[TheRealThing]

"light and transient causes".... If the majority gets to define what a " light and transient cause" is, that leaves any minority in an untenable position. When essential liberty and freedom of conscience is at issue, that is not "light and transient." Not given our Constitution.

Whatever, you're gonna need to find another straw man to hide behind though, cause Roger Williams sure isn't your boy. With liberals it always boils down to using the ol Bill Clinton sidestep doesn't it? Accuracy notwithstanding, everything depends of what your definition of is, is.

[Truth]

"Light and transient"? What does that really mean? Like everything else in the US Constitution, it means whatever five of the nine USSC justices say it means. And that is why the replacement for Justice Scalia is so vital to the future, if any, of this country. Give Obama or Clinton the choice and you can prepare for more unrestricted "rights" to murder innocent babies for the "convenience" of the woman who got herself pregnant, a severe tightening on the rights provided by the Second Amendment (hide those firearms and buy more ammunition while you can do so), more protections for criminals and less for victims, more handouts to those who will not support themselves but do tend to mass produce offspring, moire income and other taxes on the minority of citizens who actually pay taxes, more "rights" for minorities and less for the majority, more legal illegals all of whom will vote Democrat because that is the ultimate source of their free bounty, far less freedom of religion particularly in regard to Christians (Muslims are in style), and more regulation of the capitalistic system as it is turned into a pseudo-socialist system.

Only a naive fool believes otherwise. George Orwell was a prophet. He should have named his work "2016" instead of "1984". All better accumulate but do so anonymously and quietly.

[TheRealThing]

No, I don't question that the spirit of the Church of England also washed up on our shores. Williams wanted to keep politics and religion separate. He saw and experienced what lust for power in this world did to the church.

Well, the Church didn't just wash up on the American shoreline, England sent their best and brightest. Williams was sick of government intrusion into Church affairs because the aristocracy of the day treated the Church of England and the halls of government as if they were upper and lower houses of parliament. The effect of which was to remove God and His power from the government controlled Church. It was all pomp and ceremony with no substance, that's what bothered Williams about the politically charged Church.

If you want to justify laying out of Church or denouncing the Church as corrupt, suit yourself. That is not what the Christian is instructed to do according to God's Word.
Hebrews 10:22-25 (KJV)
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

And in my humble opinion, the day has certainly approached.

[The Urban Sombrero]

The Gospel writer records that the people came to make Jesus King, but he would not entrust himself to the crowd because he knew what was in man. He also suggested that if he wanted this world's polity as his kingdom, he could call 10,000 angels and have it. He stated his kingdom was not of this world. As to "naive fools," thou knowest.

[The Urban Sombrero]

As for Roger Williams, it is a FACT that he believed mixing religion and politics ended up leaving just politics, and his belief was proven in England and in Massachusetts Bay Colony.

[TheRealThing]

As for Roger Williams, it is a FACT that he believed mixing religion and politics ended up leaving just politics, and his belief was proven in England and in Massachusetts Bay Colony.

And that differs from what I have been saying about him in what way? Politics in Church is bad, Church/ethics/morality in politics is good.

[The Urban Sombrero]

And that differs from what I have been saying about him in what way? Politics in Church is bad, Church/ethics/morality in politics is good.

As I understood you, you were saying that there was something unique about the Church of England that Williams distrusted. I would agree that ethics in politics is good. I would disagree that church in politics is good because of the very willingness of some religious people to trample the freedom of conscience of others when given the opporrunity or sufficient majority.

[TheRealThing]

As I understood you, you were saying that there was something unique about the Church of England that Williams distrusted. I would agree that ethics in politics is good. I would disagree that church in politics is good because of the very willingness of some religious people to trample the freedom of conscience of others when given the opporrunity or sufficient majority.

You know that I did not say anything like that. What I said was clearly stated. The State and the Church were one in England. Not a theocracy, because the secular side, the Crown, dictated terms to both. Most people plodded along in their mundane existence, accepting of their plight. There is your hapless majority. Not so with true believers, the true Church, who hated the fact that the King had his fingers in their spiritual lives as well. They had not the freedom of religion, or soul liberty as Williams liked to call it.

That was the call to stand against the prying eyes of the state, not the other way around. The good folks of England wanted free of the oppression of the King, at least at Church. And it was owing to this state of desperation, that the idea of the separation of Church and State was born.

Now, on to your assertion that men of character are somehow a bad influence on government. Men of God, by that I mean the saved, are never biased, never power mad, never given to tyranny or oppression, not prone to carve out special benefits for the minorities, fair, compassionate, brave, dependable, wise and dedicated. The why is because of two things. First is the fact that they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of the Living God which changes their nature in a positive fashion. Second is the fact that they know their Master will judge their lives without any sort of favoritism or bias. You can say that such men would not govern well if you want, but no rational man is going to agree with you.

Deceit, distortions, distrust, dishonesty, machinations, misdirection, guile, graft, corruption, greed and most of all lying, are the manifesto of the evil one, Satan. Those who manifest such are the enemies of state, not servants of the state. I know which attributes characterize the kind of people I want standing watch over those I care about.

[TheRealThing]

The Gospel writer records that the people came to make Jesus King, but he would not entrust himself to the crowd because he knew what was in man. He also suggested that if he wanted this world's polity as his kingdom, he could call 10,000 angels and have it. He stated his kingdom was not of this world. As to "naive fools," thou knowest.

You're mixing things up again. In John 6:15 (KJV) There is an account of the Lord talking about men trying to forcibly make Him King:
15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Sure did not see anything there about His not accepting it because He knew what was in man. It was not time for Him to be declared King, He still had the cross to bear and after all, that was why He came to earth.

Incredibly though, you shot your own errant assumption down yourself when you said, correctly I might add, that His Kingdom is not of this world. Therefore, men could not make Him King, as He was already The King of Creation.

John 18:35 &36 (KJV)
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

I don't know where you're getting the 10 thousand angels from. I know what the Lord told Peter as He told him to sheath his sword in the Garden of Gethsemane;
Matthew 26:53 (KJV)
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Remember, that was when Peter, the brave one, drew his sword and cut off the ear of the Roman guard? Jesus admonished him, He didn't need defending because He had legions of angels at His command to call upon. BTW, 12 legions would have been 72 thousand.

Now, there was a mention of many tens of thousands of angels once that I recall in The Revelation 5:11 (KJV)
11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

But those angels are in the act of praising God at the end of man's road, The Great Tribulation.

Just one more Scripture to share;
Matthew 5:22 (KJV)
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You know that I did not say anything like that. What I said was clearly stated. The State and the Church were one in England. Not a theocracy, because the secular side, the Crown, dictated terms to both. Most people plodded along in their mundane existence, accepting of their plight. There is your hapless majority. Not so with true believers, the true Church, who hated the fact that the King had his fingers in their spiritual lives as well. They had not the freedom of religion, or soul liberty as Williams liked to call it.

That was the call to stand against the prying eyes of the state, not the other way around. The good folks of England wanted free of the oppression of the King, at least at Church. And it was owing to this state of desperation, that the idea of the separation of Church and State was born.

Now, on to your assertion that men of character are somehow a bad influence on government. Men of God, by that I mean the saved, are never biased, never power mad, never given to tyranny or oppression, not prone to carve out special benefits for the minorities, fair, compassionate, brave, dependable, wise and dedicated. The why is because of two things. First is the fact that they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of the Living God which changes their nature in a positive fashion. Second is the fact that they know their Master will judge their lives without any sort of favoritism or bias. You can say that such men would not govern well if you want, but no rational man is going to agree with you.

Deceit, distortions, distrust, dishonesty, machinations, misdirection, guile, graft, corruption, greed and most of all lying, are the manifesto of the evil one, Satan. Those who manifest such are the enemies of state, not servants of the state. I know which attributes characterize the kind of people I want standing watch over those I care about.

Were your description of "men of God" to characterize the great mass of churchmen, it would indeed be Supreme good. But that is not the issue. I do not dispute that such as you describe exist and have existed since Pentecost. If you are suggesting that the true and righteous men of God (women?) are alone qualified to rule over society, I might agree with you in a theoretical sense. However, we were discussing a man-made document, the Constitution. I do not trust the majority to rule justly. I do not trust the minority to rule justly. Again, the highest interpretation of the United States Constitution lifts up justice for all and freedom of conscience for all. If this nation pursues that path, it walks a road infrequently trod in history. The document binds all citizens to that vision, that pursuit.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You're mixing things up again. In John 6:15 (KJV) There is an account of the Lord talking about men trying to forcibly make Him King:
15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Sure did not see anything there about His not accepting it because He knew what was in man. It was not time for Him to be declared King, He still had the cross to bear and after all, that was why He came to earth.

Incredibly though, you shot your own errant assumption down yourself when you said, correctly I might add, that His Kingdom is not of this world. Therefore, men could not make Him King, as He was already The King of Creation.

John 18:35 &36 (KJV)
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

I don't know where you're getting the 10 thousand angels from. I know what the Lord told Peter as He told him to sheath his sword in the Garden of Gethsemane;
Matthew 26:53 (KJV)
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Remember, that was when Peter, the brave one, drew his sword and cut off the ear of the Roman guard? Jesus admonished him, He didn't need defending because He had legions of angels at His command to call upon. BTW, 12 legions would have been 72 thousand.

Now, there was a mention of many tens of thousands of angels once that I recall in The Revelation 5:11 (KJV)
11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

But those angels are in the act of praising God at the end of man's road, The Great Tribulation.

Just one more Scripture to share;
Matthew 5:22 (KJV)
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

First, another poster said, "only a naïve fool" to which I said "thou knowest" (as anointing oneself the judge of fools), not, "You, sir, are a fool.". In John 2, Jesus will not entrust himself to the crowd, " he knew all men...knew what was in a man.". I would suggest this same distrust of the crowd, it's fickleness and tyranny, lived in the thinking of Roger Williams, a man of God, and Thomas Jefferson, a man of the Enlightenment. I would argue that as long as the United States pursues freedom of conscience and justice for all that God's true children will find freedom to pursue the narrow path unthreatened by civil government and that the blood of Christians will not be spilled by this civil government so regulated, and that God does regard that.

[TheRealThing]

First, another poster said, "only a naïve fool" to which I said "thou knowest" (as anointing oneself the judge of fools), not, "You, sir, are a fool.". In John 2, Jesus will not entrust himself to the crowd, " he knew all men...knew what was in a man.". I would suggest this same distrust of the crowd, it's fickleness and tyranny, lived in the thinking of Roger Williams, a man of God, and Thomas Jefferson, a man of the Enlightenment. I would argue that as long as the United States pursues freedom of conscience and justice for all that God's true children will find freedom to pursue the narrow path unthreatened by civil government and that the blood of Christians will not be spilled by this civil government so regulated, and that God does regard that.

1) The Gospel writer records that the people came to make Jesus King, 2) but he would not entrust himself to the crowd because he knew what was in man. [COLOR="Red"]3) He also suggested that if he wanted this world's polity as his kingdom, he could call 10,000 angels and have it. [/COLOR] 4) He stated his kingdom was not of this world. As to "naive fools," thou knowest.

There are two separate discussions here. The first is between you and the Lord, only you two know the intent of your comment and mine is not to judge. I will say this however, to say one who would do so and so is a fool, is different from saying so and so is a fool, right? As for the rest of the first quote box, The Lord did not distrust the crowd, He was and is God Who, is omniscient. He knew therefore exactly what was in the hearts of man, both in the day He walked this earth, and now that He is seated at the right hand of The Father, so it would have been impossible for it to have been a matter of trust. Thus in my opinion, your ideas about Roger Williams are, forgive me, incorrect as are the rest of your conclusions as they are based in error. I can't prove what was in the mind of Williams, but his actions stand apart from your conclusions.

So, that brings us to the second chapter of John. (The first quote box, and the 2nd quote box for the sake of context.) But before I get into that I should point out the transition you set up went from the starting point which was John 6:15, then you mixed in two more ideas from John 2 and the idea that He could call on 10 thousand angels to secure His Kingship in this world (still don't know where you're taking that one from.) And lastly, you wound up in John Chap 18:36 when The Lord spoke of His Kingdom as not being of this world. That line of rationale, in my view, is incorrect for several reasons.


First, the account of the people who came to make Him King was already covered in my explanation of John 6:15. That is the only time the people came to make Him King and had nothing to do with entrusting Himself to the people. We know that this world was already offered to Him by Satan, if He'd wanted it He could have taken it then. Matthew 4:8-11 (KJV)
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Second, when you veered off into John 2, you said He would not entrust Himself to the crowd. The John chap 2 account has not a thing to do with anybody making Him King. To gauge the context of your reference there, we should start in John 2 verse 23, then on to verses 24, 25 and on to the 1st verse of John chap 3.
John 2:23-25 & John 3:1(KJV)
23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

Here is the meaning of the text. The people believed Him (v23) because they saw His miracles. It certaianly does not take faith to believe what just happened before your very eyes.

Nodding in agreement with what they had just seen did not indicate, nor did the Lord believe that theirs was a saving faith (Vs 24 & 25.)

Many people today are exactly like those in the mob who really liked to follow Jesus around. They like to go to Church, they are very interested in the things of God, and they are usually enthralled with the music. The only problem is that they have yet to come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus. When push comes to shove, they become offended for His name's sake and they, like the people of this account, will scurry back to the relative safety of their private lives once the trouble starts.

There was a different sort or man however, and he stood out from among those who followed so superficially. His name was Nicodemus, (John 3:1) And though The Lord did not bother with speaking any further to the crowd, the next 20 verses are an account of His speaking to and educating Nicodemus about the Scripture and His person. In fact, it is here in His discussion with Nicodemus, that we see John 3:16 (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Nicodemus was saved BTW, and verification of this fact shows up later in Scripture. At any rate, this mob certainly was not the mob that tried to lay hands on Him to take Him by force to make Him King. They were like many, who having heard of the Lord Jesus are interested for a while but, for whatever reason are soon distracted and their attention turns again to the cares of this life.

Third, I already dealt with the 10 thousand angels deal in the Matt 26:53 explanation. (Post #249)

Fourth, Like I said, in John 18:36 Jesus told Pilate that His Kingdom is not of this world. (Post #249)

[TheRealThing]

Were your description of "men of God" to characterize the great mass of churchmen, it would indeed be Supreme good. But that is not the issue. I do not dispute that such as you describe exist and have existed since Pentecost. If you are suggesting that the true and righteous men of God (women?) are alone qualified to rule over society, I might agree with you in a theoretical sense. However, we were discussing a man-made document, the Constitution. I do not trust the majority to rule justly. I do not trust the minority to rule justly. Again, the highest interpretation of the United States Constitution lifts up justice for all and freedom of conscience for all. If this nation pursues that path, it walks a road infrequently trod in history. The document binds all citizens to that vision, that pursuit.

Actually we were discussing the fact that the saved routinely exhibit attributes that by definition qualify them to serve (not rule) "The People" in government. Never did I suggest in the thinnest of stretches that only the saved should be considered for office.

[The Urban Sombrero]

There are two separate discussions here. The first is between you and the Lord, only you two know the intent of your comment and mine is not to judge. I will say this however, to say one who would do so and so is a fool, is different from saying so and so is a fool, right? As for the rest of the first quote box, The Lord did not distrust the crowd, He was and is God Who, is omniscient. He knew therefore exactly what was in the hearts of man, both in the day He walked this earth, and now that He is seated at the right hand of The Father, so it would have been impossible for it to have been a matter of trust. Thus in my opinion, your ideas about Roger Williams are, forgive me, incorrect as are the rest of your conclusions as they are based in error. I can't prove what was in the mind of Williams, but his actions stand apart from your conclusions.

So, that brings us to the second chapter of John. (The first quote box, and the 2nd quote box for the sake of context.) But before I get into that I should point out the transition you set up went from the starting point which was John 6:15, then you mixed in two more ideas from John 2 and the idea that He could call on 10 thousand angels to secure His Kingship in this world (still don't know where you're taking that one from.) And lastly, you wound up in John Chap 18:36 when The Lord spoke of His Kingdom as not being of this world. That line of rationale, in my view, is incorrect for several reasons.


First, the account of the people who came to make Him King was already covered in my explanation of John 6:15. That is the only time the people came to make Him King and had nothing to do with entrusting Himself to the people. We know that this world was already offered to Him by Satan, if He'd wanted it He could have taken it then. Matthew 4:8-11 (KJV)
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Second, when you veered off into John 2, you said He would not entrust Himself to the crowd. The John chap 2 account has not a thing to do with anybody making Him King. To gauge the context of your reference there, we should start in John 2 verse 23, then on to verses 24, 25 and on to the 1st verse of John chap 3.
John 2:23-25 & John 3:1(KJV)
23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

Here is the meaning of the text. The people believed Him (v23) because they saw His miracles. It certaianly does not take faith to believe what just happened before your very eyes.

Nodding in agreement with what they had just seen did not indicate, nor did the Lord believe that theirs was a saving faith (Vs 24 & 25.)

Many people today are exactly like those in the mob who really liked to follow Jesus around. They like to go to Church, they are very interested in the things of God, and they are usually enthralled with the music. The only problem is that they have yet to come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus. When push comes to shove, they become offended for His name's sake and they, like the people of this account, will scurry back to the relative safety of their private lives once the trouble starts.

There was a different sort or man however, and he stood out from among those who followed so superficially. His name was Nicodemus, (John 3:1) And though The Lord did not bother with speaking any further to the crowd, the next 20 verses are an account of His speaking to and educating Nicodemus about the Scripture and His person. In fact, it is here in His discussion with Nicodemus, that we see John 3:16 (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Nicodemus was saved BTW, and verification of this fact shows up later in Scripture. At any rate, this mob certainly was not the mob that tried to lay hands on Him to take Him by force to make Him King. They were like many, who having heard of the Lord Jesus are interested for a while but, for whatever reason are soon distracted and their attention turns again to the cares of this life.

Third, I already dealt with the 10 thousand angels deal in the Matt 26:53 explanation. (Post #249)

Fourth, Like I said, in John 18:36 Jesus told Pilate that His Kingdom is not of this world. (Post #249)

I am going to open a thread in Religion section. Suffice it to say that Roger Williams, alone in the wilderness, exiled to his death but for the kindness of "the savages," had ample time to consider the meaning of freedom of conscience and its protection within a society.

[TheRealThing]

I am going to open a thread in Religion section. Suffice it to say that Roger Williams, alone in the wilderness, exiled to his death but for the kindness of "the savages," had ample time to consider the meaning of freedom of conscience and its protection within a society.

All I did was correct the record. You threw a mishmash of 'bible stuff' together to give your liberal/progressive social justice theories some additional impact. Quoting Scripture in a debate forum is a serious matter in that one is actually using It to get The Almighty's endorsement. Not to mention the fact that more than a few people are not familiar enough with It to immediately discern accuracy or textual validity.

None the less, not wanting to write an essay on the wide array of topics you had raised, I answered you to that end and cited the Scripture I used, and the ones you did for that matter, with a clear and to the point, analysis. Just my contribution for the sake of clarity.

[The Urban Sombrero]

All I did was correct the record. You threw a mishmash of 'bible stuff' together to give your liberal/progressive social justice theories some additional impact. Quoting Scripture in a debate forum is a serious matter in that one is actually using It to get The Almighty's endorsement. Not to mention the fact that more than a few people are not familiar enough with It to immediately discern accuracy or textual validity.

None the less, not wanting to write an essay on the wide array of topics you had raised, I answered you to that end and cited the Scripture I used, and the ones you did for that matter, with a clear and to the point, analysis. Just my contribution for the sake of clarity.

You strained gnats is what you did. Nowhere have I argued that the God of Scripture advocates particular issues. I do hold, and still do, that granting freedom of conscience to all, striving to show justice to all, often via equal protection, honors the dignity inherent in humanity. As for your particular takes on Scripture, the "Religion" forum is more appropriate for at length discussions in such matters. I've read enough of your posts elsewhere to get a pretty good fix on where you're coming from.

[TheRealThing]

I am going to open a thread in Religion section. Suffice it to say that Roger Williams, alone in the wilderness, exiled to his death but for the kindness of "the savages," had ample time to consider the meaning of freedom of conscience and its protection within a society.

You knew Williams initially dealt with the Indians by choice I take it? His God given ability to learn new languages enabled him to become fluid in several Indian tongues and customs. Williams was an activist though, and brazenly pushed his luck by publishing a critical tract about King James, and was after several unenforced sentences finally visited by the Sheriff for arrest. Williams had already left his home however, and wound up in a self imposed exile (although he had actually been banished by the court) which lasted for only three months with the Wampanoag tribe.

So, the only time Williams was alone in the wilderness, was during his trip from his home in Salem, to Raynham, Massachusetts, the location of the Wampanoag Indian Village. About 50 miles.

[TheRealThing]

You strained gnats is what you did. Nowhere have I argued that the God of Scripture advocates particular issues. I do hold, and still do, that granting freedom of conscience to all, striving to show justice to all, often via equal protection, honors the dignity inherent in humanity. As for your particular takes on Scripture, the "Religion" forum is more appropriate for at length discussions in such matters. I've read enough of your posts elsewhere to get a pretty good fix on where you're coming from.

You can call misquoting Scripture gnat straining if you want. I don't. And as I have already offered, feel free to correct me anywhere you see error.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You can call misquoting Scripture gnat straining if you want. I don't. And as I have already offered, feel free to correct me anywhere you see error.

Under your view of the Constitution, what process would have been correct to allow black students to enroll at the University of Alabama? I do not use this example to insinuate you are a racist. I use it as an obvious example of a gross injustice and wonder how your view of the Constitution would have addressed it.

[TheRealThing]

Under your view of the Constitution, what process would have been correct to allow black students to enroll at the University of Alabama? I do not use this example to insinuate you are a racist. I use it as an obvious example of a gross injustice and wonder how your view of the Constitution would have addressed it.

Read history. We are a nation under God and those in authority at the time eventually came to regret their racial bias. Even Governor George Wallace came to regret his actions as Governor and his involvement with segregation. The point I would make is racism was effectively dead until this last rash of rehash. I think everybody involved should be ashamed of themselves.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Read history. We are a nation under God and those in authority at the time eventually came to regret their racial bias. Even Governor George Wallace came to regret his actions as Governor and his involvement with segregation. The point I would make is racism was effectively dead until this last rash of rehash. I think everybody involved should be ashamed of themselves.

I am asking you about the process. Under your view of Constitutional interpretation, was the right to keep the University of Alabama a "whites only" public university a right "reserved to the states?"

[RunItUpTheGut]

I don't know about you all, but I'm so glad that all these liberals "are leaving the country" once Trump wins.
How refreshing it will be to see all the whining get thrown on Canada or somebody.
I call bull shat on them leaving, because let's face it, these celebrities like there millions to much to stand on principal about anything nicker:

[The Urban Sombrero]

I don't know about you all, but I'm so glad that all these liberals "are leaving the country" once Trump wins.
How refreshing it will be to see all the whining get thrown on Canada or somebody.
I call bull shat on them leaving, because let's face it, these celebrities like there millions to much to stand on principal about anything nicker:

If Trump is elected, or Clinton for that matter, and an American says, "Since he/she got elected, I'm going to Canada," isn't that like a big pout because one doesn't get one's way? Everybody believes in the process until their candidate loses.

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
Yes, and check out any social media page.
The amount of celebrities whining about moving is growing daily.
None of them give enough damn about whos president to move away from the millions they are making.
Its nothing more than the continued liberal rhetoric of the left and there consistent whining about not getting there way.

[Granny Bear]

I was wondering when the conspiracy theorists would start. There was supposedly a team of professional hunters that formed in the early 1800s on that property during this time. Some fun reading.

[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/15/conspiracy-
theories-swirl-around-the-death-of-antonin-scalia/"]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/15/conspiracy-theories-swirl-around-the-death-of-antonin-scalia/[/URL]

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/201.../160309881