[TheRealThing]

Anybody allergic to straw? Grab the Allegra D folks, TRT is posting again.

Essential liberty and freedom of conscience are neither liberal nor conservative. I would say they are more libertarian than anything if folks like you demand a label.

And, dearest Culture Warrior, in defending Christ (which he said "Follow me" and not "Defend me") by stepping outside the Spirit of Christ you place yourself firmly in the finest tradition of the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and all those who had zeal but not intimate relationship with the Savior.

I respect your sincerity. I don't agree with where it leads you in the church/civil government discussion in many areas. It seems to me that this nation has afforded Christians every freedom possible to freely and fully worship God as they see fit. Apparently, you don't want to live in a nation which allows first trimester abortions or gays to marry. I respect that, especially the former. I believe this nation affords freedom of conscience and essential liberty. People make choices, use and misuse freedom, worship what they please when they please and in the manner they please. Or not at all. The civil government in this republic allows that under the banner of our Constitution. The ultimate disposition of the human soul is not a matter of adjudication for civil authority. How a person exercises essential liberty and freedom of conscience is, ultimately, a matter beyond government.

Sorry, I'm not biting. Liberalism is founded on 1) - the natural goodness of humans and 2) - the autonomy of the individual. Or as you like to put it Essential liberty, and freedom of conscience.

But as to the bolded, quite a mouthful BTW, let's end all your writhings and distortions. Either quote a specific defense of Christ Jesus by my hand, or admit you have a problem with reality and even worse, the truth. I'm not worthy to defend Christ, I am however up to challenging His and thus Christianity's foes. Ever heard of Christian apologetics? What follows is but one example from among the thousands of organizations committed to Christian apologetics in existence today.

The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

MISSION STATEMENT---
"Christian ministry dedicated to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the promotion and defense of the Christian Gospel, doctrine, and theology. To do this, CARM analyzes religious and non-religious movements and compares them to the Bible. We examine abortion, atheism, evolution, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, relativism, Roman Catholicism, Wicca, universalism, (and more), along with Christian preachers and teachers. In all our analyses we use the Bible as the final standard of truth in order to defend and promote Christianity. Please consider checking out our statement of faith"
https://www.carm.org/


You might want to get started in straightening out Christendom from your vast insight because, everybody else obviously has not caught up with you yet. And, owing to the diverse millions of us who are summarily deemed errant by your declaration above, you have a lot of work to do. Frankly I disagree with your stated heresy, completely. Further, it is my intention to continue my ways of Christian apologetics for as long as God will use me to that end. Not to challenge the lies is to lend them integrity or otherwise support them. I can't be part of that.

But you did do a glancing blow off of something that I am certain you don't even understand. If the twin pillars supporting your cultist machinations, (essential liberty and freedom of conscience) actually did exist; And if as you contend they are matters 'beyond government,' that must mean you are saying what? That they are matters of doctrinal or spiritual origins?

Our founding and consequently our heritage, actually were matters which derived their authority from a power greater than, or 'beyond' government. Hence Jefferson's foundation; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,"

Though as Jefferson stated our government can be used to secure said rights, it can no more grant such rights than it can take them away. But I know that won't stop your ilk from trying anyway.

[TheRealThing]

Ben Johnson, was a heavy doper that used to like to run around Canada a lot..Evidently he liked to run around in the nude, because I hear he was stripped.....I think that the last time that he got a little too fast for his own britches, he even he lost all the gold bling that he used to like to wear around his neck. He was too high to even remember the words. Maybe that's why you can identify with him?

Now, there used to be this old English dude named Ben Jonson, who used to try to write a poem or 2...But legend had it that he drank hemlock martinis all the time, stayed buzzed up and liked to chase dragons around the merry old England country side....Some called him a "fool", and I think that he was commonly referred to by the Sheriff of Nottingham, as that dang "knave" that we are always arresting for growing his own hemlock down in his basement. I've heard some of his stuff on Sirius/XM, and I'll be real honest with you Geraldo, I wasn't really impressed.

Either way, what influences you had growing up!!.....It aint no wonder that you stay screwed up all the time and write this stupid stuff.


:popcorn:

LOL, The Urban Sombrero Hall of Heroes.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Sorry, I'm not biting. Liberalism is founded on 1) - the natural goodness of humans and 2) - the autonomy of the individual. Or as you like to put it Essential liberty, and freedom of conscience.

But as to the bolded, quite a mouthful BTW, let's end all your writhings and distortions. Either quote a specific defense of Christ Jesus by my hand, or admit you have a problem with reality and even worse, the truth. I'm not worthy to defend Christ, I am however up to challenging His and thus Christianity's foes. Ever heard of Christian apologetics? What follows is but one example from among the thousands of organizations committed to Christian apologetics in existence today.

The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

MISSION STATEMENT---
"Christian ministry dedicated to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the promotion and defense of the Christian Gospel, doctrine, and theology. To do this, CARM analyzes religious and non-religious movements and compares them to the Bible. We examine abortion, atheism, evolution, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, relativism, Roman Catholicism, Wicca, universalism, (and more), along with Christian preachers and teachers. In all our analyses we use the Bible as the final standard of truth in order to defend and promote Christianity. Please consider checking out our statement of faith"
https://www.carm.org/


You might want to get started in straightening out Christendom from your vast insight because, everybody else obviously has not caught up with you yet. And, owing to the diverse millions of us who are summarily deemed errant by your declaration above, you have a lot of work to do. Frankly I disagree with your stated heresy, completely. Further, it is my intention to continue my ways of Christian apologetics for as long as God will use me to that end. Not to challenge the lies is to lend them integrity or otherwise support them. I can't be part of that.

But you did do a glancing blow off of something that I am certain you don't even understand. If the twin pillars supporting your cultist machinations, (essential liberty and freedom of conscience) actually did exist; And if as you contend they are matters 'beyond government,' that must mean you are saying what? That they are matters of doctrinal or spiritual origins?

Our founding and consequently our heritage, actually were matters which derived their authority from a power greater than, or 'beyond' government. Hence Jefferson's foundation; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,"

Though as Jefferson stated our government can be used to secure said rights, it can no more grant such rights than it can take them away. But I know that won't stop your ilk from trying anyway.

Of course, Jefferson was a Deist. The problem, TRT, is not apologetics. It is tactics. As if you didn't know the difference.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Ben Johnson, was a heavy doper that used to like to run around Canada a lot..Evidently he liked to run around in the nude, because I hear he was stripped.....I think that the last time that he got a little too fast for his own britches, he even he lost all the gold bling that he used to like to wear around his neck. He was too high to even remember the words. Maybe that's why you can identify with him?

Now, there used to be this old English dude named Ben Jonson, who used to try to write a poem or 2...But legend had it that he drank hemlock martinis all the time, stayed buzzed up and liked to chase dragons around the merry old England country side....Some called him a "fool", and I think that he was commonly referred to by the Sheriff of Nottingham, as that dang "knave" that we are always arresting for growing his own hemlock down in his basement. I've heard some of his stuff on Sirius/XM, and I'll be real honest with you Geraldo, I wasn't really impressed.

Either way, what influences you had growing up!!.....It aint no wonder that you stay screwed up all the time and write this stupid stuff.


:popcorn:

Ah, Bob, "To Fool or Knave" stands outside he who wrote it, though to quote it, I owed a reference. Shall we dedicate it to each other? As for Ben, had he but lived in Colorado...

[The Urban Sombrero]

🔼🔼

I am assuming that TRT believes an American is free to live as a gay person. I am assuming that TRT believes an American gay person is free to enter into a romantic relationship with another American gay person. These two people come seeking the seal of the state upon their relationship, desiring the benefits of marriage.

Now, how is it apologetics to deny these two Americans equal protection? Hiding behind Scalia's archaic notion of "original intent" (which followed to logical conclusion would leave women without the vote and African Americans as slaves UNLESS individual states chose to give remedy) doesn't cut it. At what point did asserting (falsely) that America was founded as a Christian nation become "apologetics"? At what point did referring to a President as "Pajama Boy" become "apologetics"?

[TheRealThing]

Of course, Jefferson was a Deist. The problem, TRT, is not apologetics. It is tactics. As if you didn't know the difference.

Finally you come within 50 yards of factual reference. You're right, I do know the difference, just like I know you cannot prove any of your debate points and therefore are forced to lapse into the liberal default setting, dishonesty.

[TheRealThing]

����

I am assuming that TRT believes an American is free to live as a gay person. I am assuming that TRT believes an American gay person is free to enter into a romantic relationship with another American gay person. These two people come seeking the seal of the state upon their relationship, desiring the benefits of marriage.

Now, how is it apologetics to deny these two Americans equal protection? Hiding behind Scalia's archaic notion of "original intent" (which followed to logical conclusion would leave women without the vote and African Americans as slaves UNLESS individual states chose to give remedy) doesn't cut it. At what point did asserting (falsely) that America was founded as a Christian nation become "apologetics"? At what point did referring to a President as "Pajama Boy" become "apologetics"?

Are you kidding? All you do is assume, but I got a better question. At what point do you realize how ridiculous your arguments are? Much less the analogies you dream up. Watching you copy or otherwise imitate my posts, I know that you really want to write like I do. But you need to give up on the attempts at analogy, you just don't have the gift. I mean, have you ever gone back and read some of that blather? No wonder you tend to retread your member name every so often.

Are you seriously that far gone that you cannot realize your continual defense of sin? Even if the Constitution did allow for legalized sexual depravity, (which obviously it does not) it could not insulate you from pain of judgment. Don't bother coming at me or anybody else under pretense of standing the moral high ground, you're stuck in quicksand.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Are you kidding? All you do is assume, but I got a better question. At what point do you realize how ridiculous your arguments are? Much less the analogies you dream up. Watching you copy or otherwise imitate my posts, I know that you really want to write like I do. But you need to give up on the attempts at analogy, you just don't have the gift. I mean, have you ever gone back and read some of that blather? No wonder you tend to retread your member name every so often.

Are you seriously that far gone that you cannot realize your continual defense of sin? Even if the Constitution did allow for legalized sexual depravity, (which obviously it does not) it could not insulate you from pain of judgment. Don't bother coming at me or anybody else under pretense of standing the moral high ground, you're stuck in quicksand.

That's just it: the Constitution is not the Bible, and vice versa. You've just equated the two. You are confused about the role of civil government, among many other things. If cocksureness were quarters, you could park at the meter for days. You want to live in a Christian nation. That zeal makes you dangerous, and ignorant of your own professed Savior and Lord.

By the way, to argue for a civil government that respects and honors essential liberty and freedom of conscience is not to advocate for sin. That assertion is beneath you.

[TheRealThing]

That's just it: the Constitution is not the Bible, and vice versa. You've just equated the two. You are confused about the role of civil government, among many other things. If cocksureness were quarters, you could park at the meter for days. You want to live in a Christian nation. That zeal makes you dangerous, and ignorant of your own professed Savior and Lord.

By the way, to argue for a civil government that respects and honors essential liberty and freedom of conscience is not to advocate for sin. That assertion is beneath you.

No that's not it. You are making moral arguments for legalizing sexual deviance which have been clearly condemned in scripture, and using the lesser authority of the Constitution to do so. Though our laws are based on the tenets of Christianity, the Constitution doesn't enjoy jurisdiction or adjudication over morality. Why? Because as you pointed out the foundations of morality are beyond the government which rests upon them. Thus because I know truth never collides with other truth, it is on its face obvious that men ought never pass laws that conflict with God's law on moral issues.

Therefore your continual advocacy on behalf of the homosexual using of all things, not only the good reputations of the founders but incredibly the name of our Lord, to me borders on blasphemy. But past all that, how a guy who claims a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ could spend all his time advocating for the abomination known as homosexuality escapes me.

[The Urban Sombrero]

No that's not it. You are making moral arguments for legalizing sexual deviance which have been clearly condemned in scripture, and using the lesser authority of the Constitution to do so. Though our laws are based on the tenets of Christianity, the Constitution doesn't enjoy jurisdiction or adjudication over morality. Why? Because as you pointed out the foundations of morality are beyond the government which rests upon them. Thus because I know truth never collides with other truth, it is on its face obvious that men ought never pass laws that conflict with God's law on moral issues.

Therefore your continual advocacy on behalf of the homosexual using of all things, not only the good reputations of the founders but incredibly the name of our Lord, to me borders on blasphemy. But past all that, how a guy who claims a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ could spend all his time advocating for the abomination known as homosexuality escapes me.

If you cannot see that saying a man ought to be free to make choices in keeping with his conscience is not the same as agreeing with his choices, eh, that's ridiculous.

The civil government is presented with two consenting adults who desire the seal of marriage. The church is presented with two consenting adults who desire the seal of marriage. Both these adults are male. You say, TRT, that the state must hold this an abomination and deny. Upon what grounds? "Why, the Christian Bible, Sir," you say.

"So the State is to decide in accordance with what is revealed in the Bible?"

This line of reasoning, pursued, severely confuses secular and sacred government. And, logically followed to its end, has proven disastrous, if not monstrous, in human history.

[TheRealThing]

If you cannot see that saying a man ought to be free to make choices in keeping with his conscience is not the same as agreeing with his choices, eh, that's ridiculous.

The civil government is presented with two consenting adults who desire the seal of marriage. The church is presented with two consenting adults who desire the seal of marriage. Both these adults are male. You say, TRT, that the state must hold this an abomination and deny. Upon what grounds? "Why, the Christian Bible, Sir," you say.

"So the State is to decide in accordance with what is revealed in the Bible?"

This line of reasoning, pursued, severely confuses secular and sacred government. And, logically followed to its end, has proven disastrous, if not monstrous, in human history.

I can see that your mind is darkened as you diligently go about your father's work of advocacy for the homosexual. Homosexuals who have plied their grievous depravity BTW, without benefit of supportive legislation since the dawn of time. They were always free to work that which is unseemly and unnatural in this country, but what they craved and demanded was validation. As if social acceptance could relieve the impossible burden of conscience. That validation is something the Church will not render. So, that which could never be granted, the courts forced upon the citizenry beginning with the repeal of DADT. Even then deceit was used to work the system in order for them to receive their hollow victory. Activist judges desecrated nearly 3 centuries of law and disenfranchised the voter with their actions of moral treason.

Your absurd argument does not take into consideration the fact that what the gay crowd demanded could only be had through extortion. And even then could not given until the definition of marriage was perverted into something vile and offensive. But by all means, keep pushing on with your work.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I can see that your mind is darkened as you diligently go about your father's work of advocacy for the homosexual. Homosexuals who have plied their grievous depravity BTW, without benefit of supportive legislation since the dawn of time. They were always free to work that which is unseemly and unnatural in this country, but what they craved and demanded was validation. As if social acceptance could relieve the impossible burden of conscience. That validation is something the Church will not render. So, that which could never be granted, the courts forced upon the citizenry beginning with the repeal of DADT. Even then deceit was used to work the system in order for them to receive their hollow victory. Activist judges desecrated nearly 3 centuries of law and disenfranchised the voter with their actions of moral treason.

Your absurd argument does not take into consideration the fact that what the gay crowd demanded could only be had through extortion. And even then could not given until the definition of marriage was perverted into something vile and offensive. But by all means, keep pushing on with your work.

My position is not swayed by your scorn or what you deem as gloating by the homosexual community. It is rooted in the protections and rights a civil government oversees. A civil government that is zealous to protect freedom of conscience and essential liberty will likely be a place of freedom to worship and obey God minus hindrance and persecution. Or not to worship. It is here that Roger Williams being cast out, wandering the wilderness, ultimately founding Rhode Island is instructive. For me, a civil government's honoring freedom of conscience and essential liberty for all is akin to God causing his sun to shine and rain to fall on righteous and unrighteous, just and unjust. The general graces of God are by no means advocacy.

Were men placed in charge of sunshine and rain, I fear history suggests darkness and drought for the powerless, the minority, the different, the non-orthodox.

[TheRealThing]

My position is not swayed by your scorn or what you deem as gloating by the homosexual community. It is rooted in the protections and rights a civil government oversees. A civil government that is zealous to protect freedom of conscience and essential liberty will likely be a place of freedom to worship and obey God minus hindrance and persecution. Or not to worship. It is here that Roger Williams being cast out, wandering the wilderness, ultimately founding Rhode Island is instructive. For me, a civil government's honoring freedom of conscience and essential liberty for all is akin to God causing his sun to shine and rain to fall on righteous and unrighteous, just and unjust. The general graces of God are by no means advocacy.

Were men placed in charge of sunshine and rain, I fear history suggests darkness and drought for the powerless, the minority, the different, the non-orthodox.

As usual, owing to a severe case of poor reading comprehension or willful ignorance, you make an argument based entirely on a false premise. I don't believe it is a matter of gloating by the homosexual, maybe on the part of Satan, possibly even liberals, but not the homosexual. It is more like revenge, or that spirit which drives rebellion owing to contempt for all things natural or orderly, that drives the homosexual. The libs are right there with them and though their motivation is different, both share one thing in common. Theirs is a rebellion against God.

Your whole argument regarding our founding for example, though not your own, is one against the authority of God. Obviously the homosexual's life is lived in a state far more self destructive than that of your average everyday liberal, and thus one in which he fairly blazes in his rebellion against God. But make no mistake, like those who deny the Lordship of The Creator in preferring to bow at the altar of evolutionism, the liberal's assault on the Lordship of Christ has been every bit as rebellious. Just as your own efforts to deny our rightful heritage have been incessant. Your position is rooted in rebellion, and is only couched in the language of our founders. But even at that, said language is misapplied and misused in complete distortion of the record.

How pray tell, would the founding of Rhode Island be in any way more significant than that of Pennsylvania? Your advocacy has been consistent, as from the launch day of your retread, you have defended the indefensible, and denied the undeniable. But in perfect character of the rebellious, I would expect you to remain unswayed by the truth. Because your battle is not one of the intellect but of the spiritual.

[The Urban Sombrero]

As usual, owing to a severe case of poor reading comprehension or willful ignorance, you make an argument based entirely on a false premise. I don't believe it is a matter of gloating by the homosexual, maybe on the part of Satan, possibly even liberals, but not the homosexual. It is more like revenge, or that spirit which drives rebellion owing to contempt for all things natural or orderly, that drives the homosexual. The libs are right there with them and though their motivation is different, both share one thing in common. Theirs is a rebellion against God.

Your whole argument regarding our founding for example, though not your own, is one against the authority of God. Obviously the homosexual's life is lived in a state far more self destructive than that of your average everyday liberal, and thus one in which he fairly blazes in his rebellion against God. But make no mistake, like those who deny the Lordship of The Creator in preferring to bow at the altar of evolutionism, the liberal's assault on the Lordship of Christ has been every bit as rebellious. Just as your own efforts to deny our rightful heritage have been incessant. Your position is rooted in rebellion, and is only couched in the language of our founders. But even at that, said language is misapplied and misused in complete distortion of the record.

How pray tell, would the founding of Rhode Island be in any way more significant than that of Pennsylvania? Your advocacy has been consistent, as from the launch day of your retread, you have defended the indefensible, and denied the undeniable. But in perfect character of the rebellious, I would expect you to remain unswayed by the truth. Because your battle is not one of the intellect but of the spiritual.

Pray tell, O Loquacious One, how is defending the human right to choose one's course, a choice not originating with Man, rebellion?

The sun shines on Hitler and Jesus. The rain falls on Stalin and on Paul. Does God advocate genocide? Butchery? His general graces do not differentiate. It is a spiritual point.

[TheRealThing]

Pray tell, O Loquacious One, how is defending the human right to choose one's course, a choice not originating with Man, rebellion?

The sun shines on Hitler and Jesus. The rain falls on Stalin and on Paul. Does God advocate genocide? Butchery? His general graces do not differentiate. It is a spiritual point.

Obviously this got past you, but the unalienable rights were by definition given to man at the time of his creation, at the hand of God. Those rights are guaranteed under the Constitution as enumerated, and no others. God does not grant them the right to choose to be homosexual, He does however stay His Judgment until the proper time for their having done so. And because the thoughtful citizenry of our past understood this, they looked the other way without condemning or condoning, knowing and understanding that God is Judge. But that wasn't good enough.

No, what this generation has done is to validate the homosexual lifestyle, and the American taxpayer can account for 700 million of their hard earned tax dollars spent to promote homosexuality overseas, by Mr Obama himself, and who knows hown much here at home. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/for...t-ill-will

You are delusional if you think this can be swept under the rug, much less that this country will not suffer for her error.

When men passed laws that recognized the actions of homosexuality as being legal, they overstepped their bounds and will be held accountable. As will all those of whose calling is to defend said legalization in the form of advocate or activist.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Obviously this got past you, but the unalienable rights were by definition given to man at the time of his creation, at the hand of God. Those rights are guaranteed under the Constitution as enumerated, and no others. God does not grant them the right to choose to be homosexual, He does however stay His Judgment until the proper time for their having done so. And because the thoughtful citizenry of our past understood this, they looked the other way without condemning or condoning, knowing and understanding that God is Judge. But that wasn't good enough.

No, what this generation has done is to validate the homosexual lifestyle, and the American taxpayer can account for 700 million of their hard earned tax dollars spent to promote homosexuality overseas, by Mr Obama himself, and who knows hown much here at home. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/for...t-ill-will

You are delusional if you think this can be swept under the rug, much less that this country will not suffer for her error.

When men passed laws that recognized the actions of homosexuality as being legal, they overstepped their bounds and will be held accountable. As will all those of whose calling is to defend said legalization in the form of advocate or activist.

God grants Man freedom to choose life or death. They choose death. Yet the sun shines upon them, and the rain falls upon them while they yet live their natural lives. What is God advocating? Sin? Or a nature which desires love freely given, the obedience of a son, not the servitude of a servant.

I am advocating a civil government which, as much as possible, allows essential liberty and freedom of conscience. Equal protection under the law is not moral arbiter. It is just what it says: "equal protection."

[TheRealThing]

God grants Man freedom to choose life or death. They choose death. Yet the sun shines upon them, and the rain falls upon them while they yet live their natural lives. What is God advocating? Sin? Or a nature which desires love freely given, the obedience of a son, not the servitude of a servant.

I am advocating a civil government which, as much as possible, allows essential liberty and freedom of conscience. Equal protection under the law is not moral arbiter. It is just what it says: "equal protection."

As I have pointed out to you repeatedly, God created man that he might enjoy Him. But just as is the case in the institution of marriage, unless both sides are willing the union is unworkable. The choice man must make is not whether he will live or die, that is God's purview, though those outcomes are part of it. Man is here for but one reason, he must choose for or against God. If man chooses against Him, he must spend eternity separated from God and His love. Colossians 2:13 (KJV) 13 "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" ----We are already dead in our sin, born dead from our youth, hence the need for men to be 'born again.' Thus the Church, or the saved, are referred to as The Bride of Christ. He chose us first by dying on the cross for us while we were yet sinners, and each of us then must choose to reject Him or worship Him as Lord and Savior. That is the union pictured in the Holy institution of marriage, mutual choice.

This is why the sin of homosexuality is so grievous, we are created in His image and to pervert that relationship and the picture of the Bride of Christ in the manner of the homosexual is an abomination. No man made law should ever be passed in support of such a grievous sin. So serious a sin is homosexuality, that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah to make the point.

I know this will go right over your head again, but here goes anyway. God does not advocate, He judges. You are the one advocating while the homosexual, the subject of your advocacy, is in danger of eternal damnation. You would extend to him the validation he craves and the eternal suffering he should shun.

You who should be about pointing them in the right direction, would inexplicably much rather provide enhanced protection for them, because they already had equal protection under the law as they are and were denied nothing that I know of.

Back to your particular insanity. Essential liberty and freedom of conscience are the fictional inventions of liberalism, Christ denying extrapolations of two concepts on which liberalism is founded, themselves just as non-existent. First is the ridiculous notion that humans posses natural goodness, (essential liberty) and second, each man's right to be completely autonomous where his own life is concerned. (freedom of conscience) And though neither will ever be accepted in this world, they nonetheless reflect the desperation of those seeking to avoid the judgment apart from salvation. It's the 'if it feels good do it,' philosophy, which though absurd on its face, is all that remains if one is hell bound to reject the truth. THANKFULLY, the next 8 years will see tremendous loss dealt to the liberal/progressive cause, which makes your arguments even more pathetic. Especially when one considers the effort you put into homosexual advocacy. Thirteen days of darkness yet remain.

[The Urban Sombrero]

As I have pointed out to you repeatedly, God created man that he might enjoy Him. But just as is the case in the institution of marriage, unless both sides are willing the union is unworkable. The choice man must make is not whether he will live or die, that is God's purview, though those outcomes are part of it. Man is here for but one reason, he must choose for or against God. If man chooses against Him, he must spend eternity separated from God and His love. Colossians 2:13 (KJV) 13 "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" ----We are already dead in our sin, born dead from our youth, hence the need for men to be 'born again.' Thus the Church, or the saved, are referred to as The Bride of Christ. He chose us first by dying on the cross for us while we were yet sinners, and each of us then must choose to reject Him or worship Him as Lord and Savior. That is the union pictured in the Holy institution of marriage, mutual choice.

This is why the sin of homosexuality is so grievous, we are created in His image and to pervert that relationship and the picture of the Bride of Christ in the manner of the homosexual is an abomination. No man made law should ever be passed in support of such a grievous sin. So serious a sin is homosexuality, that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah to make the point.

I know this will go right over your head again, but here goes anyway. God does not advocate, He judges. You are the one advocating while the homosexual, the subject of your advocacy, is in danger of eternal damnation. You would extend to him the validation he craves and the eternal suffering he should shun.

You who should be about pointing them in the right direction, would inexplicably much rather provide enhanced protection for them, because they already had equal protection under the law as they are and were denied nothing that I know of.

Back to your particular insanity. Essential liberty and freedom of conscience are the fictional inventions of liberalism, Christ denying extrapolations of two concepts on which liberalism is founded, themselves just as non-existent. First is the ridiculous notion that humans posses natural goodness, (essential liberty) and second, each man's right to be completely autonomous where his own life is concerned. (freedom of conscience) And though neither will ever be accepted in this world, they nonetheless reflect the desperation of those seeking to avoid the judgment apart from salvation. It's the 'if it feels good do it,' philosophy, which though absurd on its face, is all that remains if one is hell bound to reject the truth. THANKFULLY, the next 8 years will see tremendous loss dealt to the liberal/progressive cause, which makes your arguments even more pathetic. Especially when one considers the effort you put into homosexual advocacy. Thirteen days of darkness yet remain.

The part about God "advocating" was part of a rhetorical question. I wouldn't lecture about stuff going over people's head.

God, indeed, offered choice, and Man chose death.

It is clear that you do not distinguish between a desire to see freedom of conscience preserved and advocacy for a particular issue.

By "essential liberty" I am not defining as "natural goodness." That's pure straw and SO symbolic of how you debate.

[TheRealThing]

The part about God "advocating" was part of a rhetorical question. I wouldn't lecture about stuff going over people's head.

God, indeed, offered choice, and Man chose death.

It is clear that you do not distinguish between a desire to see freedom of conscience preserved and advocacy for a particular issue.

By "essential liberty" I am not defining as "natural goodness." That's pure straw and SO symbolic of how you debate.

You asked, "what is God advocating?" That's not rhetorical, that's hocker on a doorknob syndrome.

Who really cares how you define stuff? But therein lies the ridiculousness, because you've yet to adequately define either term, nor can you give a credible source. Why? Because they are terms NOT contained anywhere in any founding document, LOL. Added to that is the fact that to you everything is relative, all truth is subjective, (that's why it's nearly impossible for you to concede a debate point) and why you continually morph into newly made up defenses when you are inevitably bested. But worse, as was the case above yet again, you throw misinterpretations of scriptures around like it's okay to do it.

And what was that metaphor of your favor again? The loosing fighter raises gloves in mock victory? Go for it Geraldo.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You asked, "what is God advocating?" That's not rhetorical, that's hocker on a doorknob syndrome.

Who really cares how you define stuff? But therein lies the ridiculousness, because you've yet to adequately define either term, nor can you give a credible source. Why? Because they are terms NOT contained anywhere in any founding document, LOL. Added to that is the fact that to you everything is relative, all truth is subjective, (that's why it's nearly impossible for you to concede a debate point) and why you continually morph into newly made up defenses when you are inevitably bested. But worse, as was the case above yet again, you throw misinterpretations of scriptures around like it's okay to do it.

And what was that metaphor of your favor again? The loosing fighter raises gloves in mock victory? Go for it Geraldo.

No, TRT, you are the legend in your own mind. I've never seen a "loosing" fighter though. Is that like when a boxer is tied up, so they send in a "loosing" fighter?

Nah, God sends sun and rain on the righteous and unrighteous, the just and unjust. Essential liberty and freedom of conscience are clear enough concepts, and have been valued by free people for centuries.

I'm utterly unconcerned about being "bested" and such, and will leave such foolishness for twelve year old boys on playgrounds. However, I do hope our nation continues to value essential liberty and freedom of conscience for all citizens.

[TheRealThing]

No, TRT, you are the legend in your own mind. I've never seen a "loosing" fighter though. Is that like when a boxer is tied up, so they send in a "loosing" fighter?

Nah, God sends sun and rain on the righteous and unrighteous, the just and unjust. Essential liberty and freedom of conscience are clear enough concepts, and have been valued by free people for centuries.
I'm utterly unconcerned about being "bested" and such, and will leave such foolishness for twelve year old boys on playgrounds. However, I do hope our nation continues to value essential liberty and freedom of conscience for all citizens.

^^This is what you do. Not a word of your post is grounded in any thing of fact, but what's new right? Go back and look at your arguments. No sources, no logic, nothing of substance whatever. A rambling mishmash of historical and scriptural inaccuracies upon which you duct tape together weak analogy and the liberal house of cards of which you are so proud.

Those who value the absurd and vaporous notions of essential liberty and freedom of conscience are looking for something to hide behind. Men as you point out, while on this earth are free to play these games and imagine that they are somehow insulated from the inevitable truth. But God said that men will pray for the rocks to fall down upon them so they may be hidden from Him. But of course, in the day of His wrath there will be no way to hide from His face. And though all libs are in terminal denial about what follows here, they in like manner having been at long last exposed, could no longer hide their true agenda from the voter and got voted out of office, cake walked in fact, much to my extreme pleasure. Which BTW led to the additional bonus of further exposing the shallowness of Clown Schumer, San Fran Nan and last but not least, Sheila Jackson Lee for all to see. What a sad performance they put forth.

I have resisted over the past months, the urge to educate you, in asking you first to define what you think Franklin was referring to in to in his written remark involving essential liberty. Of course though I mentioned said quote first, his is the one singular quote on the subject in the historical record, and your only option as you immediately went to it when pressed for clarity and validity as to your errant claims regarding his meaning. I wanted you to declare yourself to that end, but that has proven to be impossible. As you are either too unsure of yourself or you're just trying to be opaque or more likely both. So let me help you.

The concept of essential liberty as it truly exists, is at the corporate level, not the individual. Essential liberty as I told you at the outset, (and of course it went right over your head) had to do specifically with national defense, and came in the form of chastisement by no less than Franklin himself, as it applied specifically and only to the Pennsylvania Assembly of 1755 and it's charter given at the behest of the people and then only to the following situation. The framework was the governmental responsibility to insure both liberty and security during the French and Indian War. Here was what the indignant Benjamin Franklin having been put into the position of arbiter actually said; “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

The Penn family, who had vast holdings of land in Pennsylvania, were trying to dodge the justly exacted taxes imposed on them by the Assembly. Funds which were needed for defensive efforts on the frontier to repel the French and Indian incursion. Franklin found himself being maneuvered into a choice between giving up the moral standards of effective governance or providing special favors to the Penn family and in so doing, barter off the very liberty the Assembly was charged to defend. Hence the words, "purchase a little temporary Safety"

The last application which should be made of Franklin's quote would be to that of individual civil rights. Rather, liberty and security were coequal concerns of the people, corporately. But in no case could we expect to survive via a tradeoff of liberty for security as was the case in the Penn family's attempt to avoid taxation, the rightful purview of the legislature.

The specter of the afore mentioned cannibalistic anti-logic endures to this very day, as the people of this great land find themselves again in need of a champion. Under the insistence of liberal legislators and activists such as the imminent Reverend Al and of course folks like yourself, the people have been defrauded of Franklin's vision of essential liberty. How? Because like the Penn family, special interest groups have usurped the will of the people and the common good of the people, by asking for and receiving legislative carve outs, byes of all manner, goodies and taxpayer provided gifts, quid pro quo fashion in a destructive tradeoff for their votes. The proper name for this disgusting pickle is Identity Politics and is the stock-in-trade of the Democrat.

In other words though you will deny it, all the libs in true lemming fashion, have lined up behind the misbegotten notion that essential liberty is a right. That is why you or they cannot defend or define it. [attachment=o3507] Feelings.

[The Urban Sombrero]

^^This is what you do. Not a word of your post is grounded in any thing of fact, but what's new right? Go back and look at your arguments. No sources, no logic, nothing of substance whatever. A rambling mishmash of historical and scriptural inaccuracies upon which you duct tape together weak analogy and the liberal house of cards of which you are so proud.

Those who value the absurd and vaporous notions of essential liberty and freedom of conscience are looking for something to hide behind. Men as you point out, while on this earth are free to play these games and imagine that they are somehow insulated from the inevitable truth. But God said that men will pray for the rocks to fall down upon them so they may be hidden from Him. But of course, in the day of His wrath there will be no way to hide from His face. And though all libs are in terminal denial about what follows here, they in like manner having been at long last exposed, could no longer hide their true agenda from the voter and got voted out of office, cake walked in fact, much to my extreme pleasure. Which BTW led to the additional bonus of further exposing the shallowness of Clown Schumer, San Fran Nan and last but not least, Sheila Jackson Lee for all to see. What a sad performance they put forth.

I have resisted over the past months, the urge to educate you, in asking you first to define what you think Franklin was referring to in to in his written remark involving essential liberty. Of course though I mentioned said quote first, his is the one singular quote on the subject in the historical record, and your only option as you immediately went to it when pressed for clarity and validity as to your errant claims regarding his meaning. I wanted you to declare yourself to that end, but that has proven to be impossible. As you are either too unsure of yourself or you're just trying to be opaque or more likely both. So let me help you.

The concept of essential liberty as it truly exists, is at the corporate level, not the individual. Essential liberty as I told you at the outset, (and of course it went right over your head) had to do specifically with national defense, and came in the form of chastisement by no less than Franklin himself, as it applied specifically and only to the Pennsylvania Assembly of 1755 and it's charter given at the behest of the people and then only to the following situation. The framework was the governmental responsibility to insure both liberty and security during the French and Indian War. Here was what the indignant Benjamin Franklin having been put into the position of arbiter actually said; “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

The Penn family, who had vast holdings of land in Pennsylvania, were trying to dodge the justly exacted taxes imposed on them by the Assembly. Funds which were needed for defensive efforts on the frontier to repel the French and Indian incursion. Franklin found himself being maneuvered into a choice between giving up the moral standards of effective governance or providing special favors to the Penn family and in so doing, barter off the very liberty the Assembly was charged to defend. Hence the words, "purchase a little temporary Safety"

The last application which should be made of Franklin's quote would be to that of individual civil rights. Rather, liberty and security were coequal concerns of the people, corporately. But in no case could we expect to survive via a tradeoff of liberty for security as was the case in the Penn family's attempt to avoid taxation, the rightful purview of the legislature.

The specter of the afore mentioned cannibalistic anti-logic endures to this very day, as the people of this great land find themselves again in need of a champion. Under the insistence of liberal legislators and activists such as the imminent Reverend Al and of course folks like yourself, the people have been defrauded of Franklin's vision of essential liberty. How? Because like the Penn family, special interest groups have usurped the will of the people and the common good of the people, by asking for and receiving legislative carve outs, byes of all manner, goodies and taxpayer provided gifts, quid pro quo fashion in a destructive tradeoff for their votes. The proper name for this disgusting pickle is Identity Politics and is the stock-in-trade of the Democrat.

In other words though you will deny it, all the libs in true lemming fashion, have lined up behind the misbegotten notion that essential liberty is a right. That is why you or they cannot defend or define it. [attachment=o3507] Feelings.

Thank you for your brief remarks.

The quote by Franklin neither defines nor illumines this discussion of essential liberty.

Jefferson's "unalienable" means that which cannot be given or taken away. In other words, that which is essential, fundamental.

A civil government striving to maintain essential liberty, honor freedom of conscience, does not stand in the place of God, or church, or deacon board, or religious entity. In my view, grounding a provision allowing gays to have marriage recognized by the civil authority in equal protection under the law does in no way impede the Church from opposing it or condemning it. It in no way usurps God's authority, as it makes no moral comment, but simply suggests the practice itself is covered by essential liberty ("pursuit of happiness, liberty").

Does the Creator grant to human beings a freedom that they then use to say "No" to him? Obviously. Does that "No" to the Creator have consequences? I believe it does. Dire ones. Do these dire consequences, then, free up the religious man to use civil authority to interfere with essential liberty? No, they do not.

Smug shenanigans aside, TRT, you dishonor freedom by playing games with a principle that undergirds our great documents by localizing it within a single quote. You would shrink and distort reality to go about your way feeling as if you had put liberalism in its place. As if a letter pertaining to the Penn family, a localized issue, settled a debate about a universal principle.

[TheRealThing]

Thank you for your brief remarks.

The quote by Franklin neither defines nor illumines this discussion of essential liberty.

Jefferson's "unalienable" means that which cannot be given or taken away. In other words, that which is essential, fundamental.

A civil government striving to maintain essential liberty, honor freedom of conscience, does not stand in the place of God, or church, or deacon board, or religious entity. In my view, grounding a provision allowing gays to have marriage recognized by the civil authority in equal protection under the law does in no way impede the Church from opposing it or condemning it. It in no way usurps God's authority, as it makes no moral comment, but simply suggests the practice itself is covered by essential liberty ("pursuit of happiness, liberty").

Does the Creator grant to human beings a freedom that they then use to say "No" to him? Obviously. Does that "No" to the Creator have consequences? I believe it does. Dire ones. Do these dire consequences, then, free up the religious man to use civil authority to interfere with essential liberty? No, they do not.

Smug shenanigans aside, TRT, you dishonor freedom by playing games with a principle that undergirds our great documents by localizing it within a single quote. You would shrink and distort reality to go about your way feeling as if you had put liberalism in its place. As if a letter pertaining to the Penn family, a localized issue, settled a debate about a universal principle.

This is seriously the best you got? At this late stage, you still can't define what you're even talking about. Pretty sad. As to the bolded--- I guess you didn't get the memo but, man was not granted the state of being fallen in nature, born dead. Death and sin passed on to all men through the sin of one man, Adam. Our bent to sin is in our nature, and is no more a choice than a dog's very predictable reaction to a mail man, it barks and sometimes it bites, we call this behavior and it is instinctive. The only choice man makes is when he chooses God in spite of his own fallen nature. And as Scripture tells us, that choice comes only through the foolishness of preaching of the Word and further, that it is The gift of God Himself, and in no case the result of works.

If I want to speak about why man is fallen from God's grace I go to Genesis and see what God has to say about the subject. If I want to speak about essential Liberty, I go to the man who coined the phrase and see what he had to say about it and in what historical context it was used. Libs like yourself, in desperation of any form of justification, are quite willing to steal another man's words, Franklin in this case, to propagate a lie. I just feel like Franklin was capable of saying what he meant, apart from your desperate distortions.

You dishonored freedom by choosing to stay home while patriotic men and women all around you went off to protect you, serving their country in the armed services. Franklin certainly did not shirk his duties in service to country, and that included commanding our troops during the French and Indian War, THE context of essential Liberty BTW. But like I said of your so-called debating skills, there is nothing that you cannot deny and facts are such bothersome restrictions to the liberal's freedom to revise history. But you further dishonor freedom by preaching your secular humanistic message in which you claim that liberty means that one has the right by law, to do that which is not right in both the eyes of God and the eyes of the American system of justice. The Scripture and the Constitution both proclaim such acts to be against nature. But America was intended to be different, she was to be a nation of men who recognize their unalienable rights come from God. Thus the proposition of self governance was always slave to men choosing to do what is right, and what is the go-to source to determine what is right? The Holy Bible.

That is what I choose to defend. While your defense is only and always that which is indefensible.

Franklin's letter, of which I am certain you cannot even make specific reference, much less make any claim to having read, was written to the Governor of Pennsylvania. It was he who like the liberal of today's world, thought to make a special legislative carve-out to the Penn family because frankly, he could not stop himself from kissing up to the elite.

Today's liberal in exacting like fashion, will very merrily through unfair and burdensome tax schemes rob the virtuous of this nation, and use the proceeds to buy the favor of those they court in a welfare for votes scheme. I will put that into different terms so that you will understand what I am saying. Call it essential Welfare, because you are 24/7 hair on fire, all-in to see those who work, robbed of their substance, so that it may be given to those who are for sale. All of which constitutes in today's political arena, the "purchase of a little individual power" by corrupt and misguided politicians who have shown an unswerving predilection to giving up our essential liberties as the price of purchase.

Now, I don't pretend to think that every person who voted for Trump this time can particularly articulate the argument. But the basic understanding of doing what's right is so fundamental to being an American, that men and women, following the dictates of their own 'consciences' (and that apart from the left's best attempts at propagandizing the nation through their dutiful right arm laughably referred to as the main stream media) knew by virtue of factual discernment and their God given spiritual instincts, that Trump was the right choice. And that prodding of conscience, is mostly all the common man in this nation ever had to guide him in the dispatch of his civic duties. Because as any semi-conscious student of American history knows, the founders were betting on that very force to keep America a viable society across time. Such is the basis for self governance. And such is the basis of our understanding that only through an adherence to Christian principles could America expect to remain free.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆️⬆️

Just the suggestion that it dishonors freedom to not join an all volunteer army is an affront to the very liberty you claim to revere. The draft was over in the time it would have applied in my life, and even offering that is a bow to your despicable statement.

Let's be clear: essential liberty, "unalienable" rights is not some semantic game. It is a principle. One TRT apparently believes only the Christian can arbitrate.

TRT is closer in spirit to the mindset that banished Roger Williams to the wilderness than he is to the fundamental, "essential" if you will, American spirit that animated Williams and led him to establish Rhode Island. For all your "is that the best you got," TRT, what you have is a vagabond eye that reads only what affirms your worldview, a doctrine in search of prooftexts.

[TheRealThing]

⬆️⬆️

Just the suggestion that it dishonors freedom to not join an all volunteer army is an affront to the very liberty you claim to revere. The draft was over in the time it would have applied in my life, and even offering that is a bow to your despicable statement.

Let's be clear: essential liberty, "unalienable" rights is not some semantic game. It is a principle. One TRT apparently believes only the Christian can arbitrate.

TRT is closer in spirit to the mindset that banished Roger Williams to the wilderness than he is to the fundamental, "essential" if you will, American spirit that animated Williams and led him to establish Rhode Island. For all your "is that the best you got," TRT, what you have is a vagabond eye that reads only what affirms your worldview, a doctrine in search of prooftexts.

Still better than having my opinion handed to me ala the liberal.

What is despicable is your criticizing the US military when you did not serve. Clear enough? Don't tell me I dishonor freedom when I fought to preserve it and all you're willing to risk is to run your mouth and use the go-to slanders of the left to make yourself feel better about your own slug trail.

But your failure to produce anything resembling clarity is the reason for my having made this drawn out, if one sided argument about essential Liberty. Oh you throw the verbiage around, but you can't make a credible argument because your understanding only goes as deep as the completely false talking points you parrot. But thanks for the opportunity to write about our American heritage, as it pertains to Franklin's concept of essential Liberty and the left's attempt to pervert his original intent to support their heresies.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Still better than having my opinion handed to me ala the liberal.

What is despicable is your criticizing the US military when you did not serve. Clear enough? Don't tell me I dishonor freedom when I fought to preserve it and all you're willing to risk is to run your mouth and use the go-to slanders of the left to make yourself feel better about your own slug trail.

But your failure to produce anything resembling clarity is the reason for my having made this drawn out, if one sided argument about essential Liberty. Oh you throw the verbiage around, but you can't make a credible argument because your understanding only goes as deep as the completely false talking points you parrot. But thanks for the opportunity to write about our American heritage, as it pertains to Franklin's concept of essential Liberty and the left's attempt to pervert his original intent to support their heresies.

Only those who served can criticize the Mai Lai incident? Only those who served can speak negatively of abuses at Guantanamo? Abu Ghraib? That dishonors freedom and is, frankly, exactly what I mean about you being more of the spirit of tyranny than of freedom.

You are no more a reliable arbiter of what is relevant than you are trustworthy in your prooftexting.

This is what I avoided: a simple, and I mean simplest, search of "freedom of conscience" renders a definition. Did you search? No, you didn't. Just as you ignore any and all source material that does not agree with your worldview.

[TheRealThing]

Only those who served can criticize the Mai Lai incident? Only those who served can speak negatively of abuses at Guantanamo? Abu Ghraib? That dishonors freedom and is, frankly, exactly what I mean about you being more of the spirit of tyranny than of freedom.

You are no more a reliable arbiter of what is relevant than you are trustworthy in your prooftexting.

This is what I avoided: a simple, and I mean simplest, search of "freedom of conscience" renders a definition. Did you search? No, you didn't. Just as you ignore any and all source material that does not agree with your worldview.

Well I hate to tell you there Sherlock, but there is quite a difference between the concept of freedom of conscience and the one that we have been discussing, which is essential Liberty. LOL, but in that inadvertent revelation on your part, the meaning of your idea of simple certainly snapped into focus for me. I mean, if you don't even know which term we were discussing, how can you be expected to properly define it much less apply it, right? Heck, that's just plain unfair of me.

But I'll tell you what there professor. Since you just lost round one on the topic of essential Liberty. Why don't you hazard a trip out on the thin ice, and give us all your idea of what freedom of conscience is all about? This is your time to shine. The eggs of that mental omelet of yours are scrambled enough, and I didn't want to confuse you by dealing with both topics in the same post. And please, don't take it easy on me. Pull out all the stops including indentured servitude and I'll do my best to keep up. Oh, and since you've resorted to nitpicking about spelling and such, you might want to keep in mind for future reference that 'text proofing' is two words.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Well I hate to tell you there Sherlock, but there is quite a difference between the concept of freedom of conscience and the one that we have been discussing, which is essential Liberty. LOL, but in that inadvertent revelation on your part, the meaning of your idea of simple certainly snapped into focus for me. I mean, if you don't even know which term we were discussing, how can you be expected to properly define it much less apply it, right? Heck, that's just plain unfair of me.

But I'll tell you what there professor. Since you just lost round one on the topic of essential Liberty. Why don't you hazard a trip out on the thin ice, and give us all your idea of what freedom of conscience is all about? This is your time to shine. The eggs of that mental omelet of yours are scrambled enough, and I didn't want to confuse you by dealing with both topics in the same post. And please, don't take it easy on me. Pull out all the stops including indentured servitude and I'll do my best to keep up. Oh, and since you've resorted to nitpicking about spelling and such, you might want to keep in mind for future reference that 'text proofing' is two words.

Uh, Holmes, best check again. "Prooftexting or proof texting" both acceptable.

Essential liberty is a principle undergirding pursuit of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, akin to "unalienable" rights, as in fundamental, essential. And, you're as in error about it as you are about "prooftexting."

I notice you don't address your "Nathan Jessup" lunacy about how folk who haven't been in the Armed Services can't criticize the actions of the Armed Services. Word is, though, you can't handle the truth.

As for freedom of conscience, just type it in there, Holmes. The definition'll pop right up. In America, a person is free to choose to be homosexual, free to call it an alternate and moral lifestyle. The civil government protects that freedom, and "equal protection under the law" applies.
There is no construction by which you can sling in some long, long, long post yammering about God's authority and how civil government originates from God's authority because the freedom of choice was given Man by God, and is honored by God, and preserved under wise government, lest overzealous men transgress where angels fear to tread.

[TheRealThing]

Uh, Holmes, best check again. "Prooftexting or proof texting" both acceptable.

Essential liberty is a principle undergirding pursuit of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, akin to "unalienable" rights, as in fundamental, essential. And, you're as in error about it as you are about "prooftexting."

I notice you don't address your "Nathan Jessup" lunacy about how folk who haven't been in the Armed Services can't criticize the actions of the Armed Services. Word is, though, you can't handle the truth.

As for freedom of conscience, just type it in there, Holmes. The definition'll pop right up. In America, a person is free to choose to be homosexual, free to call it an alternate and moral lifestyle. The civil government protects that freedom, and "equal protection under the law" applies.
There is no construction by which you can sling in some long, long, long post yammering about God's authority and how civil government originates from God's authority because the freedom of choice was given Man by God, and is honored by God, and preserved under wise government, lest overzealous men transgress where angels fear to tread.

LOL, what a major dodge.

The term essential Liberty, is attributable to only one man, Benjamin Franklin, and is akin to nothing else. He used it in a letter to the Colonial Governor in arbitrating a very specific legislative dispute arising out of the Pennsylvania Assembly. Said letter was written during the French and Indian war, in which the term essential Liberty originally appeared. It dealt specifically with the right of a duly elected legislature to tax accordingly, lands in Pennsylvania in this case, in order to provide the fundamental benefit of safety, or more to the point, national defense. The Assembly was stalling on the necessary appropriations of same in order to force the Governor's hand. He was a puppet of the Penn family and as such vetoed legislation applicable to Penn family land holdings every time it had come up. The term is not an individual rights catchall, and certainly not in the manner in which you libs try to use it. It has to do with the authority of elected legislatures to levy taxes and other such charges of the people's business. In a word it is 'corporate' in scope. But then, I am certain you would tell Franklin he's wrong too.

But like I said, if just saying something made it so you'd be unstoppable. That is if you actually had the courage to give us your own discourse on such matters, which you obviously do not. I don't need your guidance to look something up but thanks all the same.

And here's to January 20, the day the yammering of Scalia, Franklin, and the new Supreme Court appointee/appointees is carried on in remembrance of great men gone on, along with those to come in preservation of the conservative tradition. And I can only hope that it will bother you a fraction as much as I think it will. :biggrin:

[The Urban Sombrero]

🔼🔼

As if the PHRASE "essential liberty" had meaning for only one man? As if the PHRASE essential liberty only applied in one letter? As if the concept of essential liberty existed in but one mind? Ridiculous.

Elections have consequences. If a person doesn't like the policies and appointments of the elected, fretting and whining isn't the democratic answer. Organizing and working in the marketplace of ideas and images to gain the hearts and minds of people before the next round of elections is the way.

Were the SCOTUS to reverse the two decisions that seem to most vex you, TRT, our debate here would remain the same, at least on the gay marriage decision.