No to Donatism

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@KurtSchlichter The US also ceded sovereignty and must stay in NATO. “No state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed… a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties”

If US leaves NATO, it violates Art. 9 w/o agreement (title has no effect)

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@bennyjohnson The US also ceded sovereignty and must stay in NATO. “No state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed… a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties”

If US leaves NATO, it violates Art. 9 w/o agreement (title has no effect)

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@DarylSwanepoel1 @YoungStreete I don’t know what’s the definition of operational sovereignty is but Art. IV (ii) & (iii) & Art. 5 allow new bases with details to be agreed by the states party. If Denmark allows a new base with five staff that’s quite a different picture; practically that won’t be the case ofc.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@DarylSwanepoel1 @YoungStreete The operative text specifically says “no state.” Not “state not a Party” or anything similar. The heading is not text that has legal effect. Read the VCLT, to which Denmark is a state party. Or learn international law re: treaties. Source: am international M&A lawyer.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@DarylSwanepoel1 @MrJoKeR604 The end of my message specifically says “The title of the article re: third parties is not binding.” In international law, the headings of treaties are not operative text. They may be useful in interpretation but have no actual power.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@johnkonrad “No state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed … a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties.“

If U.S. leaves NATO, it violates Art. 9 absent agreement. The title of the article re: third states is not binding.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@iamBrianBJ “No state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed … a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties.“

If U.S. leaves NATO, it violates Art. 9 absent agreement. The title of the article re: third states is not binding.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@MsMelChen “No state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed … a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties.“

If U.S. leaves NATO, it violates Art. 9 absent agreement. The title of the article re: third parties is not binding.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@DarylSwanepoel1 @MrJoKeR604 “No state that is not a member of NATO shall be allowed … a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties.“

If U.S. leaves NATO, it violates Art. 9 absent agreement. The title of the article re: third parties is not binding.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@ricksapp The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to Missouri during most of the southern rebellion. Therefore, Julia Grant's father, Frederick Dent (who had enslaved Jule), was not legally obligated to free Jule until January 1865, by which time Jule had already escaped Dent's slavery

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@augustinepatch @catholicpat You don't put "here's why you're wrong" in a holiday note. The Church (Catechism section 1340) calls the Eucharist the fulfillment of the Jewish Passover. Demanding it be crammed into a holiday greeting is silly.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@augustinepatch @catholicpat Surely you’re not suggesting that every time we run into a person of a different religion all we can talk about is evangelization?

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@augustinepatch @catholicpat I agree. Aquinas holds both: tolerate the rites (a.11) and propose the faith (a.8, and Summa contra Gentiles). Toleration is the condition that keeps conversion possible, since coerced faith is no faith. The bishop acknowledging Yom Kippur is toleration not refusal to evangelize.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@kkoneal25 @BreeSolstad a.8 tells you not to coerce, agreed. a.11 tells you to tolerate in the meantime because coercion eliminates the possibility of them coming to Christ if their own free will. Both give the message of interaction, not condemnation. So why would it be wrong for a bishop to engage?

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@tom__henderson @neoavatara Where a law's meaning is disputed, it has no binding meaning until a ruling by a court of last resort or other designated body (e.g., impeachment). Absent real dispute, only acceptance fixes meaning. As Justice R. Jackson put it, SCOTUS is infallible only because it's final.

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@augustinepatch @catholicpat Aquinas declared that Jewish rites prefigured and bore witness to the Christian faith and deserve our tolerance. “Ex hoc autem quod Iudaei ritus suos observant, in quibus olim praefigurabatur veritas fidei quam tenemus, hoc bonum provenit ... Et ideo in suis ritibus tolerantur.”

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@DEGOPer @BigModernism St. Aquinas (ST II-II Q.10 A.8): "Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith ... these are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe".

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@ania_toblerone @GroyperHoosier @HeritageUSA__ @BpOlsonFW @FWdiocese @NTCatholic @TXCatholic @USCCBGovRel Deut. 28:15 says that "if you do not obey the voice of the LORD, your God ... all these curses shall come upon you ...". ALL of them. 28:39 says there won't be any wine and 28:35 says you'll have boils. So either the foreigners aren't gaining power or it's God's will - which one?

[No to Donatism @IurisAugustinus]

@tom__henderson @neoavatara That is true of anything in law. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..." What does speech mean? Is it literally only spoken words? The Constitution means only what the Supreme Court says it means. Everything else is non-binding personal opinion.