Comment: Anisha,

(See in situ)


Anisha,

you wrote:

There isn't anything wrong with our Constitution because it is based on 'Natural Laws'.

This is absurd. By writing such a thing, you make it quite obvious that you are not objective. Further, you show that you have never given any serious thought to the question of how the Constitution could be improved in light of what has gone wrong in the nation.

Why should we listen to anything else you say when you are so irrational on such a fundamental level?

You have a habit of shying away from rational arguments. Instead, you just come back with more shameless promotion, as if nothing had been said at all. This is the type of behavior that works well in cults because it's designed for people who already have a predetermined conclusion in mind. It does not work well, however, on people who insist on rational evidence before they believe a thing.

Your continual assurances that if we would only read/study your Articles, we would sign the pledge, are similarly irrational. Indeed, I already dissected your pledge, and you have NO rational response to any of my points. Rather, you continue to delude yourself that our disagreement with you is simply because we haven't studied your position well enough.

Your appeal to having special spiritual enlightenment is shown to be false by how irrationally you argue. If you really understood some special secret wisdom from God, you would indeed be able to explain things in a rational manner. As it is, though, your voodoo approach to politics is askew from reality.

I imagine that you think that you're "using the force" when you write such posts. My question for you is why that "force" cannot seem to guide you into RATIONAL arguments? Weren't John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, John, Stephen, and Paul known for their stunning and unassailable logical arguments?

So wherever your spiritual kung fu is emanating from, it's most certainly not from the same place they got theirs. Rather, it seems like empty imagination. And you don't even see that it's irrational.

Jack