Tom Riner

anonymous said

Please consider the following legislative dilemma: You are quoted saying your legislation does not promote religion, and saying "God is not religion. God is God". However, one must remember that the definition of God is not universal, that is, different religions define God in different ways. Some religions have multiple definitions. Thus there are only two possibilities: Either one must arbitrarily choose a religion and assume that religion's definition of God for the purposes of the law, or one must forgo a definition altogether. The former would mean your legislation promotes a religion, and the later would leave the security of citizens in the hands of an undefined entity.

Bill Martin said

Hi Rep. Riner, I met you last year in the chapel when we prayed after BobbieJean Merk prayed over your all's session. I want you to know that I am standing with you, praying for/with you that God Almighty, our God, will answer our prayers for this state. I know God created us in His image to have dominion over this earth!!!!!!!!!! Don't give up!!!!! Stand!!!!!!!! stand!!!!!!! God will hear us!!!!! Our prayers move heaven and earth.

Thanks for standing,

Bill Martin

anonymous said

No, no, NO! I would expect this sort of thing from crazy right wing Republicans, but not a Democrat! Jesus is god to some people but not all people. Some of our founding fathers went to church, some did not, many were theists, some were atheists. But ALL called for 'separation of church and state." That means NO reference to god in state documents and law.

virginia ulrich said

dear state rep. Tom Riner: This comment regards my previous comment concerning dependence on the judge over heaven and earth. The Dictionary of the time in 1789 is correctly named "An Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1721) and the word AMENDMENT is correctly defined "[in law], the Correction of an Error committed and espy'd before Judement." The dictionary was reprinted in 1969 by GEORG OLMS VERLAY HILDESHEIM AND NEW YORK. Freemen made law in 1789 since they had their land free and clear without tax to a higher authority other than the judge over heaven and earth. Gal. 3:15 explains that the law could not be changed after that also. The "Gold Standard and Economic Freedom" by Alan Greenspan, 1966, available on "Google Search", especially that last page of that article explains the controversy more clearly. Also look at the problem of united states versus Revara around 1793, around 4 dallas 273 concerning the federal action on the "common law" court and the pardon by George Washington of consul Ravara after conviction of "EXTORTION"in federal court. Was the federal practicing "EXTORTION" of the organic law of the people of america over the servant government called United States by removing the federal officer Revara from the "common law" court at Penn. to try him in federal court for EXTORTION" This action would have been about 1 year after the ten amendments was enacted " Is it lawful to try ones own cause" See I samuel 25:26,33. Thank you for your efforts for truth concerning the judge over heaven and earth and his only son whom we depend upon for all things

virginia ulrich said

Dear state representative Riner. You are right about your position on dependance on the judge over heaven and earth for america. Look up the 7th amendment and then that "common law" is described by John Winthrop in 1644 concerning "Arbitrary Government described and the government of the Masssachusetts vindicated from that aspersion. See "24-33" on that document on "Google search" describes that the scriptures is the common law and it is used by the 12 man jury. The preamble to the bill of Rights and that word "amendment" used in that document at the time meant in law "An error espy'd before judgment"(ratification) ". See An Etymological Dictionary by Nathan Bailey (1721) used in 1789. The first 10 amendments are the only organic amendments to the constitution by the rule of "Amendment".