It is a tendentious article that is full of half-truths or outright lies. «Gender» is a theory promoted by feminists, gay activists and, in general, the «progressive» Marxist left. You do not write your laws on the basis of social theories. Boyajian: Judging is certainly unchristian behavior, but giving dogs what is holy and throwing pearls before pigs (Matthew 7:6) is also unchristian. If the judgment is left to God—and it is—then leave the matter in peace, without accepting the laws of the world. First, the question that climate change is part of a broader globalist agenda is very topical, as I will show. Because you and many others of your kind like to point out those sacred and brilliant types of objective and brilliant «science» that are incorruptible and never wrong, I mentioned the gigantic man-made global warming hoax (look again at my post) as the latest example. After being trapped in a series of lies and outright fabrications, they have since changed the terminology to «climate change.» To answer your question, I believe that unlike those who make billions from carbon trading and taxes that your academics buy and sell, climate change is a natural phenomenon, and the carbon dioxide you exhale and that plants ingest has little or nothing to do with global warming. Especially if you factor in sunspots and higher overall temperatures on the sun`s surface. In fact, NASA has observed that ice sheets on Mars are melting, and more recently, I`ve heard that there are no little green men plucking methane or exhaling carbon dioxide on Mars. But what`s interesting is how you asked the question yourself.

«I`m not sure you`ve allied yourself with the camp of climate change deniers.» typical of most globalists or those who distort what people actually say and give it a negative twist on the they publish; More labeling for what you assume is the stupid public who can`t think critically and direct evidence of how you work; To apply the very precise language I used to apply «man-made global warming,» which is the globalist argument for why everyone should pay them taxes to breathe and fart, to the natural phenomenon of «climate change.» So not so far off topic. Second, patriarchy and misogynism do not necessarily go hand in hand, any more than matriarchy goes hand in hand with misandry, and repeating it over and over again does not make it that way. However, I would like to challenge you to give an example of a modern advanced matriarchal nation, with the possible exception of a few bare-butted natives in the Amazon. So, do you think that thousands of years of social and biological evolution have chosen the best possible arrangement and understanding of men and women that most naturally fits each other`s nature and allows this society to stand the test of time? But who knows, maybe it`s much smarter than evolution. Globalism fundamentally seeks to destroy national sovereignty, and the path to this destruction begins first with the destruction of the family and the war against patriarchy, precisely because they are institutions that acquire national identity and produce men who go to the battlefields to protect their nations, their families and their territory. and where nationalism exists. This is an obstacle for globalists trying to be global tyrants. As an example, watch TV shows in the United States. The stupidest character is always the man. The woman, the gay guy and the kid are always smarter and better than the man in general and especially the white man because he has the political heritage to oppose globalism, so he has to be undermined in every way.

Third, why should a law selectively apply to a particular segment of society that grants it more rights and protections than any other? Creating divisions where there were none, or by accentuating phenomena to create artificial interest groups, actually destroys cohesion. So if a nation is particularly homogeneous, it will play the divide-and-rule game, pitting men and women against each other and creating false interest groups. In this context, what you like to separate into different topics is not really that different. The absurdity of these types of laws is demonstrated by AB1266, a bill for gender-neutral restrooms in California public schools so that if a boy feels more like a girl, he can go into the girls` room. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that these kinds of idiotic laws lead to. Where the vast majority must live according to the dictates of a small minority, Soviet style with subtlety. Before I get angry about my comments, John, I suggest you consider two things: 1) why there are 4 sets of 10 commandments that are not identical and are often cited by Christian apologists as the basis on which some current laws are based, and 2) how you can overcome the Euthyphro dilemma in terms of morality. This «respect» that Armenia speaks of today is often used only as a cover for the protection of the failing, the incompetent, the corrupt and the criminal. Proper respect should be earned – it`s not something that is automatically achieved with age, like gray hair.

If Armenia wants to live in the modern world, where its citizens are protected by the security and certainty of international law and human rights, you cannot begin to choose which of these laws and rights you want for Armenia, or be selective about who gets these rights and who is denied them. And the law had nothing to do with «same-sex marriage or polygamy»! What Armenia needs now are two laws – one that criminalizes propaganda of homosexuality, transgenderism, and sexually deviant behavior among young people in general; secondly, a law obliging all non-governmental organisations and institutions (such as the European Youth Parliament) to publish once a year a verified statement on their sources of funding. People have the right to know who the puppeteers behind these puppets are. Armenian and Russian law enforcement agencies have now begun to cooperate more closely in investigating the crime. After the visit of the head of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Alexander Bastrykin, the questions about the future of the investigation and trial were elaborated as follows: Although the investigation is being conducted by both sides, the final statement of the prosecutor`s office will be joint. The military court or the Gyumri court is run publicly and in accordance with its laws by Russian representatives (Permyakov faces life imprisonment). After all, the defendants will serve their sentences in the Russian prison system No one here is arguing that a country should be guided by the rule of law. In case you can`t read carefully, these were ethical standards, not laws. No law, even if super-extra-hyper-democratic, can offer ethical standards that a nation can follow, because ethics, as moral principles that govern a nation`s behavior, are the result of a nation`s historical, cultural, traditional and religious development.

Your religious book does not provide a basis on which modern laws are based. I think you should re-read the Bible, which is full of inner contradictions, not to mention that it is a completely anachronistic account and there is no contemporary account of Jesus Christ as described in the book. It is believed that the earliest account of him dates back to 30 years after his death and that the Bible was not completed until between 300 and 400 AD. Don`t believe me, take any book that deals with the historicity of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the Bible is considered by some to be the multiple choice ledger because you can pick the right parts as you interpret them and throw away the bad things you don`t like. This is probably why there are more than 41,000 Christian denominations in the world, because they don`t all seem to agree on how to interpret each passage. Not to mention that there are more than 2000 different religions in the world and therefore no one should be forced to read each of these books to see if they have value or not. If you were done with one, assuming you would be able to decipher a coherent meaning from archaic language, there would have already been another religion created from all things, and yet another set of principles to consider. You have claimed that there is a God, that there is a Word of God, and so you have the burden of justifying this claim. In addition, we have a mechanism by which morality or laws are structured. We look at fields such as science, philosophy, psychology, and sociology to determine whether an action is good or bad, and how good or bad it is. In other words, modern societies use secular morality to govern people because it is based on objective reality rather than wishful thinking.

Finally, this model is superior because it has an intrinsically self-correcting mechanism, because it depends on observation and empiricism, where a religious text is based on dogmatic blind adhesion. Your religious book is probably one of the worst sources of morality to refer to because it condones rape, slavery, genocide, murder, infanticide, and a host of other types of behavior that we modern humans find morally reprehensible and, to use a word from your book, simply wrong. Here is what Richard Dawkins had to say about your God Yahwe: «The God of the Old Testament is perhaps the most unpleasant figure of all fictions: jealous and proud of him; a petty, unjust and irreconcilable control freak; a vengeful and bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; A misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniac, sadomasochistic, capricious tyrant. However, the digital media reported on the fourth article of the agreement signed in 1997, which provides for the presence of the 102. Military base in Armenia, which clearly states that Armenian laws and institutions take precedence when it comes to crimes committed by soldiers serving at the Russian military base.