Rapture Bible Prophecy Forum

(Rapture is a Vatican/Jesuit Lie )
The "Resurrection" has been erroneously labeled The "Rapture". 
THERE IS NO RAPTURE

WHY THE TITLE RAPTURE BIBLE PROPHECY FORUM?
WE STARTED OUT BELIEVING IN A 7 YR PRE TRIBULATION RAPTURE
BUT FOUND OVER TIME AROUND 2006 THAT THE BIBLE DOES NOT SHARE A 
BIBLE VERSE WHATSOEVER INDICATING A 7 YR PRE TRIBULATION RAPTURE

BIBLE VERSES EVIDENCE:

While Yahusha/JESUS was alive, He prayed to His Father: "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.  John 17:15 (KJV)

Yahusha/JESUS gave signs of what must happen before His Return:  "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:"  Matt. 24:29 (KJV)


WE DAILY STUDY TO SHEW OURSELVES APPROVED 
WE ARE NOT AFRAID TO SAY WE ARE LEARNING DAILY AND 
ARE ABLE TO ADMIT WE MAKE MISTAKES BUT STUDY TO 
LEARN EVERY DAY.

LET YHVH/YAHUSHA BE TRUE 
AND EVERY MAN A LIAR.

To Join and post on this site e-mail for a password
​​​​​​​stevensandiego@ymail.com

WEBSITE: HTTP://WWW.RAPTUREBIBLEPROPHECYFORUM.COM

FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rapture-Bible-Prophecy-Forum/362856490414697

Hebrew 5782-5788   Gregorian 2022-2028

THIS SITE IS ABOUT Yahusha/JESUS
 
We are followers of Yahusha/JESUS Only​​​​​​​
Yahusha/
JESUS IS GOD/YHVH
Yahusha/
JESUS is YHVH/GOD/YHWH-Yahusha/Son:
​​​​​​​Yahusha/
JESUS is The WORD

Yahusha is I Am That I Am  (Exodus 3:14)

Yahusha is YHWH  come in the flesh, He put aside His Diety to become a human, born of  a Virgin.

Yahusha is the Word, As The Most High, He spoke all things seen and unseen into existence

When YHWH created Light, He was revealed to the angels. 

John 14:26
"the breath of life"

But the Comforter, which is "the breath of life", whom the Father will send shall teach you all things.

God is not His  Name but a term.  The Holy Spirit is not a person but the very Breath of the Father.

There is no Trinity.  The Father, YHVH  and Yahusha are One  (John 10:30)

THE BOOK OF ENOCH

NOW IS THE TIME!

 FOR A REMOTE GENERATION THE LAST GENERATION FOR THE ELECT!

Book of Enoch: http://tinyurl.com/BkOfEnoch

The book of Second Peter and Jude Authenticate the book of Enoch and Vice Versa

Yahusha/JESUS QUOTED FROM THE SEPTUAGINT:

THE APOSTLES QUOTED FROM THE SEPTUAGINT

JEWS WERE CONVERTING TO CHRISTIANITY

FREE DOWNLOADS

All Of The Apocryphal Books Of

The King James 1611 Version

http://www.scriptural-truth.com/apocrypha_books.html 

Pray for one another, as we watch for the Lord's  return!


Bible Prophecy Forum Postings
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
ACLU Turns Blind Eye to Sharia in America

For Fair Use Discussion and Educational Purposes

May 26, 2011
ACLU Turns Blind Eye to Sharia in America
By Stephen M. Gelé


Daniel Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, and Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU's Human Rights program, recently co-authored an article on the Huffington Post attacking legislative efforts to prohibit the application of foreign laws inconsistent with the rights granted by the U.S. and state constitutions or state public policy.

The article posits a series of disjointed, hypothetical misapplications of the legislative efforts to prevent sharia from encroaching into our legal system. Yet, the authors cite no actual examples of misapplications of laws already passed and in force, in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arizona. The authors fail to distinguish this American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation from other legislative efforts, such as the Oklahoma constitutional amendment, which do not explicitly reference the protection of constitutional rights and public policy in prohibiting application of sharia or foreign law.

Further, the authors contend that these laws, explicitly protecting established constitutional rights, are superfluous because the First Amendment already protects these rights, and then allege that these laws violate the religious freedom granted by the First Amendment. The authors thereby dangerously conflate the judiciary's interpretation and enforcement of secular law with interpretation and enforcement of religious doctrine. The freedom of religion and establishment clauses of the First Amendment do not address the application of foreign law, including sharia, in American courts, and, as demonstrated below, have not been applied to prevent such application.

Additionally, American courts have repeatedly held that freedom of religion does not require the judiciary to void secular laws which may incidentally conflict with religious doctrine, and that the First Amendment prohibits the judiciary from interpreting or enforcing religious doctrine. For example, in the case of S.D. v. M.J.R., the New Jersey Superior Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judge who did not find sexual assault to have been proven when a husband admitted forcing his wife to engage in sex, because the husband lacked criminal intent as he was a Muslim, and sharia, as described by an imam, mandated that a wife submit to her husband's sexual advances. The New Jersey appellate court cited several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that held that freedom of religion does not include violating criminal laws, including Reynolds v. United States and Cleveland v. United States regarding polygamy, and Employment Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith regarding smoking peyote, even when religious doctrine permits or mandates the prohibited practice. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church and its progeny, have also consistently held that deciding disputes over religious doctrine violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Most egregiously, the title of the article, "Anti-Sharia Law: A Solution In Search Of A Problem," suggests that the enforcement of sharia law in the United States is simply not a problem worth addressing. The authors completely ignore dozens of published state appellate decisions in which American courts addressed litigants who demanded the enforcement of sharia, and on many occasions succeeded.

A recent study entitled "Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases," released by The Center for Security Policy, identifies 50 such appellate court cases from 23 states. Many of these cases involve blatant violations of constitutional rights, usually to the detriment of women and children, including the enforcement of foreign custody orders to wrest children from their mothers.

For example, a Maryland appellate court in Hosain v. Malik enforced a Pakistani custody order, issued under a sharia rule granting sole custody to the father when the child reaches age seven, handing a little girl brought to America by her mother over to the father. The Maryland court bowed to the Pakistani court order even though the mother did not appear for the Pakistani proceedings, because, although she may have been arrested for adultery if she returned to Pakistan for the hearing, and been subject to "public whipping or death by stoning," the court found such punishments were "extremely unlikely." The judges explicitly proclaimed that the best interest of the child should not be "determined based on Maryland law, i.e., American cultures and mores," but rather "by applying relevant Pakistani customs, culture and mores." The court, explaining that "in the Pakistani culture, the well being of the child ... is thought to be facilitated by adherence to Islamic teachings," intentionally applied Islamic, rather than American, cultural and legal precepts.

In contrast, the Louisiana Supreme Court refused to favor sharia in Amin v. Bakhaty. In Amin an Egyptian wife and mother committed the Egyptian crime of leaving Egypt without her husband's permission. She traveled to Louisiana with her child in an attempt to improve her relationship with her husband who lived in the U.S. and visited her only once per year in a hotel room in Egypt. Her husband, upon learning she traveled to the U.S., traveled to Egypt, had her convicted of the crime, filed for divorce and custody under Egyptian law, and then traveled to Louisiana to seize their child under the Egyptian custody decree. Louisiana's highest court explicitly rejected the demand to enforce Egyptian child custody law because "Islamic family law ... structures some of the rights between family members based solely on gender" and not "the minor child's best interest." The Louisiana Court explained that under Louisiana law "a parent's interest in a relationship with his or her child is a basic human right." However under the sharia-based law of Egypt "it is most likely that [the mother] will be deprived of a relationship with [the child] if she is forced to return to Egypt to pursue custody or visitation rights." Thus, the Louisiana Court rejected the sharia-induced award of sole custody to the father.

These two cases, as well as dozens of others cited in the Center's study, including similar cases involving child custody and misogyny, demonstrate that American courts have followed divergent paths on addressing sharia law. Legislatures, as representatives of the people, should appropriately direct the courts to avoid the enforcement of sharia law when such enforcement violates American constitutional and public policy norms. Clearly, the child custody cases in Maryland and Louisiana involved issues of gender discrimination, denial of freedom of travel, disregard for the best interests of a child, lack of procedural due process, and cruel and unusual punishment. The ACLU, claiming to be the defender of American constitutional rights, should be sensitive to the obvious breach of those rights implicated in applying many aspects of sharia, and not ignorantly stereotype all efforts to address such breaches as religious intolerance.

Legislative efforts, such as the passage in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arizona of the ALAC legislation, drafted by the American Public Policy Alliance, should be applauded, and similar efforts in other states encouraged by all Americans who support upholding American constitutional rights, including, ostensibly, even the ACLU.

Stephen M. Gelé is an attorney practicing in New Orleans, Louisiana. He has litigated a wide variety of civil issues in Louisiana courts for the past eighteen years. He testified on behalf of Lawyers Against Sharia before the Louisiana Legislature in support of passage of the American and Louisiana Laws for Louisiana Courts Act designed to impede the intrusion of sharia law into the Louisiana legal system.

Re: ACLU Turns Blind Eye to Sharia in America

WALLBUILDERS LIVE!

For Fair Use Discussion and Educational Purposes

Thursday, June 02, 2011
Sharia is a real threat to our country. Muslims have found that by claiming religious protection in the name of political correctness, they gain freedom to promote their agenda. They use a propaganda machine to exaggerate a myth of increasing hate crimes to gain sympathy. Facts show that Jews are the target of eight times more hate crimes than Muslims.

MY NOTE:to listen to this clip, go to the link below

http://www.wallbuilderslive.com/listen.asp?cs=high&mf=wma&fileName=WBLive2011-06-02