The Manhattan Declaration — Part 3

Justin Kollmeyer's picture

This is the third and last installment of this series of articles entitled “The Manhattan Declaration.” I ask still a third time what in the world could a declaration by that name have to do with those of us living here on the south side of Atlanta? Well, it simply bears the name of the place in New York where a gathering of well known and respected national Christian leaders met a year ago last November to make an important and historic faith declaration, much like the governmental declaration that was made in Philadelphia in 1776.

I’m going to share this third and final part of one section of it here with you this week. I shared the first and second parts with you back in November and February. You can look up those articles on my blog on The Citizen’s website.

What follows is the third part of the section entitled “Marriage.” The reason I share it is because I agree with it wholeheartedly and have actually become a “signer” of it, as you can too if you so choose. You can find the whole declaration and sign it on manhattandeclaration.org.

As you will experience when you read what is below, it is quite an in-depth presentation. It may take you more than one reading to comprehend fully both the detailed lines of affirmation and the detailed and thoughtful lines of rebuttal to opposing beliefs.

“No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality — a covenantal union of husband and wife — that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow.

“First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as ‘marriages’ sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically nonmarital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends.

“Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

“And so it is out of love (not ‘animus’) and prudent concern for the common good (not ‘prejudice’), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.”

Now, I want to take you back to the very beginning of The Declaration and these words which remind us of the lofty intent of those who fashioned this document.

“While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that ... the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies ...

“Because ... the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife (is a) foundational principle of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in (its) defense. In this declaration we affirm: ... (that) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society .

“We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right — and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation — to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.”

Kollmeyer is Pastor of Prince of Peace Lutheran Church on Hwy. 314 in Fayetteville. For more information log on at www.princeofpeacefayette.com

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Top of Page

I will begin at the top so we don't have one column responses.

I think you should go back and review my definition of social engineering. Once you do you will see that "separate but equal" has nothing to do with social engineering. It has everything to do with the rights protected under the Constitution. Your right to attend any school you want is your right.

Now a public school is another matter, the government runs public schools by definition, this is social engineering. It takes money by force from those that have no interest in paying for public education for the purpose of public education. The justification for this theft is "the common good". Since you are of the social persuasion it is a phrase that is familiar to you?

So, let's not try and change my words and let's attempt to stay on subject. The subject is rights as protected under the Constitution. It isn't even the misinterpretation of these rights by the Supreme Court (example, separate but equal), we are talking about rights that we are granted from God and by God's Nature.

Did I miss your definition of justice, and the principle basis of your “beginning and ending” rights quote that you keep using? I would be interested in hearing this from you. Once I see your definition of justice, I will see if I can agree with your last item in your list.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Social engineering
Quote:

Once you do you will see that "separate but equal" has nothing to do with social engineering.

Your 'definition' of social engineering is not what most people consider as accurate - but you are entitled to your understanding of the term. It is interesting that you leave the term 'rights' as declared in our Constitution - and turn to God and God's nature. Now which interpretation of 'God' are you referring to? Your right cannot usurp my right - under the Constitution. Your 'right' to be a participating citizen in this country cannot usurp my right to participate. If all citizens are taxed to provide certain services, citizens who don't feel they benefit from those services should not be able to not contribute to the point that precludes other citizens from receiving the service. That includes fire protection; security; and education. You want to exclude education. That will be up to the courts. But beware - public education has been the backbone of this country - and we are losing ground in this area because other countries see the necessity of having a well-educated populace. Separate but equal was social engineering - keeping black sstudents separate from white students. Ugly, but a part of our history.

I find your definition very limited in scope:

Quote:

Social engineering is an attempt by government to use tax monies to regulate economic outcomes to the benefit of one group of people at the expense of another group of people. Social engineering is not a role of government envisioned by our founders, it is not what our government was designed to do.

If you believe that our founders did not debate some 'social engineering' issues - check your history. The vote given to one gender only; (social engineering)/ the two houses of legislators (social engineering) etc, etc., etc. the omission of dealing with the slavery issue/ (social engineering) Using the legislature to insure that only certain citizens have 'equal' RIIGHTS under the Constitution. (social engineering)

Never mind. Have a great week. We disagree once again - life goes on.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO
Quote:

My rights :
To have control over my body
To live wherever I can afford
To attend a school with my neighbors
To worship at the church of my choice
To achieve according to my skill and effort
To receive equal justice in every state of our great country

You stated that you agreed with my stated rights. You seem to have difficulty with my last statement. It has been my experience that I did not have my rights in every state of our country until what I consider justice was achieved be insuring that I could experience attending school with my neighbors. My parents paid taxes, and public education has been at the forefront of keeping the US populated with an educated citizenry. How is my going to a public school that my parents helped to support taken anything away from you and yours? Many here in Georgia made the choice to attend Christian Academies rather than go to school with me and mine. There was still a need to pay for public schools through property tax. No one forced anyone to leave the public school system - it was their choice - as it is today. This choice is being made
by Americans of all races. That is my opinion based on experience and perspective. It is imperative that we reform our
public education in order to remain competitive in the world. Many in our country have listed school integration ; affirmative action; Roe vs Wade; and many other issues as 'social engineering'. You seem to have a different definition.

Please define 'social engineering', and how it may have affected your rights.

Quote:

Now a public school is another matter, the government runs public schools by definition, this is social engineering. It takes money by force from those that have no interest in paying for public education for the purpose of public education

When Americans no longer see the value that public education has bestowed on this country, the dictators and our enemies have won. IMO .

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Education/PTCO

This is what I said:

Quote:

It is imperative that we reform our public education in order to remain competitive in the world.

All citizens have a vested interest in the education of our future. Throwing more money at it without analyzing the reasons we are far behind other countries will be a complete waste. It is wisdom to take a look at the need for education reform - and do all we can to make sure that our students, our future, are academically/financially/socially prepared to compete and make the necessary steps to keep this country strong.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - You miss

You continue to miss the point or ingore it. I am certainly not going to argue that past sins were justified, but as you point out those laws have been overturned based on the Constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, and property. You seem to overlook the essential fact that it is the Constitution that protected your rights.

I have already defined social engineering for you, go back and re-read my post on its definition. It hasn't changed.

Now about education:

I didn't say there is "no value in public education" when you throw very large amounts of money at something you will get marginal value, but the value vs. cost is poor with public education. How much do we spend on education? Well spending levels continue to rise but it is nearly impossible for us to know how much is actually spent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzvKyfV3JtE

Government has failed at education. It continues to fail and it will always fail because it starts from the wrong premise. That premise is that all people want and desire a higher education, specifically an education based on what is provided in public schools. Those that lack ability both mental and physical should not be forced into a "one size fits all" method imposed by public education. If they are forced, we have what we have today: poor results, distrupted schools, and crime.

Do citizens need a certain level of education to be productive in our society? Of course, the question is where is the greatest incentative to provide it? Further, who should provide it and when?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Overbroad
PTC Observer wrote:

Now a public school is another matter, the government runs public schools by definition, this is social engineering. It takes money by force from those that have no interest in paying for public education for the purpose of public education. The justification for this theft is "the common good".

That's an incredibly overbroad definition.

Using your twisted logic, a city police force is also "social engineering".

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Absolutely not Bacon

I said nothing about police, police are used to enforce law.

Have you read my definition of social engineering? Law enforcement has nothing to do with social engineering, except where the application of law is used for social engineering and force is applied to take property for this purpose.

Enforcement of justice is required and appropriate. I think where you are a little confused about my positions is based on our different defintions of justice.

Not putting words in my mouth are you Bacon?

wildman
wildman's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/20/2009
Religion, in general...

I have waaaaaay too many thoughts to write, so I prefer to keep it simple...
ALL religion is simply an OPINION. When all else fails, refer to religious opinions.
The Bible is a social guide, at best, an history book, at least.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Wedge/Rights

My point - Christians have different interpretations regarding their beliefs. I won't get into a discussion of belief systems here-but Jesus did say "Sin no more - or a worse situation may occur after a 'healing'. Man wrote the Bible. As has been pointed out- Jesus saw beyond the 'sins' of man and and included many as his diciples. (Paul was Saul who murdered many Christians) I feel that to deny 'rights' to individuals is unconstitutional. Would someone show me where marriage between a man and a women is addressed in the Constitution? Thanks. I still think that the Golden Rule applies to most situations. Marriage is usually a religious act. Many who do not profess a religious belief marry outside of a church. That is their civil right. Why are religious leaders trying to deny a civil right? There are churches that will perform a marriage ceremony for individuals. That's a personal choice and not a choice that should be governed by 'government IMO. Anyway, I'm watching this drama over the budget-and the possibility of shutting down Wasington D,C. The citizens of the District cry taxation without representation-and they may not have their trash picked up! Wait until that happens! (It's their city taxes that pay for that service-let's hope there is an amendment to allow trash pick up if the Feds close! If this were a TV soap, I'd change the channel!

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Mixed Race Marriages

I thought that large Republican presidential poll conducted this past Wednesday was very interesting. The results were all over the place, with almost a dozen candidates garnering votes.

Of particular interest, though, was an unrelated question they asked all respondents: "Should mixed race marriages be legal in Mississippi?". A whopping 46% of Republicans said NO, 40% said YES, and the remaining 14%(!!!) said NOT SURE.

It was very enlightening to read that an enormous 74% of Sarah Palin supporters rejected legalized mixed race marriages (which have been legal since the late 1960s...) Delicious irony: Sarah Palin's husband Todd is the product of a mixed race marriage.

I suspect the results would likely be similar here in Fayette county. After all, we're a "very conservative county".

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
I am sort of getting tired correcting your missives

First it was a MISSISSIPPI poll not a Nationwide one. You didn't mention that one. Misleading at best

AND:

The poll results were not reported honestly. Sort of like you.

The Democrat responses were not even released. I wonder why? Could it be the PPP is considered a very Liberal polling group? Hmmmm could be.

The Story

“By 2002 it was a consistent finding that less than 10% of Americans would accede to the proposition that interracial marriage should be legally banned. So the finding that 46% of Mississippi Republicans agree with that position, and that only 40% reject it outright, is somewhat curious.”

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Race mixin' - what about you, oofu?

I notice you didn't share your opinion on that issue.

So I'll ask you...are you in favor of mixed race marriages?

(Or as they say in Alabama: "Do you support the MONGRELIZATION of the Great White Race?")

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Not an issue to me

it is only an issue to those that think race is everything and those that wish to politicize it for their own purposes.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
WHAT A COP OUT!!/OOU

The best non-answer in a long time! Issue or not - what is your opinion?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
You can "Shout" if you like DMom

I don't use race as an issue. Only the weak of argument uses race to shut off debate. Much like what you and bacon do.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
oou

What debate? I thought we were just sharing 'views'. Sometimes I wonder if you're even in high school. Have a great week!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Dmom

Sometimes I wonder if your not senile.

But like you said it's an opinion.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
oou
Quote:

what is your opinion?

How silly of me to ask - you answer all questions with the same tirade of government, etc., etc. Just for your information 'your' should be you're in the context of your answer. You're part of that popular political group that is heralding the 2012 election year with GET RID OF OBAMA. I'm with the Wisconsin crowd that says recall all of Congress - and let's get SOMETHING done! Obama will be re-elected in the midst of all of this chaos - but at least we're beginning to address the hard issues of debt reduction and budget cutting. Am I senile? Not yet. Most in my family don't start that journey until they hit their 90's. I have a little ways to go yet. My grammar is terrible - but colloquialisms are acceptable sometimes.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Dmom

I have an opinion on many things but not all. This is not one of them. I believe live and live is the order of the day..

Like I said those that view race as a political tool has no argument and little intelligence.

Those that use race as a tool to stifle debate does nothing for that debate.

Those that believe race should be about everything has little view of the world.

Those are my opinions.

Satisfied?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Oou

Keep your blinders on. Keep believing that anyone who has a different opinion is 'wrong'. Don't acknowledge the experience of others, because yours is the only experience that counts. Don't expose yourself to different people who may have a different view on an issue. When you don't have a ready answer, continue to demean and belittle. I realize that your experience is the base for your perspective. It is when we don't seek to undestand why others believe as they do, that we lose an opportunity to learn and possibly understand. I have enjoyed researching the history of Fayetteville. . . and through this study I better understand the resistance to and fear of 'growth '. I have also found that some people here are hesitant to discuss 'race'. . . . and yet it continues to come up in the discussions of other issues - and I'm not always the one who brings race into the discussion. This is happening throughout our country. I was amazed that those who are memorializing the burning of Atlanta-and the inclusive history of the Civil War, did not understand the sensitivity of placing a memorial sign on MLK Blvd. This misunderstanding will be resolved - but had there been communication between community leaders , incorrect assumptions could have been avoided. In America, race is still the elephant in the middle of the room. Conservatives and Progressives will come together to work towards reducing our debt; putting our citizens back to work; work to make meaningful reform in healthcare and education . They have to or our future will be in peril. . . .and all citizens, regardless of race, religion,ideology, income or gender will support those leaders whom they feel have their interest at heart. Have a nice evening Oou .

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Dmom where do you get this stuff????

I have no opinion on this issue so I somehow think "everyone's opinion is wrong"???

Go take your meds dear. You talk/type a lot but really say very little of substance.
Where have I belittled anyone? I had no OPINION. I said so how is that demeaning???

btw-The PROGRESSIVES want BIGGER Government tell me how are they going to reduce debt by doing so.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
OOU
Quote:

Go take your meds dear. You talk/type a lot but really say very little of substance.
Where have I belittled anyone? I had no OPINION. I said so how is that demeaning???

You don't think that statement is belittling or demeaning? Well, we have a difference of opinion there - but I hope you understand why I question if you are capable of having an adult discussion. As to Progressives wanting to reduce the debt - it will take the intelligence and sincerity of our leaders, regardless of ideology to get the necessary job done. Remember Oou, it was the conservative leadership that did not follow their own claim of fiscal responsibility that helped get us in this mess.. . but they weren't alone. Now, it is up to them (conservatives and progressives) to get us out of this mess. The reality is it can't be done overnight - and must be done without jeopardizing any further our world leadership position. {Not an easy assignment} I accept that you have 'no opinion'. Do you remember what the question regarding your opinion was about? No es importante. Buenas noches y adios.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Dmom

About as demeaning as this...

Davids mom wrote:

Sometimes I wonder if you're even in high school.

But then again this is just your Liberal elitism showing again.

Dmom- Both parties have spent like drunken sailors and that is a disservice to drunken sailors everywhere.
There is NO intent of purpose of the Progressive party to cut spending period. You can not grow Government without increasing spending. We will hear from Obama on Wednesday about tax increases.

We do not have a revenue problem in DC. We have a spending problem.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Chris

Didn't you mean the MONGRELIZATION of the great black race. This has a similar ring to those 7K illegal birth numbers you professed yesterday.

Slow down, take a deep breath, and don't let all those dastardly conservatives get to you.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Nope, Mike

Mike, my comment was lifted from the patron saint of the Tea Party, J. B. Stoner, who used to pass around flyers decryin' the mongrelization of the Great White Race back in the early 1960s. (Stoner was the jackwagon who blew up the Atlanta Temple).

In one respect, Stoner was absolutely prescient: He said if racial segregation wasn't maintained, we'd likely see blacks and whites using the same restrooms, eating in the same public restaurants, and dancing together at high school dances. With the demise of Melear's Restaurant, all three of those things have come to pass!

p.s. I ain't afraid of no conservative dastards! ;)

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mongrelization of the Black race?

Wow! Couldn't have happened without the other races contribution. Interesting concept. So who's 'pure'?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
bacon

Well now it depends!

If a glamorous caucasian female movie star marries a wealthy black hip-hop artist, that seems to be OK--they are invited to everything!

However, if your daughter comes home with her date who is of a different race, that is a no-no! (unless they both have converted to the Jewish religion or to Buddhism).

normal
normal's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2009
Darn near everyone is mixed race

Lets see mother german, father irish and swed, that makes the kids mixed race. Very tiny few are not mixed. Besides who cares, stop taking poles. Just fix the problems

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Nobody is taking the Poles anymore, normal

That ended when we defeated Hitler in WWII. The world was safe for Poles, Hugarians, Gypsys and others for quite some time.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Normal - LOL

get a life, this was funny.

normal
normal's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2009
oh shut up morgan,

idiot

wildman
wildman's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/20/2009
mixed race???

Some of you don't even understand the basics, so how can you comment on a complicated issue??
And, you cannot blame a child for errors of their parents!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Normal

AMEN!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Bacon

Are you serious? Geez. Races don't marry, individuals do. Is this part of the 'let's take our country back' platform?
What a Pandora's box that would open. Years ago a 'white' woman wanted Negro taken off her birth certificate. (Louisiana )Her 'black' relatives testified that she was certainly 'black'. {That was unusual for the time since most blacks did not 'out' those who 'crossed over'. Now I guess everyone would be required to produce a birth certificate - not just a candidate for president. How many Americans can prove they are 'pure' anything? All it takes is to self-select the race box to change your identity. . . .if one is so inclined. A little late for many beautiful families in Fayette County. Thanks for sharing.

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
So, you're a "follower" of Christ, Kollmeyer?

Would Jesus also be a signer of the Manhattan Declaration? I doubt it. Because it reeks of bigotry, homophobia, and judgement. Did you ever stop to think that maybe Jesus was gay? I mean, he never married, hung out with a bunch of guys all the time and seemed to hate authority. I think this Manhattan Declaration is something that Jesus would most likely detest.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Kollmeyer Better Theologian Than Luther?

If Luther was for it, how can Kollmeyer be against it? Kollmeyer, are you a better theologian than Luther?

I think Luther said it best when he said

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."

Swift Death to Anti-Lutheran Thinking!

Go Martin!

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Not so MS

There is nothing in this article to suggest that Pastor Kollmeyer is a bigot or homophobic and his other missives strongly indicate otherwise. His seems to be straightforwardly stating an objection to gay marriages based on his religious views.

What is not discussed. is that marriage has a religious and civil component. He writes:
“No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage." Well, why not? There are issues of hospital visitation rights, Social Security benefits, estate taxes, living together in nursing homes, pensions, etc. It's the pressure of the civil aspects of laws that confer privileges on people who are married that are the basis of the challenge to his religious definition of marriage.

His objection to gay marriage because "... the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized", may be heartfelt but the assertion is, again, not explained and, in my opinion, is not true. Even if it were true, it's not relevant. Religious liberty under our Constitution does not confer on you the privilege not to have a matter of your conscience challenged.

Because he has framed the argument as he has, Mr. Kollmeyer has almost certainly staked out a position on the losing side. Eventual recognition of civil unions that confer tax and contract privileges is seemingly inevitable. This need not conflict with anyone's religion at all. The Catholic Church does not recognize many divorces and subsequent remarriages. The State recognizes second marriages with the same force of law as a first marriage. The Catholic Church is under no obligation at all to change its views nor recognize these marriages.

Let the State deal with the issues of taxes and contract rights through civil unions. The churches should deal with the religious aspects of marriage however it suits them. A divorce is needed, between the State's definition and the Church's definition of marriage. My own preference is to have the State define civil union laws and the Churches define marriage however it suits them.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - The pastor & gays

Jeff I agree with you here, but do you believe in your heart of hearts that gay marriage should be banned by the state? It is true that the pastor voices his belief that it is wrong and has every right to preach this, however once he or anyone else steps over the line and asks that our government outlaw such unions.....this is wrong.

The government was put in place to protect individual freedom, but you know that already don't you? It was not put in place to regulate our lives in favor of some particular relgious belief. If I want to form a church that supports marriage of gays, I should be able to form such a church. Now we are back to marriage not civil unions. If the state can ban marriages between same sex, why can they not ban marriage between different races? If one is not good, but the other is, where's the logic?

And those out there that would, please don't give me the shallow animal/human marriage argument, it doesn't hold water and everyone knows it, except those that can't come up with something better.

Either we have liberty or we don't, seems pretty simple to me.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
No PTCO

I don't think they should be banned. Gay marriages or civil unions do not bother me a bit. Why should anyone care?

As you say, either we have liberty or we don't. Seems pretty simple to me, too.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Right you are Jeffc. Liberty is good. Trump told me so.

Good old #2 in some obscure poll - The Donald himself told me (well, actually through Sean Hannity on the radio) that he thinks the social issues that he sort of agrees with are secondary to the fiscal issues. Since I agree completely, he's my guy for President.

Gays marrying? Who cares? Not me. How does that affect me and should we not focus on something more important. Get a life you stupid bible-thumpers.

Think he can't get elected? Look who we elected last time. Loser of the decade.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - Interesting

that you don't extend this thinking beyond gay marriages. Or do you?

What do you think the proper role of government in our society should be JeffC?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Why PTCO?

I am a Constitutionalist. I almost always come down on the side of personal freedom.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Almost JeffC?

Almost is only good in horseshoes and hand grenades.

The Constitution was put in place for one purpose, to protect us from our own government and provide justice (by force of law to protect our rights).

How does your Party stand up to these principles? Your Party though its actions has shown that it has total disregard for these principles. You do support the Democratic Party don't you?

It is Party before Constitution I believe.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
PTCO

I support the Dems. What rights have the Dems shown total disregard for? Meanwhile, the Republicans regularly launch assaults on the Constitution.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Patriot Act: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Patriot Act: Forget all of that. And do not allow those responsible for 9/11 to be tried in New York.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Patriot Act: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

Amendment VI: ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Patriot Act: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.

Patriot Act: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

Amendment VI: ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

Patriot Act: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.

The Republicans would throw the Constitution in the trash if not for my Democrat’s opposition.

Which Party is denying the rights of gays to marry? Which Party wants to control the rights of women to control their own reproductive system? Which Party wants to control where a mosque is built? Which Party wants to control whether you can buy a beer on Sunday here in Fayette County?

There are only two Parties to pick from. Name a time when the Republicans stood up to protect any of my rights.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff on that Patriot Act who just reaffirmed it?

So was/is it just the Republicans?

btw- In answer to your question every time they fight off the Democrat's attack on the 1st and 2nd amendments to name just two. You can't just pick the ones you like.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
1st Amendment OOU

Where was the support of the 1st when they wanted to build the Mosque in NYC?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - You

are absolutely right about this JeffC.

Most conservatives were MIA on this one, they like to pick and choose the provisions to the Consitution to meet their political aims.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Both are incorrect

No one said they did not have the "Right" to do it. Just that it was not right for them to do it there.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
revisionist history oou

If you think the absolute hysterics the right displayed over building the Mosque was somehow an affirmation of the 1st Amendment, I'm afraid that I disagree. Except for the 2nd Amendment and some passing support for the 1st when the talk shows come up with some bogus claim they're about to be shut down, the right-wing never supports the rights given to us in the Constitution.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff are you saying only Conservatives where against the mosque?

I think you need to remember history instead of re-inventing it.

"According to a new CNN poll, 68 percent of Americans nationwide oppose the mosque being built two blocks from ground zero, which is why President Obama will probably not choose to make this his latest "teachable moment." Even a majority of Democrats — the ones who are supposed to be the politically correct terrorist apologists — are opposed (54 percent against it to 43 percent for it). It's worth noting that another poll shows that, among those literally closest to the issue, the mosque has wider support: Manhattanites back the mosque 53 percent to 31 percent."

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/even_democrats_oppose_ground_z_1.html

btw-got some facts to back up that argument?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
No OOU

In the poll, almost half of the Democrats supported their Constitutional rights and over four-fifths of Republicans opposed them. That's probably typical.

I doubt, though, that the 14th Amendment would have anywhere near a fifth of the Republicans supporting it:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff just showing a little love is all

for all those freedom loving Democrats. Maybe a few more will move towards reducing Government and getting Government out of our lives. The best way to express our Constitutional freedoms is to exercise them.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Amen OOU

"The best way to express our Constitutional freedoms is to exercise them."

Amen, amen!

The biggest threat to our freedoms is that most people sit idly by while the government steals them ever so slowly, ever so incrementally, ever so subtly. Or worse, they actively agree or at least acquiesce, reasoning incorrectly that a little erosion here in this particular case can be overlooked and we'll regain the full freedom later.

They are ignorant, lacking in historical perspective, and gullible. This incredible gift to us that is the United States of America with all the sacrifice that has gotten us to this point, and people are so incredibly stupid that they think that it's nothing special? That it just happened this way? That it can't be lost? Excuse me, but some people are dumber than dirt.

I'm quitting because I feel a not politically correct raving coming on about the dumb masses.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Jeff

I take it you are saying that he dumb masses had nothing to do with building this great country. Only the elite of the 1700s masses knew what they were doing!

Well you are wrong about that.
Corrections to the Constitution in very serious matters have been necessary by the masses insistence!

The wars we have won were fought 90% by those masses (dumb or not). I am proud to be one of those 90%!

I will agree that educated dumb elites are often required to propose long term solutions, but the dumb masses have to make the proposals work.

The poor will always be with us (and so the dumb masses).

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Words of Wisdom from JeffC

I wish everyone would read what you just wrote and give it something more than lip service.

The Constitution has become just some old outdated document that has little or no meaning in todays society.

The Government has gone far, far beyond the 18 enumerated powers and has created a leviathan that just rolls over our freedoms.

We are worse off today then ever.

btw- I am not PC at all. So I will say it for you. The AMERICAN people are ignorant and just want their IPODS and American Idol.
Their Freedoms are being flushed and they don't care for the most part.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
oofu attempts to change the subject
Lord of the Derp wrote:

Jeff are you saying only Conservatives where (sic) against the mosque?

I think you need to remember history instead of re-inventing it.

He didn't say that ONLY conservatives were against the Ground Zero community center...that's just your usual pathetic tactic of trying to change the subject when you're getting your **edited and warned** kicked.

Jeff was remarking on how seldom conservatives support a First Amendment issue unless they are directly impacted by it.

Insofar as the Ground Zero community center support goes, a whopping 82% of Republicans opposed it. Not much "First Amendment" love there, eh?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC _ I would

never say, never, but almost ever.....with this qualifier you are correct.

However, they do talk a good game.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
JeffC

Which party is forcing taxpayer dollars to go to an organization that performs abortions and won't let up on it?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Neither Grizz

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Roe v Wade says you don't get a say in deciding to restrict rights for others. The Constitution protects women from your preferences.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
JeffC

My question was in regard to taxpayer funding of abortions. I never said that I wanted to restrict anyones rights. Frankly, the more liberals that get abortions, the better place America will be.

I just don't want my taxes going to pay for this unnecessary elective procedure.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
grizz

Oh. We were discussing Constitutional rights so I thought you were objecting.

Planned Parenthood doesn't get tax dollars for abortions, you know.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
JeffC

That is pure B.S. PP receives taxpayer money and performs abortions. Only a fool would buy into the notion that taxpayer money isn't used to fund abortions. The two cannot be separated since taxpayer dollars go to the same organization that performs abortions.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
You see JeffC

when the government gets into social services these kind of disputes happen. Same with Obama care. It is beyond the scope of the Constitution, we should not be funding any social services at all. That's right none.

Planned Parenthood should stand on its own and those that want to support it should, the taxpayer shouldn't. Even if our tax money doesn't go directly to perform abortions, the funding allows private donations for abortions that couldn't be perfomed if it wasn't for public money support. In other words, the taxpayer is indirectly supporting abortions against their will.

The answer is to get the government out of health care entirely.

Social engineering is not the role of government.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
PTC O

I hve a better idea! Do away with all Hospitals and Doctors. They are the ones who do this abortion thang!
Put it back in dark rooms with no lights and coat hangers where it belongs!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - Thanks

For your reply.

I am not a Republican because of the short list you have made here and many many of other reasons too numerous to list. Infringing individual freedom is bi-partisan however. I suppose that the Patriot Act could have not passed Congress or have been re-instated during the last session if it wasn’t. But I won’t quibble over these little details.

The Democrat Party fundamentally believes that government should run the economy, “leveling the economic playing field" for the disadvantaged and that if you don't believe in this it doesn't matter because the force of law will take your property to insure economic "justice". The Democrat Party has always been for the little guy and its benevolence extents to seizing through force of law a citizen’s property to achieve it.

So, while you may believe that the Party doesn’t infringe on my freedom, it does. You may believe that it protects the little guy, but it doesn’t. In fact, I would say that the idea of social “justice” is just another way of war against the poor. It keeps them enslaved, entitled, and dependent on a government that covets power at their expense. That is the basis of the philosophy of the Democrat Party……but don’t feel alone, the Republican Party with their incrementalism in all things social is right there with you. In fact, they have been the masters of social engineering going way way back.

All of this is the anti-thesis to what the country was founded upon. The enduring message was, the role of government is to protect individual rights not to abridge them, to protect us from the power of the government itself. Among those rights to be protected are life, liberty, and property. Something your Party has failed miserably to do.

That Mr. Carter, is the truth.

BTW, did you father enjoy his trip to Cuba?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Bait and switch PTCO?

I agree with your characterization of the government but as far as enumerated rights, your argument seems to be that you object to taxes. Well, me too. Certainly we could argue over rates, but there is no right not to be taxed.

My objections to the Republicans is that they are perfectly at ease with attacking Constitutional rights; either in pursuing their religious agenda or in their zeal to gain some small measure of security whatever the costs to the Constitution. Who else is going to stop them from implementing a police state except my Dems?

As I said, there are only two sides. I'm picking what I consider by far to be the lesser of two evils.

Didn't get Ross out. Maybe next time.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - I seem to

have not make it clear, I don't object to taxes. I think taxes are both needed and correct for running the government. I object to the use of taxes to attempt to make individuals equal. Taxes should be used to enforce justice and justice is defined as the use of law to protect individual rights.

It is an abuse of governmental power to use taxes for social engineering; to the degree that government uses taxes for social engineering they infringe the property rights of its citizens. This is my point and only point, your party has been at the forefront in social engineering, thus your party has been instrumental in denying the rights of life, liberty, and property for millions of our citizens. It is not the lesser of two evils, both Parties are equally evil.

Hope this is clear now.

I have those objections to the Republicans as well; I also have the same fear of the Democrat Party. They use the force of government to police their "vision" of social justice. Both Parties are leading to the same place but for different purposes. You should worry about the police state that the Congress has put in place. It is a mindless administration of laws passed by Congress and Congress's abdication of their responsibilities and power to a bureaucratic state. That is the product of both parties. It is not unique in history and the outcome of the loss of property and freedom has been anything but pleasant.

It is a shame that your father couldn’t get Mr. Ross out, but when you negotiate with socialist murders you shouldn’t have very high expectations. I can say one thing about your father, he is consistent.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
I know that PTCO

I'm not sure I agree 100% with "It is an abuse of governmental power to use taxes for social engineering." But for the rest of your characterization of the Dems, guilty, guilty, guilty. I'm under no illusions.

There were no negotiations; he has no inprimatur for negotiating. Nevertheless, Mr. Ross will be very pleased with the visit even though he was not released. These things take time. Let the spotlight point elsewhere for a few months.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Social engineering and PTCO

Social engineering in the view of conservatives is policy that progressives pursue that impacts adversely on the power of the wealthy and propertied class.

I guess the attempt by the Republican Taliban in Congress to control the uteruses of all American women is not social engineering. What is this...just religious justice, continued male dominance over women or something? The Republican policy certainly does not reflect the values of freedom or individual liberty which they claim to hold so dear.

Please let my life be handled by public servants in Washington rather than the Teabag Party or whatever the John Birch Society types or right wing Christians want to be called these days.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lion - I had

completely forgotten about you.

I am not a conservative, please read my post on why I am not.

I am not a Republican.

I guess you would say that I am an "independent".

How about you handling your life all by yourself? Or is that too frightening for you?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
PTCO have been meaning to say something

about your Bastiat quote. I liked his works, to me his "Candlemakers Petition" is a perfect metaphor of today's government.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Observerofu

Yes it is, although he did not live long due to TB, his wit and logic were impeccable.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO
Quote:

Taxes should be used to enforce justice and justice is defined as the use of law to protect individual rights.

When the protection of your individual right overrides my individual right, justice should not deny anyone their 'right'. Your right ends where mine begins. Do you agree with this?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Please

read carefully what I am about to write:

Rights have no beginning and no end, they are.

You have no more rights than I do, and I have no more rights than you do.

The government is in place to protect our rights: Life, Liberty and Property. That is the only proper and honest role a government should play in our lives.

Please explain the phrase that you continue to use over and over again, what does it mean and what principle is it based on? Why do you put right in quotes? Do you think that rights are simply evolving or changing? I can assure you that they are not. Rights are given by God and existed before any government law.

Thanks

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

My rights :
To have control over my body
To live wherever I can afford
To attend a school with my neighbors
To worship at the church of my choice
To achieve according to my skill and effort
To receive equal justice in every state of our great country

Please define 'social engineering', and how it may have affected your rights.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Rights

"To receive equal justice in every state of our great country"

What does this mean exactly? I think your definition of justice may be different than mine.

Social engineering is an attempt by government to use tax monies to regulate economic outcomes to the benefit of one group of people at the expense of another group of people. Social engineering is not a role of government envisioned by our founders, it is not what our government was designed to do.

To the degree that government takes my money by force of law for the purpose of redistribution to the benefit of others and not for the protection of my rights, they have have taken my property without my consent thereby violating my right to property. Property is the outgrowth of my life and my freedom.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

How clever to completely ignore the 'rights' that I listed. My definition of 'justice includes my having the ability to exercise the rights that I listed. In order for me to enjoy these rights in Georgia, tax payer money was used to enforce the law that insured me those rights. No taxpayer funds are used for abortions. I strongly oppose the government having control over my reproductive system. My question: How did the use of taxpayer funds to assure me my rights take away your rights?
Some consider my listed rights were accomplished by 'social engineering'.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - ?

I didn't ignore them, I agreed with them, though I suppose I didn't say that, the only question was your definition of justice.

You rights were not guaranteed or accomplished by social engineering, they were assured by the Constitution and the enforcement of the law in that regard. Social engineering to the extent it occurred merely violated the Constitution and someone else's rights. None of the rights you listed were "accomplished" by social engineering, they were accomplished by enforcing the laws under the Constitution and its guarantees of rights.

Under the context of the Constitution to the extend that a person is able to accomplish anything in life it is due to their abilities, skill, and hard work. It should have nothing to do with the state.

So, can you define justice in your own words?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC

Many have stated that my right to attend school with my neighbor was social engineering because the law of the land - as interpreted by the Supreme Court, was 'separate but equal'. It was 'justice' when this interpretation was overturned by 'social engineering'. Now how did that usurp your rights? Your opinion of social engineering is limited to your perspective and experience. My opinion is based on my experience and perspective. It is important that we all share our opinions and understanding of phrases and words. Your opinion is clothed in words and phrases that do not convey the absolute understanding and implementation of the law for all citizens. In my own words - justice is when the words in the Constitution apply equally to me as to any other American citizen. I'm grateful that I have lived long enough to see justice on the way to becoming a reality. The Congress just made a clear distinction between 'social' issues and budgetary issues in agreeing on the 2011 budget. I understand that some of your ideas are based on Libertarian beliefs and some on personal conviction. Your beliefs are just that -beliefs and opinion, not always facts.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Semantics
Davids mom wrote:

No taxpayer funds are used for abortions.

According to PPH own fact-sheet: 332,278 abortions were performed last year.

Taxpayer dollars go to PPH ergo taxpayer funds are used for abortions. Approximately $363 Million taxpayer dollars go to this group.

You can not separate the two functions. Liberals would scream bloody murder if taxpayer funds went to Pregnancy Resource Centers.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Ooou - fACTS

The governments own auditing team established that taxpayer money was not used for abortions. PPH offers other needed services for women. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land. Abortion is not illegal - only the use of taxpayer money to perform the procedure is illegal.

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
JeffC...
JeffC wrote:

There is nothing in this article to suggest that Pastor Kollmeyer is a bigot or homophobic...

I was referring to the Manhattan Declaration as being bigoted and homophobic. By the way, did you know that this Declaration was created by Chuck Colson, convicted Watergate felon who served time in prison. Apparently he found god while incarcerated.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/11/20/can-a-cultur...

wildcat
wildcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/12/2006
Jesus the rebel

I think I read somewhere that he was married to Mary Magdelene and that they had a child who was hidden away. I think that child was believed to be "The Holy Grail," but I can't remember for sure. Since paycuts and working two jobs and all...no time to indulge myself in researching interesting historical things. Personally, I think he hated authority and rules, but in the end, did what was requested of him. He was probably born in the year of the Tiger (and all that implies). My fave Christmas carol is "The Rebel Jesus" and, in my opinion, it pretty much sums up what he was really about (which a lot of people have corrupted over time).

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Yes wildcat

That would be "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown. It's not really historical.

wildcat
wildcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/12/2006
not "The Da Vinci Code"

It was a book about an Order, or knights of something. I can't remember. Some group that formed to protect the child. My degree is in math, not history so, yea, I don't really know if it is historical or not.

dawn69
dawn69's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/24/2008
Wildcat

It was the Knights of Templar. There is a lot of speculation as to the true nature of this secretative order. But it is just that, only speculation.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
dawn & wildcat

The Knights Templar (Knights of Solomon's Temple)originally were protector's from bandits of people travelling ---for a fee!

They also fought in the Great Crusades...or so recorded history says. Eventually the King of France did them in by torture and killing them---he also thought they were "secretative."

I don't know anything about a child being protected!

Any way I suppose someday there will be tales about the Tea party like this! (They saved the USA maybe; they were very frugal; they knew all of the answers!)

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Hmmm,

Jesus verified the Old Testament completely. Spoke and cited Old Testament scripture in its completeness. He did not hate the sinner, as you hate the Christian. He railed against the religious authorities of the day that rejoiced in the letter of the law, but lacked the understanding and compassion behind the law. Jesus did not rebuke biblical morality, as you revel in its chastizement today. As you mock God, do you ever pause to think on how life actually started on this world? Have you ever bothered to calculate the probability of the random generation of one simple life sustaining (and left handed amino acids) protein? Do you have faith in your god of TIME with the same faith as the followers of Jesus Christ?

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
Wedge...

"As you mock God..."

I don't see anywhere in my post where I mocked your god. Please explain.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Main Stream, basic Christian Theology 101

When a Christian (not a typical Deist) believes in sin, separation from God, God coming to earth from Heaven to become man and become a sacrifice for our sins (re:Jesus), and salvation from our sins by a belief in Jesus, then that Christian believes that God, Christ, and Holy Spirit are a Holy Trinity and singular. Your statement that follows:

Main Stream wrote:

Did you ever stop to think that maybe Jesus was gay? I mean, he never married, hung out with a bunch of guys all the time and seemed to hate authority.

shows a mocking of God to a Christian. Now if you were in Egypt talking of Muhammed in this way, then you would mostly likely be tracked down and brutalized. Not here, thankfully for all. Knowing that you are a self styled atheist, doesn't it follow that you knowing mocked the Christian God with your statement quoted?

Recent Comments