Has anyone considered that the salient rule in the state constitution was pointed out specifically to call attention to its violation of the US constitution?

Hebrews 9:27 – And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. – So the apostate (like all unbelievers) dies twice, first a physical death, and then after judgement, a second spiritual death of eternal torment for their sins.

Fred Phelps is looking at a double death ( unless he gets saved before he dies), and you?

Fred Phelps is an easy one. The book of Romans tell us that the “pagan”, the “religious man” (who hopes his false religious beliefs saves him) and the “moral man”( who hopes to escape the second death by his own goodness apart from Christ)are also in a grave predicament of the second death.

Also, I think some believe there may be a second death for those who correct spelling errors of others, and then mock the poor spellers. Both John Jay and myself, however, have strongly rejected this heresy.

Such comment would not surprise John Jay, nor does it surprise me. The Messiah told us – Don’t be surprised when they hate you, because they have hated me first.

yes the line is used extensively by the fred phelps clan to excuse all kinds of horrid behavior, I’m sure you want to be lumped together with them.

*also I fixed ur spelling*

Man you’ve got more screws loose than I thought.”

CertainVictory’s response is : The point I was trying to make was that even the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS
once knew was apostacy was. Chief Justice John Jay was a born again Christian and certainly knew basic historical Christian doctrine. He knew that throughout history anyone that has ever been saved, was saved in one way and one way only. Either looking forward to what the promised Messiah would do, or looking back to what the Messiah did on the Cross.

Your comment -

“Man you’ve got more screws loose than I thought.”

Such comment would not suprise John Jay, nor does it suprise me. The Messiah told us – Don’t be suprised when they hate you, because they have hated me first.

The Gospel is the power unto salvation, but foolishness to the “wise” who stumble on the cornerstone, who is Jesus the Christ.

Going to be with my Savior, “loose screws” and all.

That’s demonstrably false and insulting.

TheUnrepentantGeek

LOL I don’t think so, you just usually view history through the lens of expectation. Accepting that most of them had a fr different understanding of Christianity than you do would mean that you did not have an unbroken connection with people you respected. The mere fact that Deism was so popular at the time, and that most of them despised organized religion, and that the documents they forged were forged through mutual distrust never shines up quite so bright as the official story.

If Christians actually understood the Founders, they’d respect them a whole lot less.

hicsuget on December 10, 2009 at 11:18 PM

That’s demonstrably false and insulting.

For those who may be tempted to argue federalism, the incorporation doctrine that would appear to dictate that outcome in this case is also the same line of thought that the court used to dismiss gun bans as a violation of the Second Amendment.

I thought of that too. That’s a hell of a good reason why NC’s state constitution should just roll over and play dead in this case.

*peski* -To answer your question – A religion is false and church becomes apostate when it disagrees in doctrine or practice expressed in the opinion of the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Particularly in regard to doctrine of salvation.

John Jay is the ultimate arbiter of apostasy in Christianity?

Man you’ve got more screws loose than I thought.

John Jay
1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the American Bible Society

“By conveying the Bible to people thus circumstanced, we certainly do them a most interesting kindness. We thereby enable them to learn that man was originally created and placed in a state of happiness, but, becoming disobedient, was subjected to the degradation and evils which he and his posterity have since experienced.

The Bible will also inform them that our gracious Creator has provided for us a Redeemer, in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; that this Redeemer has made atonement “for the sins of the whole world,” and thereby reconciling the Divine justice with the Divine mercy has opened a way for our redemption and salvation; and that these inestimable benefits are of the free gift and grace of God, not of our deserving, nor in our power to deserve.”
–In God We Trust—The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers, p. 379.

“In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of Christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds but such only as, on careful examination, I found to be confirmed by the Bible.”
–American Statesman Series, p. 360.

False religions teach that man is saved by working his way up to a god to get to heaven. Such as by good works, or by obedience to a set of rules and regulations. Even those who attend a true church often think in terms of this false means of salvation. I know, I sat in church for 36 years thinking I was going to heaven because I was a “good” person. After I was saved by the glorious grace of God, I witnessed to many people. My informal survey, having witness to hundreds of Americans, showed me over 90% of Americans believe in the false system of salvation by works.
Many of these people were church goers who never learned, or rejected, the historical basic teaching of own church regarding salvation. Moreover, now if you look at the doctrinal statements on the websites of some of the once great mainline Christian churches they are changing and/or confusing their doctrinal statements on salvation. I saw one that only had a few paragraphs on salvation and pages and pages on health care and health insurance. For their section on salvation they extensively quoted from a theologian from the 1980′s to over-ride their historical biblical position on salavation.
As USSC Chief Justice John Jay correctly understood. The true means of salvation is not man working his way up the heaven, but God reaching down to a helpless wicked sinner to rescue man from the eternal consequences of his sin. This happens when a man repents of his sins, and through faith in what Christ did on the cross, asks for God’s forgiveness of his sins. A sincere wicked sinner is then clothed in Christ’s perfect righteousness received as free gift from God. God requires perfect rightousness to get into heaven. With man this is impossible, but obtaining perfect righteous is posible if one receives the gift of Christ’s righteous imputed to them through faith in the cross. A perfect plan – in salvation God is merciful, but he still is just. My sins are not just sweep under the rug (could a perfect judge let a criminal off without justly due penalty? What would you say if a guy who murdered your close relatives was let go. What if the Judge did this over and over again. Even in Vermont, they would probably impeach the judge. Certainly, such a judge would not be considered a just judge). In God’s chosen path of salvation, perfect justice is maintained by God because my sins were fully paid for. Not by me, but by Christ on the cross.I accepted this free gift by faith alone. God chose this plan of salvation before the foundations of the world, because it gives all the glory to God. Where is the boasting by this saved wicked sinner CertainVictory? Moreover, after (justification)salvation I am still a sinner, but I am a new creation in Christ. Due to the scantifying work of the Holy Spirit I have victory over sin. Thus, I now am capable moving more and more towards being in the image of Christ. Upon my resurection from the grave in my new glorified body, and will fully conformed to the image of Christ. I will no longer desire or be capable of sinning. Praise God!!!

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

But I doubt the founding fathers ever considered a religious test to deal with atheism. To them, a religious test would be, “you must be deist” or “protestant” or “Catholic”, etc.

The foundation upon which this country is built is simple: We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights.

The constitution is designed to protect those rights by establishing strict rules about what neither government nor people can do to violate those rights.

The constitution, therefore, protects the right of people to be atheists.

But it is a contradiction in terms for an atheist to vow to uphold and protect a constitution designed to protect the rights endowed by God. The atheist does not believe that God is the source of the rights that the constitution protects, leaving only Government to establish what rights an individual may or may not have.

That is exactly what the constitution is supposed to prevent — government determining what our rights may or may not be. That is the very definition of tyranny, which we escaped. And we justified our escape with the phrase, “We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights”.

So the North Carolina amendment is not only constitutional, it is necessary for maintaining the integrity of the constitution.

That is the ORIGINALIST stance. It does not reflect what we have become. We’ve already destroyed the original intent of the constitution. The government has been controlling our rights for a long time now.

CertainVictory on December 10, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Heh. Been reading your David Barton?

Thank you.

For those who may be tempted to argue federalism, the incorporation doctrine that would appear to dictate that outcome in this case is also the same line of thought that the court used to dismiss gun bans as a violation of the Second Amendment.

No, SCOTUS dismissed the gun ban in D.C. as a violation of the 2nd amendment, only because D.C. is governed by federal law (it’s not a state). SCOTUS had not applied the 2nd amendment to the states yet. They might soon.

Fundamentalist Christians like the Constitution until they realize it was written by secularists as a check on the power of Fundamentalist Christians.

If Christians actually understood the Founders, they’d respect them a whole lot less.

hicsuget on December 10, 2009 at 11:18 PM

I’m a fundamentalist Christian and I both love the constitution and understand the founders. Don’t confuse me with certain groups that have hijacked the name Christian without knowing what it means.

The true essence of Christianity ifs freedome to choose or reject God’s message. I don’t try to force my religion on anyone…to do so (as if one even could) would not successfully give anyone salvation, because choosing Jesus has to be free will. I not only CAN’T force people to believe, I wouldn’t want to.

Our founders understood this, too. That’s why freedom of thought and speech was such a big deal for them, and is so enshrined in our founding documents. They wanted to make sure no one in power could force religion down anybody’s throat. The religious ones wanted people to be able to choose freely, and the secular ones wanted the same thing. A perfect meeting of the minds.

Re-read Federalist 39 and the 10th Amendment, then tell me that your statement about the Religious test applies to the States.

Tim Burton on December 10, 2009 at 6:19 PM

You read (not re-read; that would imply you had read it before) Section 1 of Amendment XIV.

They might have done same on the national level, if they had not seen the potentional problems that arose in England when the church went apostate.

CertainVictory on December 10, 2009 at 6:20 PM

And exactly when was that? Before, during, or after Henry VIII split from the “papists” so he could do whatever he wanted? And which current American religions are apostate, and which are not?

I don’t believe the stuff you believe, but I’ll fight for your right to believe it. As a fellow American though, I get pretty sick of hearing holier-than-thou a-holes like you spew about how God will “curse and punish this nation when as a people and nation we were disobedient to God”.

Is there even the slightest room in your head for the thought that folks who don’t believe what you believe hold those beliefs honestly and with integrity?

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

What kind of religious tests did the Founders have in mind when they banned all religious tests? How about this one, from Delaware’s 1776 Constitution:

Article 22:
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall… also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: “I, A B, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Or these several, from the South Carolina Constitution of 1778:

III.
…they shall jointly in the house of representatives choose by ballot from among themselves or from the people at large a governor and commander-in-chief, a lieutenant-governor, both to continue for two years, and a privy council, all of the Protestant religion…

XII.
…that no person shall be eligible to a seat in the said senate unless he be of the Protestant religion…

XIII.
No person shall be eligible to sit in the house of representatives unless he be of the Protestant religion…

If Christians actually understood the Founders, they’d respect them a whole lot less.

BobMbx on December 10, 2009 at 10:41 PM

Exactly! GP. There are areas int he City of St. Louis that can’t be sold to non-whites according to the law on the books. Once declared unconstitutional, don’t have to change the law.

He should be seated, the law should be changed and this should be a non-issue. If the NAACP wants to sue the City Council, fine, that would then make changing the law unnecessary because it makes the point moot once the law is declared unconstitutional.

In MN, the housing area we lived had, at one time, covenants that did just that.

Mr. Egarton, be careful what you wish for.

About H.K Edgerton. I live in Asheville, and I actually know the man.
He’s not your average former head of the NAACP. He’s something of a local character, often appearing in a Confederate uniform and carrying a Confederate flag. Really.
He’s a big proponent of Southern Heritage and still believes in Civil Rights – and sees no contradiction.
There’s a photo of him at the link below, in all his Confederate glory.
HK Edgerton
As for the current kerfluffle, nobody locally takes him seriously and I have no doubt that Bothwell will be seated.

Curmudgeon on December 10, 2009 at 7:50 PM

Hey… I’ve seen that guy on Penn & Teller’s BS series…

He actually seemed very level headed, if not unorthodox, on the show.