Making Sense of the Issue of the Day - RBG

originally posted by: xuenchen
Good thing we have a Supreme Court that can settle "differences of interpretation" 😎

We used to have that.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: TheRedneck

No God in government is pretty clear.

But, you won’t accept that.

Question always asked: As far as having a moral base, I’ve found since becoming non-religious, I am far more aware. I m fully 100% responsible for my own thoughts and choices. There is no one but me, no other “go to guy” to give credit to, make excuses for, etc.

This is on topic IMO — because of who (reportedly) Trump is considering. She is uber religious.

It'll be interesting. If the "left" attacks a Catholic pick, its sure to push the latin vote further from them towards Trump. Im not thinking there is a possible way for them to "win" at this one.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen
Good thing we have a Supreme Court that can settle "differences of interpretation" 😎

We used to have that.

LOL, when? I don't think that ever existed. SCOTUS has been a partisan rubber stamp since its inception. I mean...Dred Scott certainly didn't do much to impress me.

a reply to: Annee

No God in government is pretty clear.

To you, perhaps.

And you're right; this is on topic. The problem I am having is that you are claiming that someone should not be allowed to serve as a government official because they are religious. That's the same thing Sookiechacha has indicated, and I find it abhorrent.

We have the Constitution to protect us (supposedly) from government discrimination based on religion. That Constitution is limiting on the government, though, not on the people. People like you and Sookiechacha are not bound by the provisions of the Constitution, so you are free to spout your bigotry as much as you like.

I am free to call it out.

I'm happy that you're happy being non-religious. More power to ya. However, you are not simply non-religious; you are anti-religious. When you become anti-religious, you place yourself at odds with me. I did not start this fight; you did. I am perfectly fine with you choosing to be atheist, Amy Coney Barrett choosing to be Catholic, Cassius Clay choosing to be Muslim, some neighbors of mine choosing to be Protestant Holiness... you do you.

I am not happy when you start telling me that Amy Coney Barrett should not be allowed to be a Supreme Court Justice because she is Catholic. That is none of your or my business until and unless she uses her religion to support a decision. Then you might have a complaint, and I would be right there with you.

This is just more of the disgusting behavior I have been seeing of late. Racial bigotry from the Democratic Presidential candidate, sexual bigotry from the left, and now religious bigotry from you two. Diversity? How can anyone have diversity when one must be the same color, the same gender, and the same religion?

No, it's not clear... but what is clear is that when you say "no God in government" you are really saying that no one should be allowed to think differently than your narrow-minded self, and since you can't control their thoughts, you want to at least relegate them to lower-class citizens... or worse, serfs to do your bidding.

You've had a dozen chances to clarify your position and so far you have not disagreed with a single assumption I have put forth. That speaks volumes where you will not. At this point don't even try to tell me differently.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen
Good thing we have a Supreme Court that can settle "differences of interpretation" 😎

We used to have that.

LOL, when? I don't think that ever existed. SCOTUS has been a partisan rubber stamp since its inception. I mean...Dred Scott certainly didn't do much to impress me.

Yes, that’s true.

I just remember when I was a kid in the 50s — when the government said “jump” — people jumped.

The political “climate” seems different today.

Personal freedoms erode hive community cohesion.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: TheRedneck

No God in government is pretty clear.

But, you won’t accept that.

Question always asked: As far as having a moral base, I’ve found since becoming non-religious, I am far more aware. I m fully 100% responsible for my own thoughts and choices. There is no one but me, no other “go to guy” to give credit to, make excuses for, etc.

This is on topic IMO — because of who (reportedly) Trump is considering. She is uber religious.

It'll be interesting. If the "left" attacks a Catholic pick, its sure to push the latin vote further from them towards Trump. Im not thinking there is a possible way for them to "win" at this one.

It’s not cuz she’s Catholic.

JFK was Catholic. Biden is Catholic.

It’s the extremism of the People of Praise group,

To me it’s like the difference between a non-religious person vs a hard core anti-God person.

They’re both non-believers — but they’re not the same.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

No God in government is pretty clear.

To you, perhaps.

The problem I am having is that you are claiming that someone should not be allowed to serve as a government official because they are religious.

I never said that.

That is purely your interpretation.

a reply to: TheRedneck

So you are channeling ghosts and spirits.

No need to call a spiritualist. His words are documented. I believe that he meant what he said, that government should favor religion and fight against secular ideals.

You, however, are franticly all over the place, and making no sense.

a reply to: Annee

Strauss Howe Generational Theory describes this, and what drives it, pretty well. Each generation (approx 20 years) is a response to the prior generation.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

Strauss Howe Generational Theory describes this, and what drives it, pretty well. Each generation (approx 20 years) is a response to the prior generation.

I will have to look that up.

Seeing the world through the eyes of younger people is eye opening. I have a 19 year old granddaughter. I’d say her view comes from non-religious, social liberal activism. She’s in college now, but she’s always worked. Her dad has a film production company. I’m not sure where she lands on fiscal issues.

a reply to: Annee

One of my kids (the youngest) is a big time Trumper. The oldest is a far left, intersectional liberal. We generally do not discuss politics in my house as there is no way to bridge that divide. After the oldest came home from college one summer and informed me that I was racist because I was white, he was told his opinions would get him physically removed from my house going forward.

Eye opening indeed. I was only a racist after someone spouted horse# at him to tell him I was white and could only be racist. I fully support Trumps moves against critical race theory mostly because of that incident.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

One of my kids (the youngest) is a big time Trumper. The oldest is a far left, intersectional liberal.

My daughters are split that way too. Maybe not as extreme.

My 2 brothers are hard core Trump supporters. My older brother is a narcissist. I grew up with a “Trump” 🤣. Never got along. Haven’t spoken to him in over 20 years.

a reply to: Annee

Look, Annee, your private fantasy come true.

Arresting Christians for worshipping in an open space while properly socially distanced.

This is in California where the government is the secular one you desire. It thinks it's God, and so it tramples on the rights of people to peacefully assemble and worship.

**EDIT**

This took place in Idaho, not California, the source I took it from got it wrong. The arrest still happened. The mask mandate states masks must be worn outdoors where 6' cannot be maintained. However, you can see the clearly marked circles at 6' that they are all standing on.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Annee

Look, Annee, your private fantasy come true.

Arresting Christians for worshipping in an open space while properly socially distanced.

This is in California where the government is the secular one you desire. It thinks it's God, and so it tramples on the rights of people to peacefully assemble and worship.

**EDIT**

This took place in Idaho, not California, the source I took it from got it wrong. The arrest still happened. The mask mandate states masks must be worn outdoors where 6' cannot be maintained. However, you can see the clearly marked circles at 6' that they are all standing on.

Had nothing to do with religion.

You can’t even separate God from deliberate intent to break a law.

You proved my point: “Blinded by God”.

a reply to: Annee

Had nothing to do with religion.

Talk about being all over the place. Having church now has "nothing to do with religion."

You're past hope, Annee. You cannot see even that which is right in front of you. I wish you well. With all that hate inside you, you'll need all the well-wishes you can get.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

Had nothing to do with religion.

Talk about being all over the place. Having church now has "nothing to do with religion."

You're past hope, Annee. You cannot see even that which is right in front of you. I wish you well. With all that hate inside you, you'll need all the well-wishes you can get.

TheRedneck

Again — “Blinded by God”

“We wanted to make a statement we’re ready to head back to normal,” he said, claiming it is time to start pushing back against “largely groundless” laws — referencing the mask order — that are being passed and enforced without giving heed to what residents want.

Deliberate, intent to break a law.

You and ketsuko are both proving my point.

a reply to: Annee

More like you are blinded by hate.

Oh, sure, you try to cover it up with justifications and excuses, but so did the KKK back in the day. Talk to any one of them and you would hear all these perfectly legitimate reasons why they were just looking out for their best interests... they didn't hate anyone!

Of course they did hate people, exactly as you do now, just for a different reason.

You claim you respect others' "personal space," but when any issue about religion comes up, you go out of your way to try and make some argument, any argument, logic not required even, as to why religious people are bad and should be denied even basic human rights. The truth is you are angry because somewhere, somehow, someone who was religious abused that religion and hurt you. And now you want to get back at them and everyone who thinks like them.

Spare me the arguments, Annee, and just admit you hate anyone who even mentions the words "God" or "Jesus." We live (so far) in a free society with freedom of speech. You won't get into trouble saying it out loud. As a matter of fact, you might get a modicum of respect for at least being honest about it.

Anyone can see you're a hater as it is.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Where have I indicated hate?

I haven’t.

That’s all coming from “you guys”.

You are so seriously “Blinded by God” — you’re rational thinking doesn’t exist.

a reply to: Annee

2 comments here:

- you cannot govern the unwilling. This is the gist behind the American system

- I am as Godless as anyone you will find. I participate in cultural things like wedding and funerals, but other than that you won't catch me in a church. But I 100% believe that the pastor is correct. For 2 reasons. First and foremost, its an abridgment of the 1st amendment, and im honestly shocked its withstood a court challenge. The second relates to folks being allowed to protest. 1st amendment rights are for everyone, not just folks who want to protest. If legal avenues choose to use the monopoly on violence against people meeting peacefully while ignoring violent protests, I can in no way agree.

a reply to: Annee

Where have I indicated hate?

In every post you have made.

TheRedneck