Members banned from this thread: aboutenough, Rorschach and Rzhayutik


Page 51 of 417 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101151 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 4169
Thanks Tree1732Thanks

Thread: The Christian Persecution Catalog

  1. #501
    enduring patience Blackjack 4 Champion, Spurs Poker Solitaire Champion, Free Cell Solitaire Champion, Joker Poker Web Champion, P O K E R Champion, Texas Holdem Poker Champion, Deuces Wild Champion, Spider Solitare Four Suit Champion, Solitaire Champion, Fruit Slots Champion, Slingo Bonus Bet 21 Jumbo Champion, Centipede Classic Champion, Marble Motion Champion, Yeti Sports 1 Long Ass Shot  Champion, Hollywood Hotel Champion, Pub Quiz Champion Vortex's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    19,921
    Thanks
    6943

    From
    home
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    And you are the one who posted that Hamdan v Rumsfeld proved that "terrorists have rights!"
    It did give terrorists charged with crimes rights - Hamden - a terrorist - exercised them and they held that the military commissions were unconstitutional. LOL - if he had no rights they would have held he had no standing to have his case heard by them.

    Perhaps wiki was too hard for you to understand, try this The Supreme Court . The Future of the Court . Landmark Cases . Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) | PBS

    The Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, ruled that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try "enemy combatants" violated the detained suspects' rights as provided in both the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Code of Military Justice. The Court first ruled that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction, or power, to review Hamdan's case, because the relevant congressional law defining the powers to entertain habeas corpus petitions of "enemy combatant," the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, did not expressly preclude review by the Supreme Court. Next, the Court ruled that Congress had not authorized the president to set up special military commissions for terrorist suspects that deviated from the courts-martial or other tribunal systems already provided for under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and other relevant laws.

  2. #502
    Veteran Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,619
    Thanks
    23352

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    Satanists have rights too! Many Christians have set up religious displays under the false flag that such displays are open to all religions (assuming no-one else will turn up!)

    " ...Enter the Satanists. The Satanists decided to push it by demanding their equal right to put up a display of Lucifer being kicked out of heaven. Along with celebrating Eve for eating the apple, interpreting the story of Satan’s rebellion as a good thing is standard issue Satanist stuff. (They are, of course, right. It is creepy how the Bible condemns both intellectual curiosity and rejection of blind faith in authority, and a reasonable read of both those stories are that Eve and Satan are heroes standing up to tyranny.) The state rejected it, claiming that it’s offensive and so there. Never mind that nativity scenes that are obnoxious government endorsements of religion are also offensive. Funny how Christians think they are the final word on what is and isn’t offensive.

    As Stern notes, however, there’s a great irony in all this, which is that the very bad faith decisions endorsed by the courts to cover for theocratic horseshit make it very difficult to argue against the Satanic display. The argument that the state has authority over what is and isn’t acceptable discourse? “If officials didn’t want the Satanic Temple erecting a display in the capitol rotunda, they shouldn’t have let religious groups in in the first place. Now that they’ve opened the gates, they have no right to stop the stampede.” ..."

    Satanists continue to excel at exposing theocratic bad faith

  3. #503
    Member Gnostic Christian Bishop's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    168

    From
    Canada
    Equality is the corner stone of law.

    Strange that most religions in our misogynistic world are against it.

    They are no longer worthy of man and I hope people soon recognize that the only God fit to rule men is a man.

    Regards
    DL

  4. #504
    Senior Member sokpupet's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,471
    Thanks
    1070

    Pagan Holidays - First Century Christianity

    Pagan Holidays

    Hear the word which the LORD speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus says the LORD, “Do not learn the way of the nations, And do not be terrified by the signs of the heavens Although the nations are terrified by them; For the customs of the peoples are delusion; Because it is wood cut from the forest, The work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. “They decorate it with silver and with gold; They fasten it with nails and with hammers So that it will not totter. “Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field are they, And they cannot speak; They must be carried, Because they cannot walk! Do not fear them, For they can do no harm, Nor can they (Jeremiah 10:1-5 NASB)

    Christianity has adopted an incredible amount of pagan traditions which are referred to above as “the way of the nations”. Some of these traditions have become the most important holidays of mainstream Christianity. Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus or the Bible at all. Easter, while coinciding with the timing of the Messiah’s resurrection, is still nothing a first century Christian would have identified with. It is frustrating that many of today’s most popular preachers were actually taught the truth about these days in college but they don’t tell their congregations the truth. In fact, they continue to elevate the false days and lead their flocks astray.

    Israel was instructed not to learn the ways of the nations. They were commanded directly by the voice of Yahweh NOT to worship other gods and not to worship idols. The blending of worship practices is called syncretism and it is the chief sin Israel and Judah were guilty of. This sin cost millions of God’s people their lives. Yet here it is today, alive and well, in the vast majority of churches who profess Jesus and Messiah.
    The "Ubermensch" (Superman): "Virgin Births" in history
    "Virgin Births" in history
    To many that grew up in western culture; the story of the "immaculate conception" or the virgin birth may seem unique. I must say that we are not here to convert,convince, or connive; but merely to inform the reader that there are many "Virgin Birth" stories throughout history.It is a high possibility that this theme was borrowed from surrounding cultures.The following is a short list of "asexual" births.
    Mithra-born of a Rock
    Buddah-born of the virgin Maya
    Romulus and Remus-born of Silvia (vestal Virgin)
    Krishna-born of the virgin Devaki
    Horus-born from the "Virgin of the World" Isis
    Jesus- born of Virgin Mary
    Dionysus-one version of 3! has him being born of the "Virgin" Semele
    Here are a few quotes from early church fathers; who often had to deal with this issue a lot.
    From the Christian apologist Origen (185-254A.D)

    "We [Christians] are not the only persons who have recourse to miraculous narratives of this kind." [Origen, Against Celsus 1, 37
    Justin Martyr (103-165A.D) speaking of Jesus

    "He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of Perseus." [Justin Martyr, First Apology, 22]
    In his book "The 12 Caesars; Suetonius describes the "Virgin birth" of the emperor Augustus. In the "myth" Augustus mother is laying on the floor of the temple of Apollo, when the God impregnates her."

    Other "Virgin" births stories include Plato!,Scipio Africanus and many others. What is important to understand here; is that in ancient times men who lived great lives were "deified" after death. That is to say that their lives were embellished with super natural occurrences; as a way of honor and respect. Today we eulogize; at funerals. The word means "good words" in Greek . Someone who may have been a fast runner may have been said to "fly;" or a strong man may have said to accomplish superhuman feats. Such as moving large rocks or killing large numbers of enemy troops single handed in battle. Today we exaggerate, but not as much as they did back then (or do we??).

  5. #505
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,510
    Thanks
    3882

    Quote Originally Posted by Vortex View Post
    It did give terrorists charged with crimes rights - Hamden - a terrorist - exercised them and they held that the military commissions were unconstitutional. LOL - if he had no rights they would have held he had no standing to have his case heard by them.

    Perhaps wiki was too hard for you to understand, try this The Supreme Court . The Future of the Court . Landmark Cases . Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) | PBS
    Hamdan was a suspect. The bulk of the case proved he was not an illegal combatant. I thought you read it? You really are missing this. W's administration classified him as a terrorist and the court said that he wasn't. Among the criteria:

    Not captured on the battlefield.

    Not directly involved in committing war crimes. He was a driver.

    My infamous lack of reading skills validated once again.
    Last edited by kmiller1610; 29th November 2014 at 11:11 PM.

  6. #506
    enduring patience Blackjack 4 Champion, Spurs Poker Solitaire Champion, Free Cell Solitaire Champion, Joker Poker Web Champion, P O K E R Champion, Texas Holdem Poker Champion, Deuces Wild Champion, Spider Solitare Four Suit Champion, Solitaire Champion, Fruit Slots Champion, Slingo Bonus Bet 21 Jumbo Champion, Centipede Classic Champion, Marble Motion Champion, Yeti Sports 1 Long Ass Shot  Champion, Hollywood Hotel Champion, Pub Quiz Champion Vortex's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    19,921
    Thanks
    6943

    From
    home
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Hamdan was a suspect. The bulk of the case proved he was not an illegal combatant. I thought you read it? You really are missing this. W's administration classified him as a terrorist and the court said that he wasn't. Among the criteria:

    Not captured on the battlefield.

    Not directly involved in committing war crimes. He was a driver.

    My infamous lack of reading skills validated once again.
    Nope, you fail yet again ...

    We have assumed, as we must, that the allegations made in the Government’s charge against Hamdan are true. We have assumed, moreover, the truth of the message implicit in that charge—viz., that Hamdan is a dangerous individual whose beliefs, if acted upon, would cause great harm and even death to innocent civilians, and who would act upon those beliefs if given the opportunity. It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government’s power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm. But in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction.
    SCOTUS ruled that "conspiracy to commit terrorism" is not a war crime and is not triable as proposed by the government.

    ... (“Neither congressional action nor the military orders constituting the commission authorized it to place petitioner on trial unless the charge proffered against him is of a violation of the law of war”).32

    There is no suggestion that Congress has, in exercise of its constitutional authority to “define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations,” U. S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 10, positively identified “conspiracy” as a war crime.33 As we explained in Quirin, that is not necessarily fatal to the Government’s claim of authority to try the alleged offense by military commission; Congress, through Article 21 of the UCMJ, has “incorporated by reference” the common law of war, which may render triable by military commission certain offenses not defined by statute. 317 U. S., at 30. When, however, neither the elements of the offense nor the range of permissible punishments is defined by statute or treaty, the precedent must be plain and unambiguous. To demand any less would be to risk concentrating in military hands a degree of adjudicative and punitive power in excess of that contemplated either by statute or by the Constitution. Cf. Loving v. United States, 517 U. S. 748, 771 (1996) (acknowledging that Congress “may not delegate the power to make laws”); Reid, 354 U. S., at 23–24 (“The Founders envisioned the army as a necessary institution, but one dangerous to liberty if not confined within its essential bounds”); The Federalist No. 47, p. 324 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny”).34

  7. #507
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,940
    Thanks
    49404

    From
    So. Md.
    Thanks from mikebeat1, Vortex and Inkslinger

  8. #508
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,584
    Thanks
    31307

    From
    Vulcan
    Thanks from Vortex, Babba, Inkslinger and 1 others

  9. #509
    Veteran Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,619
    Thanks
    23352

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    It's interesting that the Christofascists presume that being Christian and liberal, is contradictory.
    Thanks from Babba and boontito

  10. #510
    enduring patience Blackjack 4 Champion, Spurs Poker Solitaire Champion, Free Cell Solitaire Champion, Joker Poker Web Champion, P O K E R Champion, Texas Holdem Poker Champion, Deuces Wild Champion, Spider Solitare Four Suit Champion, Solitaire Champion, Fruit Slots Champion, Slingo Bonus Bet 21 Jumbo Champion, Centipede Classic Champion, Marble Motion Champion, Yeti Sports 1 Long Ass Shot  Champion, Hollywood Hotel Champion, Pub Quiz Champion Vortex's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    19,921
    Thanks
    6943

    From
    home
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangermouse View Post
    It's interesting that the Christofascists presume that being Christian and liberal, is contradictory.
    Did you catch the atheist mocking liberals as atheists for their war on Christmas - he thinks it is a stellar thread. LOL

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed