Tennessee Lt. Gov. (and Republican gubernatorial candidate) Ron Ramsey has added an alarming new position to the race. He has stated that he is not convinced the Constitution protects Muslims under the guarantee of freedom of religion.
In the video below, Ramsey was asked at a campaign event about the “threat that’s invading our country from the Muslims.” While acknowledging the protections for religion, Ramsey noted that Islam is more of a cult rather than a true religion: “Now, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult whatever you want to call it. Now certainly we do protect our religions, but at the same time this is something we are going to have to face.”
He insisted, however, that “you know, I’m all about freedom of religion.” Except that is for the world’s second largest religion.
73 thoughts on “Tennessee Lt. Governor Questions Whether Muslims Are Protected Under Religious Clauses”
I asked nothing more than “What gun would jesus use?” Your defensive stance tells me everything I need to know about your faith and understanding of jesus.
Also, the apostle paul’s tales of travel and spreading the gospel tells of him being almost beaten to death and taken prisoner on several occasions. God protected him just like god heals the people in those faith healing cults, right?
Where is your faith in the lord, dear? It seems to be a bit thin.
Oh, so that is what it means. Thanks anyway for being kind.
I don’t feel bad anyway. The passage Blind Faithiness quotes from says woe to those everyone likes. So there is an upside to not being popular. That’s no excuse for me being a bad person either. Which I try to avoid.
Jesus was as sweet as it gets, they tortured and murdered him anyway.
Mundus vult decipi.
Who says you cannot love an enemy and defend your life or the life of your children from that enemy? You? LOL!
If a mad man is raping a child I’m to just stand there are remind the child to turn the other cheek? That is the solution according to your interpretation of Luke 6:29?
The New Testament teaches no such thing as you suggest. The passage you refer to deals with petty crimes, hitting, and other similar conflicts. Christians are not to handle these matters themselves and create a scene. God establishes governments to handle matters of infringement. He wants these handled in an orderly fashion.
Government is to punish the evil doer, not the private citizen. We are not to take things into our own hands unless it is self-defense or defense of the innocent.
Luke 6: 29 doesn’t ask Christians to not defend their lives. It does tell them to take a hit (no first strike).
The same passage says let someone take your coat. It does not say that person is not a thief or that the law may not deal with the thief.
Christ wants His people to deal through the government (no anarchy).
In the same section of scripture you refer to are verses relating to giving. Are we to give such that we die?
How did that work for the apostles? Well, they ran for their lives so they could live, and they provided for themselves in order to survive. People stole from them but God didn’t expect them to stand around letting it continue. He wanted them on the move, working, and providing for themselves and others. They didn’t have to stand around a die because people had gross misinterpretations of scripture that they should let themselves be robbed to death.
Furthermore, God tells us that if a Christian does not take care of his own family and provide for them he is worse than an infidel and isn’t a believer! So how could it be that the Christian is to give up everything everyone asks of him? This is how you have to read the passage if you are reading the turn the other cheek passage as you suggest.
In another section of scripture, 1 Timothy 5:8, reads:
“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
How can he avoid being an infidel if he has given everything to everyone who asks such that it pleases the twisted interpretations of those who mishandle the word of God or hate Christians?
You are not making sense. You apparently don’t know the other verses in the Bible which make the verse you took out of context makes sense.
What Gyges said.
Where is you christian virtue….Turn the other cheek…..FYI, I could not agree more. But then again you are aware how reserved that I am and its just not in my nature to instigate anything…….roflmao….
So…”turn the other cheek” is just a bunch of rubbish?
Anyway, I know your god is a child-murdering monster. That’s why I asked specifically about its more benevolent son/zombie. I don’t think your money-changers example suffices, though, since this is one occasion that is meant to be the one and only time jesus lost his cool. You know, the whole “god’s house” thing.
Jesus taught love thy enemies, blessed are the peacemakers(not the gun kind either), and blah, blah, blah.
I love christian logic gymnastics. So, flexible.
God tends to use things like lightening bolts and tectonic plates. Um, and something that turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt and killed the people of Sodom and environs.
Ah. And then there is that big flood. Who needs a puny little gun?
Not God, I guess.
When He comes again (this is called the 2nd coming), there will be majestic white stead, a sword proceeding from His mouth, and He will be slaying the wicked with His words. (Who needs a puny little gun when you can command a person to die?)
The Children of Israel always had the right to defend themselves and Jehovah organized a military for that nation in ancient times. Clearly, this proves that God is not opposed to people who believe in Him using weapons. Oh, they didn’t have guns in the Bible era (just in case you did not know it). (Ergo guns and tanks were not mentioned in scripture).
Even if you don’t believe that God approved of His people having weapons to defend themselves, you can be sure the Old Testament at least said He did, for nearly 3000 years.
Jesus was meek and mild but wasn’t a wimp. He used a whip to violently remove the money changers from the Temple.
Can we use whips then?
Luke 22:36 has Christ telling His apostles:
… he that hath a purse [money bag], let him take it, and likewise his scrip [wallet or provisions] : and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Gosh is there a NSA I could join up with?
You know, a National Sword Association or something similar?
Poe’s law is internet short hand for the idea that there can be no satire of a subject so extreme that it couldn’t be mistaken for someone’s real belief. They’re saying you’re only pretending to believe what you say because you get a kick out of getting us to respond.
If it makes you feel any better, I believe you’re being honest and sincere expressing your beliefs. I just happen to think your beliefs are almost always dead wrong.
I think I’m embarrassed. What is a Poe?
As I said, I’m not a member of the CP. I voted the nearest I could to Ron Paul so I voted for who he endorsed. I agree with most of the non-religious planks in the CP platform but find the religious aspects completely unnecessary and counterproductive. They might as well have called it the Christian Party. I still wouldn’t be a member of it.
Our unique character as a people is Western (civilization) and Christian. It is uniquely pro-liberty and pro-individualism (Democrats hate these things).
These unique features of liberty and individualism come from two sources in America: Christianity and the Enlightenment. Unfortunately, we are bringing in immigrants who have no interest in our unique principles nor are they interested in upholding the western or Christian values which make us most unique.
Naturally, this excites the leftist who despises our Western heritage (especially because it is so Christian). “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ has got to go!” Comes to mind. The immigrant stands up and cheers this. I’m thinking of the marchers waving Mexican flags as stadiums in LA and on the streets of my beloved country during the amnesty protest marches. These people are dangerous subversives.
And this is not nice.
By bringing in such diverse peoples who feel no obligation to honor our values, we are eliminating diversity within the human family. It works like this, the more we become like the people who immigrate here (instead of them becoming like us) the less America will remain unique among the rest of the world and the world will be less diverse because America will be like everyone else.
You do not see (except maybe for Singapore) any other non-western country or civilization intentionally destroying itself with foreigners. In fact, there is no such example in the history of the world on this scale.
The Council on Foreign Relations doesn’t want people to be different (the CFR runs America). They want everyone the same and controlled by a few elite. This destruction of the uniqueness of the American people is essential to their goal of destroying the nation-state and creating a one world government.
Bless you, not only are you a hall of fame drummer, but EUREKA
you’ve cracked the Tootie code wide open! Here I thought Tootie was, “Barking up a dead horse,” or “Suffering from a detached rectum.” It’s Poe’s Law plain as day.
In other words, “I don’t know what the words ‘well regulated’ mean, nor do I have a basic working knowledge of past Supreme Court rulings”?
I think I’ve made it clear. This article was about the ability to restrict the 1st amendment. Since as Buddha is Laughing stated that “And rights can be restricted”. When the first amendment is involved, a lot of people are quick to shout out how wrong it is, and I completely agree, it’s completely wrong… unless you compare it to other rights, then it seems perfectly in-line with what this country currently stands for.
My comparative was the 2nd amendment, which is completely restricted in states like Illinois, link is here:
It stays on the books with little or no fanfare for years. If it’s too wordy a summary of it states that it’s a felony if a person with a FOID card carries a loaded firearm on them unless they are in their house, or own business. There’s no caveat for law enforcement, so I can only assume every LEO in this state is an untried felon.
There’s already a group of people out there that buy and sell arms with no regulations… they’re called criminals. The only people affected by gun control laws, are people who are law abiding.
My main point is: Unless people hold all our rights to the same standard, there isn’t a point to fighting for just one of them, it has already been worn away by the erosion of the other rights.
Comments are closed.