Put the pieces of the puzzle together.
The Robert's Court exists due to the legal requirements of the United States of America's Constitution. In that reality the country is supreme to decisions by it's legal body. To dissolve it's standing into what may seem like benign measures into theocracy is to assault on the sovereign country.
We already know there is 'safe haven' in religious buildings and land within the USA. We also know the USA Constitution provides for freedom of religion in the First Amendment. There is no interest by any religion in the USA Constitution. Within it's practice the religion is free to conduct itself as it pleases.
If a religious body were to assault the USA domestically would it be an enemy of the country or a passive movement of preference? But, when religion is preference to that of the country as a decision by the Supreme Court is it not an assault?
Women are an interest of the country. Women are an interest because they hold the key to continued sovereignty. Their children are important to the future of the USA. Are women allowed to prevent from pregnancy? Is religion being used by the political right wing to insure it's future?
If there is a segment of the political landscape of the USA that has a leaning to allow women to decide their own genetic continuance? And is that segment of the USA political landscape hazardous enough to destroy the sovereignty of the USA? If that is the case does the insistence of the courts of the USA provide for establishing mandatory child bearing?
Without birth control, abortion and sterilization a woman could be harnessed to provide for children to carry out the USA's military and domestic content.
Now, the question is regarding anarchy, do the people have the right to dissolve the laws of the country, destroy the separation of church and state and end the sovereign existence of the United States of America?
How far along are we to realizing that reality? Do political forces of any kind give preference to any religious dogma?
In every decision regarding religious content within the USA the Robert's Court majority decides to benefit the religion in question and it is usually Christian. It is very easy to see there is bias within the court that leans to the dissolution of the wall between church and state. In that lies the persistent decisions of the Robert's Court to place religion first and country second. That is an assault against the USA Constitution dissolving it's constitution and replacing it with theological basis.
The USA has an interest in upholding the wall between church and state, so why is it being persistently dissolved and do these decisions have far wider implications? I say they do.
The Supreme Court is suppose to uphold the laws of the USA that guarantee it's sovereignty and not dissolve them into the vapors.
The Robert's Court exists due to the legal requirements of the United States of America's Constitution. In that reality the country is supreme to decisions by it's legal body. To dissolve it's standing into what may seem like benign measures into theocracy is to assault on the sovereign country.
We already know there is 'safe haven' in religious buildings and land within the USA. We also know the USA Constitution provides for freedom of religion in the First Amendment. There is no interest by any religion in the USA Constitution. Within it's practice the religion is free to conduct itself as it pleases.
If a religious body were to assault the USA domestically would it be an enemy of the country or a passive movement of preference? But, when religion is preference to that of the country as a decision by the Supreme Court is it not an assault?
Women are an interest of the country. Women are an interest because they hold the key to continued sovereignty. Their children are important to the future of the USA. Are women allowed to prevent from pregnancy? Is religion being used by the political right wing to insure it's future?
If there is a segment of the political landscape of the USA that has a leaning to allow women to decide their own genetic continuance? And is that segment of the USA political landscape hazardous enough to destroy the sovereignty of the USA? If that is the case does the insistence of the courts of the USA provide for establishing mandatory child bearing?
Without birth control, abortion and sterilization a woman could be harnessed to provide for children to carry out the USA's military and domestic content.
Now, the question is regarding anarchy, do the people have the right to dissolve the laws of the country, destroy the separation of church and state and end the sovereign existence of the United States of America?
How far along are we to realizing that reality? Do political forces of any kind give preference to any religious dogma?
In every decision regarding religious content within the USA the Robert's Court majority decides to benefit the religion in question and it is usually Christian. It is very easy to see there is bias within the court that leans to the dissolution of the wall between church and state. In that lies the persistent decisions of the Robert's Court to place religion first and country second. That is an assault against the USA Constitution dissolving it's constitution and replacing it with theological basis.
The USA has an interest in upholding the wall between church and state, so why is it being persistently dissolved and do these decisions have far wider implications? I say they do.
The Supreme Court is suppose to uphold the laws of the USA that guarantee it's sovereignty and not dissolve them into the vapors.
