Unfortunately, Bouldin is one of many individuals who have been targeted driving through Seward County. In fact, the county has raked in $7.5 million over the past five years: //

Officers typically take their ill-gotten gains by pressuring motorists to sign a form indicating that the civilian is willingly giving up their money or property to law enforcement. They do so under the threat of being taken to prison and charged with felonies. In essence, the officer offers to let them go in exchange for taking the money they confiscate as payment.

Does this not sound like a government official requesting a bribe? //

The Original John Doe
12 hours ago edited
"For those unaware, civil asset forfeiture is a legal process..."

Civil forfeiture was ruled legal by SCOTUS in the 1840's in HARMONY v. UNITED STATES. In that case Justice Joseph Story wrote:

"vessel which commits the aggression is treated as the offender, as the guilty instrument or thing to which the forfeiture attaches, without any reference whatsoever to the character or conduct of the owner. [The seizure of the ship is justified by] the necessity of the case, as the only adequate means of suppressing the offense or wrong, or insuring an indemnity to the injured party."

Civil forfeiture was supposed to be used only in those cases where getting hold of the person was impossible. The federal and state governments have been abusing it ever since.

In 2017, Justice Clarence Thomas denied certiorari (refused to hear the case) in LEONARD v. TEXAS on technical grounds but he wrote at the end of his opinion the following:

"Whether this Court’s treatment of the broad modern forfeiture practice can be justified by the narrow historical one is certainly worthy of consideration in greater detail."

Then on on April 17, 2023 the court agreed to review "CULLEY v. MARSHALL" which is a civil asset forfeiture case against the state Alabama who seized a car because the driver was in possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. However the car did not even belong to the driver. It belonged to his mother.

Maybe the new conservative SCOTUS will finally put some limits on civil asset forfeiture. //

It was another one of those laws that supposedly had only the best of intentions, ignoring that it is always those with bad intentions who will always find a way to twist and abuse it.

And that is why less gov't is best gov't.

Megan Basham @megbasham
·
Unequivocal statement on disfellowshipping Saddleback from the Southern Baptist Convention. Good sign it may be possible to stop drift when messengers are informed and understand what’s happening. That’s where the work ahead lies—education.
11:11 AM · Jun 14, 2023 //

I think the SBC is right in principle, and I think the action by the SBC leadership was courageous. I have to believe that Rick Warren, author of arguably the best-selling book of all time not called “The Bible,” thought that his congregation was too big to be “disfellowshipped” and could do as it damned well pleased. The fact that he was proven wrong is a triumph for first principles. //

The key takeaway is that Jesus Christ had women in his inner circle, and they were critical to the Church’s work. He did not designate any of them as apostles or send them out to preach and convert because He chose not to. The argument that He didn’t because of the culture of the time is an argument that human customs limit God’s power. It is not a question of oppressing or undervaluing women because the same guy who says no to women pastors disagrees (Galatians 3:28). It isn’t saying that women are inferior to men in devotion because, on Calvary, Jesus was comforted by one man (St. John the Evangelist) and several women (see Matthew 27:55–56, Luke 23:49, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25). It is because Churches built upon Scripture cannot arrogate to themselves the rights retained by God. //

Will this cause harm to the SBC? I think that is doubtful. In times of repression, homogenous communities survive. Some churches will disaffiliate, but the SBC will be stronger. Besides that, religion is not a popularity contest. A smaller, hotter Church does more of God’s work than an enormous lukewarm one.

The real question is, why do people join organizations to create conflict and try to change the larger organization to accommodate them? Warren’s Saddleback Church has been part of the SBC since its founding in 1980. He knew what the Baptist Faith & Message laid out as a baseline for affiliation and basically dared the SBC to do anything when he ordained three women. Why didn’t he just announce that Saddleback was moving on and leaving the SBC? That would have been honorable and non-controversial. It is hard to say his decision to try to bully the SBC into changing its rules to accommodate him was principled. //

Consumer of toast
3 hours ago edited
When it comes to principled beliefs in faith, I think that that is something that should not waiver. Right now the Christian church in America is in decline. I'm sure there are lots of Christians who eat meat. PETA will call you evil, sick and disgusting for what you do, yet you ignore them and continue to enjoy your hamburgers. Yet, someone from the LGBTIA+ calls you a bigot, you alter your beliefs to try to be considerate of them in hopes that they stop calling you names. I find it pathetic. You stand more firmly in your belief of chicken nuggets than you do in your faith in God. Stand firm in your belief and faith in Jesus Christ. //

etba_ss
2 hours ago
It is because Churches built upon Scripture cannot arrogate to themselves the rights retained by God.
That right there sums it all up. It simply isn't our decision to make. You either believe Scripture and follow it or you don't. The moment you start cutting and pasting, you are creating your own religion with yourself as a co-ruler with God, which will rapidly descend into just you being your own god. //

etba_ss smagar
2 hours ago
Better to be irrelevant and faithful to Scripture than popular and unfaithful.

That's what Scripture says. Your debate is not with the SBC, it is with God, the divine author of Scripture.

Plenty of people reject parts of God's Word they don't like. Jesus himself told people things they didn't like and didn't want to accept. Why should we think that we should have a message everyone loves in their own sinful nature? Speak the truth in love and let the Holy Spirit do the convicting.

As I said above, the biggest issue isn't women pastors but the willingness of Saddleback and Warren to reject Scripture to fit in with modern culture. That is a slippery slope and it gets worse from there. If someone has had women pastors for 200 years, while still wrong, it doesn't open the door to rejecting Scripture for modern acceptance the way this would.