doing proper homage to the founders in light of their sacrifice and their intent. The Bible certainly has in no way been left unclear in this matter, and neither have the founding documents been found to be in any way lacking. Man was made in God's image. History is a matter of record. The revisionist seeks to remake both in the liberal view.

In the name of God? Burned at the stake. For the sake of othodoxy? Beheaded. For the honor of God? Drowned. For the sake of Scripture? Keep black and white folks separate. These are just a few historical examples of what Christ-professing folks did.

You don't get, TRT, to ignore history and cherry pick the Founders for only the good. Please. Very intellectually disingenuous.

[The Urban Sombrero]

^^ I'll let DD speak for himself, except for the following. Your notions of essential liberty constitute a vast gray wasteland of heresy. Both in the way it applies spiritually, and in doing proper homage to the founders in light of their sacrifice and their intent. The Bible certainly has in no way been left unclear in this matter, and neither have the founding documents been found to be in any way lacking. Man was made in God's image. History is a matter of record. The revisionist seeks to remake both in the liberal view.

God granted to each individual essential liberty, freedom of conscience. True enough, a wise society does not organize itself around every whim and caprice and degradation of human nature. However, disrespect for essential liberty also leads to heresy, a dangerous kind. See history.

[Bob Seger]

I call you a sincere, angry person who harbors within a very dangerous misunderstanding about human nature, human freedom, and how, in the name of religion, and for the sake of God, human nature, with a stated zeal for God, and an actual non-respect for essential liberty, has perpetrated some of the darkest atrocities of human history.

Why sure he is!!...That's the way you pretenders of the church work...The man tells the honest truth and then you say something utterly stupid like that and try to make him look like the misguided one..


You are one sick man, cowboy.....Seriously!!


And by the way, how in the heck did you figure out how to insert 77 commas into that bunch of jibberish you just rattled on about?....That is by far your greatest achievement up to this point...I cant wait for the next episode.

[TheRealThing]

In the name of God? Burned at the stake. For the sake of othodoxy? Beheaded. For the honor of God? Drowned. For the sake of Scripture? Keep black and white folks separate. These are just a few historical examples of what Christ-professing folks did.

You don't get, TRT, to ignore history and cherry pick the Founders for only the good. Please. Very intellectually disingenuous.

Agreed, and you don't get to ascribe objectionable actions of men who merely make claim the cause of Christ in order to justify such actions. That is what the terrorist is guilty of. For example, the raging liberal has always attempted to characterize the murderous regime of Adolf Hitler to the Church.

The redeeming grace here is that The Lord will separate the sheep from the goat. That is His purview as one day, truth will gain the inevitable victory over the lie.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Why sure he is!!...That's the way you pretenders of the church work...The man tells the honest truth and then you say something utterly stupid like that and try to make him look like the misguided one..


You are one sick man, cowboy.....Seriously!!


And by the way, how in the heck did you figure out how to insert 77 commas into that bunch of jibberish you just rattled on about?....That is by far your greatest achievement up to this point...I cant wait for the next episode.

The man spoke his mind and told the truth as he sees it. You don't own the truth, Bob. That God could create beings free over against himself is that path folks so easily stomp across where angels fear to tread.

[TheRealThing]

God granted to each individual essential liberty, freedom of conscience. True enough, a wise society does not organize itself around every whim and caprice and degradation of human nature. However, disrespect for essential liberty also leads to heresy, a dangerous kind. See history.

Essential liberty as I have pointed out is an invention of the liberal. In a word, heresy. According to the Author and Finisher, and the founders BTW in agreement with Him, heresy is what leads to such perversions of truth.

If God says murder is wrong, and further that all murderers will receive their share in the lake of fire. How is it then that the liberal says that abortion on demand is covered under the concepts of essential liberty and freedom of conscience?

The words essential liberty are not in the US Constitution that I know of. Neither are the words 'freedom of conscience.' I did see where some of the states, in an effort to protect the purity of the Church from government intervention used the words "dictates of the conscience" and according to "the rights of conscience", which were submitted in language intended to do that. But all of those references were abandoned in favor of the language that was used in final form for the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Where are you coming up with these phrases which according to you, must evidently take preeminence over all founding documents?

[TheRealThing]

The man spoke his mind and told the truth as he sees it. You don't own the truth, Bob. That God could create beings free over against himself is that path folks so easily stomp across where angels fear to tread.

I bolded the only part I can agree with.

And there is a price to be paid for such freedom. Man is free to accept Christ by faith, or to reject Him. But in no way is he free to redefine truth in any form nor he cannot re-label it and just go on about his business. Truth is perfect and as far as I know there is only one perfect thing on the face of the planet, the Word of God. That then is where men ought to look for his guidance. There is a penalty attached to doing things "one's own way."

[The Urban Sombrero]

Yeah and there is a price to be paid for such freedom. Man is free to accept Christ by faith, or to reject Him. But in no way is he free to redefine truth in any form nor he cannot re-label it and just go on about his business. Truth is perfect and as far as I know there is only one perfect thing on the face of the planet, the Word of God. That then is where men ought to look for his guidance. There is a penalty attached to doing things "one's own way."

Yes, TRT, Man is free to redefine truth. But that does not alter Truth. The exercise of freedom and to accept responsibility for the use thereof. Man, rather each individual human being, will give an accounting for how the gift of freedom, of choice, was used (for lack of a better way of putting it).

[The Urban Sombrero]

Essential liberty as I have pointed out is an invention of the liberal. In a word, heresy. According to the Author and Finisher, and the founders BTW in agreement with Him, heresy is what leads to such perversions of truth.

If God says murder is wrong, and further that all murderers will receive their share in the lake of fire. How is it then that the liberal says that abortion on demand is covered under the concepts of essential liberty and freedom of conscience?

The words essential liberty are not in the US Constitution that I know of. Neither are the words 'freedom of conscience.' I did see where some of the states, in an effort to protect the purity of the Church from government intervention used the words "dictates of the conscience" and according to "the rights of conscience", which were submitted in language intended to do that. But all of those references were abandoned in favor of the language that was used in final form for the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Where are you coming up with these phrases which according to you, must evidently take preeminence over all founding documents?

The very "back and forth" that went on in coming up with the language for the First Amendment is one place. "Right of Conscience," or freedom of conscience...same concept.

[TheRealThing]

The very "back and forth" that went on in coming up with the language for the First Amendment is one place. "Right of Conscience," or freedom of conscience...same concept.

Well, I gave you that reference, but even in the discussions and writings which did eventually lead up to the final draft of the constitution, those two phrases do not appear.

If it is the same concept why go to all the trouble to come up with different terminology? Look at how often you use the terms essential liberty and freedom of conscience in your arguments and they do not ever appear in the founding documents which you so often cite. And I don't agree about the back and forth rationale either. The dictates of conscience idea was omitted from the text purposefully. A whole lot of things were said and discussed when the US Constitution and the Amendments were being hammered out that did not make it into the founding documents, because the founders thought those words through and realized to include them would surely give rise to the same kinds of compromise and ambiguity which you have proffered here in support liberal heresy.

But you said that man is free to redefine truth, and I say that is the peril associated with those who believe something like that. The revisionist is constantly attempting to redefine and restructure history to suit his liberal palate.

[Bob Seger]

The man spoke his mind and told the truth as he sees it. You don't own the truth, Bob. That God could create beings free over against himself is that path folks so easily stomp across where angels fear to tread.

And neither do you.

That might be something that you might want to keep in mind when you start criticizing someone who is trying to live according to God's word.
Just because you may choose to live your life as an infidel doesn't mean everyone else prescribes to your way of thinking.

[The Urban Sombrero]

And neither do you.

That might be something that you might want to keep in mind when you start criticizing someone who is trying to live according to God's word.
Just because you may choose to live your life as an infidel doesn't mean everyone else prescribes to your way of thinking.

"...you may choose to live your life as an infidel..."

You don't own the truth, Bob. And from the vitriol in your posts, if out of the mouth runs the overflow of the heart, when it comes to God's Word, you may know the words, but you "ain't" got the tune.