Which post is this in response to?
Thanks Bob
- Thread starter drbrumley
- Start date
- Status
Which post is this in response to?
I have no idea where you are coming from.
S†ephen
New member
Kevin's most recent.
S†ephen
New member
Just what I said. The Satanist on this forum understands freedom better than most of the Christians do.
Ok, I am forced to conclude that you are delusional.
PKevman
New member
Some good news on Alan Keyes. I found some information off of his website which clearly indicates that he has changed his position on the abortion for rape and incest, etc.. He is no longer making any exceptions for abortion.
Further, Pastor Bob told me that he has found out from his personal interaction with Dr. Keyes that he no longer holds those positions. Both of those pieces of information are good enough for me to reassert my support for Dr. Keyes for president.
Here is a great article from Dr. Keyes on this topic:
Equal rights for our posterity
Alan Keyes
October 25, 2006
On Nov. 7, the people of South Dakota will be asked to vote yes or no on Referred Law 6, which restores protection for the right to life of their posterity in the womb.
For the first time since the Supreme Court's unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision, the issue of equal rights for posterity will be decided by a vote of the people, rather than the dictates of unelected federal judges usurping the people's right to decide issues of faith and conscience for themselves.
Constitutional requirements
When they passed the law restoring equal rights to children in their mother's womb, South Dakota's legislators acted upon their sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States. In the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the people of the United States plainly declare their will to ordain and establish a government that will "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
With these words, we acknowledge in our posterity an equal right to the security of person and property that constitutes the foundation of liberty, including the provision of physical security that is the first prerequisite of its enjoyment.
When the Supreme Court justices invented the so-called right to abortion, they disregarded the will of the people plainly declared in the Constitution; they trampled upon the equal status accorded to our posterity; and they forswore their oath to uphold the Constitution — an oath that clearly binds them to respect and not depart from its stated goals.
Because they took this action in plain defiance of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, their opinion was both arbitrary and unlawful.
Moreover, speaking for the derelict majority, Justice Blackmun acknowledges that the issues involved in Roe v. Wade touch upon areas that cannot be decided without reference to the faith and conscience of the people. He even cites the record of both religious and philosophical views on the subject matter.
But issues that are inextricably involved with, and therefore must infringe upon, the established religious views of the people are matters on which the First Amendment to the Constitution withholds all lawmaking authority from the federal government ("Congress [the lawmaking body of the federal government] shall make no law respecting [i.e., on the subject of, with regard to] an establishment of religion") and which it reserves, by the language of the 10th Amendment, to the states or to the people ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people").
Guiding principles
When they protected the equal rights of posterity in the womb, South Dakota's legislators acted with respect for their own sworn duty, under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to respect the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States, and in particular to assure all persons equal protection of the laws.
They acted upon the right of the people of South Dakota to act on this matter in a manner consistent with the religious conviction of the majority, which, as duly elected legislators, they may constitutionally claim to represent.
As is their right under the provisions of South Dakota law, opponents who question whether a majority of South Dakotans really uphold the equal rights of their posterity petitioned to have the law referred to a vote of the people.
Because this issue cannot be decided apart from the faith and conscience of the people, it is right and necessary for South Dakota's voters to consult their faith and conscience as they consider how they shall cast their vote. It makes sense that they should seek counsel and guidance from the moral and spiritual leaders in whom they normally confide.
Since the majority of South Dakota's voters profess to be of Christian faith, many will resort to the Scriptures, and to the pastors, priests and other religious leaders they trust. There is no question under our constitutional system that they have the right to do so.
Though some opponents of Referred Law 6 have falsely claimed that the Bible says nothing about when life begins, this statement is easily disproved.
When speaking to the Prophet Jeremiah, The Lord declares, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
The Psalmist affirms to God that "My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. You saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them." (Psalm 139:15-16)
In the New Testament account of Mary's meeting with her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-45), we are told that when both were infants in their mothers' wombs, John the Baptist "leaped for joy" when Christ drew near.
In word and deed, the Scripture affirms that individual human life is present not just from the moment of physical conception, but from the moment of conception in the mind of the Creator, God.
Equality and fairness
The Declaration of Independence summarizes the civic principles of American life. It agrees with this biblical perspective when it affirms that we are all created equal and endowed by the Creator, God, with our unalienable rights.
The Declaration goes on to say that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
By destroying our respect for the principle of human moral equality from the moment of creation, the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision shatters the very foundation of our right to govern ourselves, our right to be a free people. Protection of our posterity in the womb is therefore not just another political issue. It is an issue that touches upon the deepest foundations of our whole way of life in liberty.
The opponents of Referred Law 6 have especially relied upon the argument that it is an extremist measure, because it does not allow children of rape and incest to be executed for the sins of one of their parents. It is unfair, they say, for victims of rape and incest to be forced to bring such children into the world.
We all agree in sorrowing for these victims. This is why the South Dakota legislators made special provision for state-funded support and aid for women in these painful circumstances. They did not go so far as to authorize that an innocent life be taken so that another could be comforted, compounding one tragic injustice with another. They listened to and heeded the voices of actual rape victims, who reported that for them the broken heart that resulted from the guilt and pain of feeling complicit in the murder of their child was worse than the pain that resulted from the crime perpetrated by another.
This is what Christian believers would expect, since Christ made clear that it is better to suffer evil than to do it.
Our future at stake
At times when the survival of our Constitution and liberty are at stake, we do not hesitate to ask that our young men and women risk and give their very lives in its defense. Well, the survival of our Constitution and our liberty are at stake in the choice South Dakotans will make about Referred Law 6. Should we hesitate to ask some sacrifice in the cause for which so many Americans have sacrificed their all so that we could live in freedom?
Opponents of Referred Law 6 appeal to our all-too-human concerns with our own circumstances, our own pain and our own self-interest. The South Dakota legislators appeal to our love of justice, fairness, and liberty.
On Nov. 7, the voters of South Dakota will make their choice for or against the rights of our posterity, for or against the equality which our Constitution confers upon them, for or against the right of self-government built upon respect for that principle of equal rights for all. They will make a choice that will, in Abraham Lincoln's famous words, "nobly save or meanly lose this last best hope" for human dignity, justice and true freedom.
We should pray that everyone who professes to believe in and rely upon the Creator, God, will go to the polls determined to respect His will.
Originally published at WorldNetDaily.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Keyes served as President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, was a member of the staff of the National Security Council, and represented U.S. interests in the U.N. General Assembly as ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council.
He is chairman of the Declaration Foundation, the Declaration Alliance, and RenewAmerica. He holds a Ph.D. in government affairs from Harvard and wrote his dissertation on constitutional theory. [Click for more]
Further, Pastor Bob told me that he has found out from his personal interaction with Dr. Keyes that he no longer holds those positions. Both of those pieces of information are good enough for me to reassert my support for Dr. Keyes for president.
Here is a great article from Dr. Keyes on this topic:
Equal rights for our posterity
Alan Keyes
October 25, 2006
On Nov. 7, the people of South Dakota will be asked to vote yes or no on Referred Law 6, which restores protection for the right to life of their posterity in the womb.
For the first time since the Supreme Court's unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision, the issue of equal rights for posterity will be decided by a vote of the people, rather than the dictates of unelected federal judges usurping the people's right to decide issues of faith and conscience for themselves.
Constitutional requirements
When they passed the law restoring equal rights to children in their mother's womb, South Dakota's legislators acted upon their sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States. In the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the people of the United States plainly declare their will to ordain and establish a government that will "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
With these words, we acknowledge in our posterity an equal right to the security of person and property that constitutes the foundation of liberty, including the provision of physical security that is the first prerequisite of its enjoyment.
When the Supreme Court justices invented the so-called right to abortion, they disregarded the will of the people plainly declared in the Constitution; they trampled upon the equal status accorded to our posterity; and they forswore their oath to uphold the Constitution — an oath that clearly binds them to respect and not depart from its stated goals.
Because they took this action in plain defiance of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, their opinion was both arbitrary and unlawful.
Moreover, speaking for the derelict majority, Justice Blackmun acknowledges that the issues involved in Roe v. Wade touch upon areas that cannot be decided without reference to the faith and conscience of the people. He even cites the record of both religious and philosophical views on the subject matter.
But issues that are inextricably involved with, and therefore must infringe upon, the established religious views of the people are matters on which the First Amendment to the Constitution withholds all lawmaking authority from the federal government ("Congress [the lawmaking body of the federal government] shall make no law respecting [i.e., on the subject of, with regard to] an establishment of religion") and which it reserves, by the language of the 10th Amendment, to the states or to the people ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people").
Guiding principles
When they protected the equal rights of posterity in the womb, South Dakota's legislators acted with respect for their own sworn duty, under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to respect the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States, and in particular to assure all persons equal protection of the laws.
They acted upon the right of the people of South Dakota to act on this matter in a manner consistent with the religious conviction of the majority, which, as duly elected legislators, they may constitutionally claim to represent.
As is their right under the provisions of South Dakota law, opponents who question whether a majority of South Dakotans really uphold the equal rights of their posterity petitioned to have the law referred to a vote of the people.
Because this issue cannot be decided apart from the faith and conscience of the people, it is right and necessary for South Dakota's voters to consult their faith and conscience as they consider how they shall cast their vote. It makes sense that they should seek counsel and guidance from the moral and spiritual leaders in whom they normally confide.
Since the majority of South Dakota's voters profess to be of Christian faith, many will resort to the Scriptures, and to the pastors, priests and other religious leaders they trust. There is no question under our constitutional system that they have the right to do so.
Though some opponents of Referred Law 6 have falsely claimed that the Bible says nothing about when life begins, this statement is easily disproved.
When speaking to the Prophet Jeremiah, The Lord declares, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
The Psalmist affirms to God that "My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. You saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them." (Psalm 139:15-16)
In the New Testament account of Mary's meeting with her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-45), we are told that when both were infants in their mothers' wombs, John the Baptist "leaped for joy" when Christ drew near.
In word and deed, the Scripture affirms that individual human life is present not just from the moment of physical conception, but from the moment of conception in the mind of the Creator, God.
Equality and fairness
The Declaration of Independence summarizes the civic principles of American life. It agrees with this biblical perspective when it affirms that we are all created equal and endowed by the Creator, God, with our unalienable rights.
The Declaration goes on to say that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
By destroying our respect for the principle of human moral equality from the moment of creation, the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision shatters the very foundation of our right to govern ourselves, our right to be a free people. Protection of our posterity in the womb is therefore not just another political issue. It is an issue that touches upon the deepest foundations of our whole way of life in liberty.
The opponents of Referred Law 6 have especially relied upon the argument that it is an extremist measure, because it does not allow children of rape and incest to be executed for the sins of one of their parents. It is unfair, they say, for victims of rape and incest to be forced to bring such children into the world.
We all agree in sorrowing for these victims. This is why the South Dakota legislators made special provision for state-funded support and aid for women in these painful circumstances. They did not go so far as to authorize that an innocent life be taken so that another could be comforted, compounding one tragic injustice with another. They listened to and heeded the voices of actual rape victims, who reported that for them the broken heart that resulted from the guilt and pain of feeling complicit in the murder of their child was worse than the pain that resulted from the crime perpetrated by another.
This is what Christian believers would expect, since Christ made clear that it is better to suffer evil than to do it.
Our future at stake
At times when the survival of our Constitution and liberty are at stake, we do not hesitate to ask that our young men and women risk and give their very lives in its defense. Well, the survival of our Constitution and our liberty are at stake in the choice South Dakotans will make about Referred Law 6. Should we hesitate to ask some sacrifice in the cause for which so many Americans have sacrificed their all so that we could live in freedom?
Opponents of Referred Law 6 appeal to our all-too-human concerns with our own circumstances, our own pain and our own self-interest. The South Dakota legislators appeal to our love of justice, fairness, and liberty.
On Nov. 7, the voters of South Dakota will make their choice for or against the rights of our posterity, for or against the equality which our Constitution confers upon them, for or against the right of self-government built upon respect for that principle of equal rights for all. They will make a choice that will, in Abraham Lincoln's famous words, "nobly save or meanly lose this last best hope" for human dignity, justice and true freedom.
We should pray that everyone who professes to believe in and rely upon the Creator, God, will go to the polls determined to respect His will.
Originally published at WorldNetDaily.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Keyes served as President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, was a member of the staff of the National Security Council, and represented U.S. interests in the U.N. General Assembly as ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council.
He is chairman of the Declaration Foundation, the Declaration Alliance, and RenewAmerica. He holds a Ph.D. in government affairs from Harvard and wrote his dissertation on constitutional theory. [Click for more]
PKevman
New member
Or maybe the Satanist has a better grip on Satanic forms of government because Satan has blinded their minds. :think:
S†ephen
New member
S†ephen
New member
Boy that was deep.:kookoo:
PKevman
New member
S†ephen;1578861 said:
I am entirely familiar with the quote in your profile. Satan is certainly called the god of this world in Scripture. But that doesn't mean that a Godly man or men cannot make a difference, even in wicked times or in wicked situations.
Plus we have the fact that throughout the Scriptures, God endorsed certain forms of government and certain roles of the government. So it is entirely possible to build a government around Godly principles and ideas.
PKevman
New member
S†ephen;1578827 said:
A Satanist could never understand freedom more than a true Christian does. True freedom is found only in Christ. By the very definition of Satanism, it is opposed to Christ and Christianity, so how could a Satanist POSSIBLY understand freedom better than a Christian? This is where political ideas have led you astray my young friend.
Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
A Satanist is not free in any way shape or form. He is trapped in bondage and sin.
Romans 8:1-3
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
Romans 6:17-18,20,22
17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.
While politics is an interesting and somewhat important part of life, let us never lose sight of the fact that this world is passing away, and the eternal freedom offered in a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ far exceeds anything offered by any politician or group of politicians!
So when we're dealing with terrorism, rampant illegal immigration, a devalued currency, and other pressing issues, Keyes tosses the religious right more red meat. Well that's cute, and entirely predictable.
Talk about a one-trick pony.
P.S. If you have anything to say to me, Kevin, you know, ummm...I'm right here, pal. Just tell me directly. It's perfectly okay.
Talk about a one-trick pony.
P.S. If you have anything to say to me, Kevin, you know, ummm...I'm right here, pal. Just tell me directly. It's perfectly okay.
What do you mean?
I mean Keyes and his candidacy are a waste of time. It's as if some people here are deliberately making a misplaced choice for some weird twisted psychological reason.
PatriotBeliever
New member
The truth is never a waste. Are you refuting that Bob said this? (that Ron Paul is a "secular humanist") Remember the subject at one point was people lying about others. Slander is a particularly vile form of lying.
Last edited:
PKevman
New member
You have nothing of value to add to this thread because you're just stirring the pot and trying to cause division over non-essentials.
I'll say again, you're a waste of bandwith space.
PKevman
New member
Hypocrite. You're slandering Bob when you call him a liar. You will NEVER be able to prove that Bob is a liar because he is a good and honest man. Take another route in your discussion or just shut up, because I'm tired of my friend being accused.
You didn't like it that you got your hat handed to you, so you came on over here thinking you would make some trouble for Bob.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Nice debate going on,
PK scores with the no one should murder.
Then PK gets scored on himself when it is brought up that since states should do nothing unless the feds give their approval, he should be for the UN to force the United States into an anti abortion position. PK rejects this, saying the UN has no right to force their member states into such a position. Thereby destroying his own argument about states rights.
So we are back to the beginning.
PK scores with the no one should murder.
Then PK gets scored on himself when it is brought up that since states should do nothing unless the feds give their approval, he should be for the UN to force the United States into an anti abortion position. PK rejects this, saying the UN has no right to force their member states into such a position. Thereby destroying his own argument about states rights.
So we are back to the beginning.
PKevman
New member
I could swear you were giving me a lecture on history not too long ago, but we'll bypass that for a moment. I am not a citizen of the United Nations of the world. That is utterly ridiculous. As much as the UN might aspire to be a one-world government it in fact is not. So to liken my rights as a citizen of the USA in the state of New York as opposed to the state I live in (Indiana) to my rights if I were to go to China as opposed to my rights as a citizen of the USA is ludicrous.
That argument was destroyed utterly and completely, but to make things clear, let's be sure we understand one another:
Dr.B: Are you saying that you and I as citizens of the USA have just as much voice in China as we do in America? Do we have the same voting rights, same freedom, etc... if we go to China as we do here in America?
China and America are two different countries my friend. New York and Indiana are NOT! As such, if I move to New York, I am still a citizen of the USA. I don't have to reapply for citizenship of this country all over again.
This seems to me so simple that only someone who was willingly and deliberately CLINGING to a faulty worldview would continue to deny it!
Hopefully you'll consider this before persisting with this argument.
- Status