MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: jesmu84 on July 07, 2022, 05:52:49 AM
-
Through the federalist society, the christian fundamentalists/evangelicals have finally won. Hard fought. Congrats.
This goes well beyond roe v wade
-
They played the long game very well.
-
They will have the opportunity to bring the country to its knees next summer with the North Carolina case. I am positive they will take it.
-
IBTL
SCOTUS has clearly been corrupted. When 6 individuals, 5 of whom were nominated by presidents that lost the popular vote, are making decisions that are opposed by 70% of the country then the system is broken. Buttigieg was right. It needs to be massively reformed. Expand the court, first to 13 to restore balance on the court. Then pass a law that any new SCOTUS justice must be approved unanimously by the sitting justices. That will insure that both parties have to nominate justices that are truly fair, neutral arbiters of the law. After that, expand to 25 and nominate 12 new justices that will guarantee the dominant wing of the court is the middle ground.
Term and age limits would be great, but those would likely require an unattainable constitutional amendment.
-
I might also mention that Roberts is the weakest Chief Justice in a long, long time.
-
I might also mention that Roberts is the weakest Chief Justice in a long, long time.
Is he even really the Chief Justice anymore? (Though just asking that might confirm your assertion)
-
Is he even really the Chief Justice anymore? (Though just asking that might confirm your assertion)
No. It's Alito's court now.
-
IBTL
SCOTUS has clearly been corrupted. When 6 individuals, 5 of whom were nominated by presidents that lost the popular vote, are making decisions that are opposed by 70% of the country then the system is broken. Buttigieg was right. It needs to be massively reformed. Expand the court, first to 13 to restore balance on the court. Then pass a law that any new SCOTUS justice must be approved unanimously by the sitting justices. That will insure that both parties have to nominate justices that are truly fair, neutral arbiters of the law. After that, expand to 25 and nominate 12 new justices that will guarantee the dominant wing of the court is the middle ground.
Term and age limits would be great, but those would likely require an unattainable constitutional amendment.
What happens if one Justice simply refuses to confirm anyone?
-
What happens if one Justice simply refuses to confirm anyone?
And it's also unconstitutional. You can't add extra steps to the process.
-
I do not think expanding the court is the solution. That could just lead to one party having an even greater majority. Plus it does not have enough support.
I believe these things are cyclical and the worm will turn, eventually. My biggest concern is the ramifications of what McConnell did to Merrick Garland's nomination, and McConnell's more recent statements that make it sound like he would NEVER allow a vote on a Democratic president's nominee if the Senate is in GOP control. That is a terrible abrogation of civic responsibility and historical norms. While it may be legal, it is very, very dangerous.
My other concern is the relatively young age of the more recent nominees. That makes me think there should be an experience standard or minimum age of at least 50 for nominees going forward.
-
I do not think expanding the court is the solution. That could just lead to one party having an even greater majority. Plus it does not have enough support.
I believe these things are cyclical and the worm will turn, eventually. My biggest concern is the ramifications of what McConnell did to Merrick Garland's nomination, and McConnell's more recent statements that make it sound like he would NEVER allow a vote on a Democratic president's nominee if the Senate is in GOP control. That is a terrible abrogation of civic responsibility and historical norms. While it may be legal, it is very, very dangerous.
My other concern is the relatively young age of the more recent nominees. That makes me think there should be an experience standard or minimum age of at least 50 for nominees going forward.
Time for term limits
-
Time for term limits
Yup. Each President should be allowed to put two people on the court, with the two longest tenured stepping down. Of course, you have to write a law that ensures McConnell can't block the appointments.
-
Yup. Each President should be allowed to put two people on the court, with the two longest tenured stepping down. Of course, you have to write a law that ensures McConnell can't block the appointments.
You mean like this?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8424#:~:text=This%20bill%20establishes%20staggered%2C%2018,Court%20Justice%20every%20two%20years. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8424#:~:text=This%20bill%20establishes%20staggered%2C%2018,Court%20Justice%20every%20two%20years.)
-
Yup. Each President should be allowed to put two people on the court, with the two longest tenured stepping down. Of course, you have to write a law that ensures McConnell can't block the appointments.
It would need to be an amendment. And if you are going to go through the process of amending the Constitution, you may as well amend the "advice and consent of the Senate clause."
Or better yet, 12 year terms. Allow the President to name two at the beginning of their term. Ditto the Senate. The House gets one. That way if they are in opposite hands, you have more balance. There would be 15 members at any given time.
-
You mean like this?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8424#:~:text=This%20bill%20establishes%20staggered%2C%2018,Court%20Justice%20every%20two%20years. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8424#:~:text=This%20bill%20establishes%20staggered%2C%2018,Court%20Justice%20every%20two%20years.)
Which would be unconstitutional.
-
Which would be unconstitutional.
Here's a good read on the subject
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46731 (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46731)
-
It would need to be an amendment. And if you are going to go through the process of amending the Constitution, you may as well amend the "advice and consent of the Senate clause."
Or better yet, 12 year terms. Allow the President to name two at the beginning of their term. Ditto the Senate. The House gets one. That way if they are in opposite hands, you have more balance. There would be 15 members at any given time.
Don't get me started. We hold our constitution in far too much reverence. It was meant to be a living document that changed with the times and adapted to societal norms.
-
Don't get me started. We hold our constitution in far too much reverence. It was meant to be a living document that changed with the times and adapted to societal norms.
Yeah, it's a dinosaur. People talk about the Founders, but I think the thing that would offend them the most is this country still using what they wrote 246 years ago as some sort of gospel document. Other countries frequently rewrite their constitutions to keep up with the times.
-
I think the biggest whammy (of many) .. is the crushing blow for stare decisis. Nothing is decided forever now, and all is on the table.
It's inevitable that Dobbs will be overturned eventually, and we'll have a flipping and flopping of laws as each party wins the court for a time. #doom
-
Yeah, it's a dinosaur. People talk about the Founders, but I think the thing that would offend them the most is this country still using what they wrote 246 years ago as some sort of gospel document. Other countries frequently rewrite their constitutions to keep up with the times.
As someone who has spent a lot time reading and researching the founding fathers, they would be shocked the constitution hasn’t been more radically adapted to the times
-
As someone who has spent a lot time reading and researching the founding fathers, they would be shocked the constitution hasn’t been more radically adapted to the times
Gee, I wonder why...
-
Gee, I wonder why...
Legitimate, non snarky question...
What do you like about the US and why do you stay? You're in the medical profession if I'm not mistaken, which is well in demand everywhere. I assume its some combination of "family" and "im from here"
Cause it feels like 90% of your posts in the Superbar are complaining about capitalism, business, the government, the US in some way shape or form. It seems like short of the US becoming Denmark or Norway, you'll be perpetually unhappy.
-
You mean like this?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8424#:~:text=This%20bill%20establishes%20staggered%2C%2018,Court%20Justice%20every%20two%20years. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8424#:~:text=This%20bill%20establishes%20staggered%2C%2018,Court%20Justice%20every%20two%20years.)
I'm all for it, and like the provision that if the Senate ignores it for 120 days they lose their right to consent. And yet, seems like if the Senate is held by the opposing party, some slimy bastard like McTurtle can still block the nomination so long as his party has no conscience.
-
Legitimate, non snarky question...
What do you like about the US and why do you stay? You're in the medical profession if I'm not mistaken, which is well in demand everywhere. I assume its some combination of "family" and "im from here"
Cause it feels like 90% of your posts in the Superbar are complaining about capitalism, business, the government, the US in some way shape or form. It seems like short of the US becoming Denmark or Norway, you'll be perpetually unhappy.
What if I told you that it is okay to advocate for change but still live comfortably in an imperfect society?
-
What if I told you that it is okay to advocate for change but still live comfortably in an imperfect society?
There is zero wrong with that. Which is why i asked what he liked about the US? Advocate for change =/= relentless complaining and snarkily/whiningly pointing out of things you dislike with no realistic or alternative plans or hopes. Its just a "I want something that is not this" tantrum.
You're a business owner/manager. If you had an employee that felt things were wrong in his role/department/company and asked for changes, suggested improvement, etc... you'd listen and be amenable to reasonable suggestions. If they just bitched and moaned and pointed out endless wrongs, perceived or real, you'd ask "why are you still here then?"
-
Legitimate, non snarky question...
What do you like about the US and why do you stay? You're in the medical profession if I'm not mistaken, which is well in demand everywhere. I assume its some combination of "family" and "im from here"
Cause it feels like 90% of your posts in the Superbar are complaining about capitalism, business, the government, the US in some way shape or form. It seems like short of the US becoming Denmark or Norway, you'll be perpetually unhappy.
Job, family, friends...this is where my entire life is.
Having said that, I think it's okay to want to change/improve where I live.
I do complain here. Because "here" there's no genuine discussion going on. There's no changing minds. And there's certainly not going to be any real effect/change regardless of what I say here, positive or negative.
I do have alternative plans or hopes or improvements or whatever. But discussing them here isn't going to get anything done.
Edit: thank you for the level-headed, genuine, question/inquiry
-
https://twitter.com/5thCircAppeals/status/1542522257511026689?t=82IsKDmnu3qRJqB4xxnEdA&s=19
-
Don't get me started. We hold our constitution in far too much reverence. It was meant to be a living document that changed with the times and adapted to societal norms.
TRANSLATION: if the current version or subsequent versions of SCOTUS don't interpret the Constitution in conformity with my political beliefs or world vision, then I am all for changing the rules and rigging the game.
Curious. I don't recall hearing anything about term limits or packing the Court or changing the way Justices are selected during the 16 years Clinton and Obama were making appointments to the Court. Funny how that works.
-
TRANSLATION: if the current version or subsequent versions of SCOTUS don't interpret the Constitution in conformity with my political beliefs or world vision, then I am all for changing the rules and rigging the game.
Curious. I don't recall hearing anything about term limits or packing the Court or changing the way Justices are selected during the 16 years Clinton and Obama were making appointments to the Court. Funny how that works.
Is it possible that the court/justices are now operating in a different manner than those appointed in 1992, regardless of political affiliation?
-
I do not think expanding the court is the solution. That could just lead to one party having an even greater majority. Plus it does not have enough support.
I believe these things are cyclical and the worm will turn, eventually. My biggest concern is the ramifications of what McConnell did to Merrick Garland's nomination, and McConnell's more recent statements that make it sound like he would NEVER allow a vote on a Democratic president's nominee if the Senate is in GOP control. That is a terrible abrogation of civic responsibility and historical norms. While it may be legal, it is very, very dangerous.
My other concern is the relatively young age of the more recent nominees. That makes me think there should be an experience standard or minimum age of at least 50 for nominees going forward.
It was legal and the odds on favorite to win the presidency was Hillary Clinton. So Mitch played the long shot and won. If you really think about it, RBG screwed the liberals by not resigning when Obama was President. I agree with your concern if the GOP does win a majority in the Senate they essentially will have veto rights over any political appointees made by Biden, but it was the Democrats that got rid of the filibuster which in my view was a big mistake. It at least forced the executive to appoint more moderate appointees especially if his party had a majority in the Senate. Do you think Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barett would have been confirmed if the filibuster was in place? Do you really think the Democrats would approve political appointees of a Republican President if they had a majority in the Senate? Unfortunately partisan politics
will keep Washington totally dysfunctional as there are no moderates in either party.
-
TRANSLATION: if the current version or subsequent versions of SCOTUS don't interpret the Constitution in conformity with my political beliefs or world vision, then I am all for changing the rules and rigging the game.
Curious. I don't recall hearing anything about term limits or packing the Court or changing the way Justices are selected during the 16 years Clinton and Obama were making appointments to the Court. Funny how that works.
No, that's you projecting. As brew mentioned, many first world countries entirely rewrite their constitutions every couple of decades.
Imagine worshiping an entirely flawed document with the belief that the founding fathers were somehow infallible, and then considering yourself a serious person.
-
It was legal and the odds on favorite to win the presidency was Hillary Clinton. So Mitch played the long shot and won. If you really think about it, RBG screwed the liberals by not resigning when Obama was President. I agree with your concern if the GOP does win a majority in the Senate they essentially will have veto rights over any political appointees made by Biden, but it was the Democrats that got rid of the filibuster which in my view was a big mistake. It at least forced the executive to appoint more moderate appointees especially if his party had a majority in the Senate. Do you think Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barett would have been confirmed if the filibuster was in place? Do you really think the Democrats would approve political appointees of a Republican President if they had a majority in the Senate? Unfortunately partisan politics
will keep Washington totally dysfunctional as there are no moderates in either party.
Imagine living in this completely alternative history fantasy world. Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus.
-
No, that's you projecting. As brew mentioned, many first world countries entirely rewrite their constitutions every couple of decades.
Imagine worshiping an entirely flawed document with the belief that the founding fathers were somehow infallible, and then considering yourself a serious person.
I think people have a fear of a constitution that is too fluid and "living" that it caters/molds to/accommodates whatever sentiment or cause du jour. Which would, in theory, lead to a mess. However, while that might be well meaning in its intention or ideation, its based on a flawed understanding of the legislative process. That leads to treating the Constitution as sacrosanct and borderline untouchable...which is obviously a problem.
I think reverence to a constitution and "what America means/stands for" is another one of those uniquely American complications. Same as guns. Most other 1st world countries weren't solely created out of armed rebellion that a right to bear arms against the government was fundamental and tied to identity (right or wrong, obviously much to the latter these days). But also, those countries by and large didn't have a complete founding tied to that constitution. They had a country and identity via monarchy, or outcome of war, or other form of government. The constitution that made them a democracy or republic or whatnot was just another evolution, so changing it repeatedly is whatever. The US doesn't share that.
Its not excusing any of the BS, just highlighting how some problems and convoluted BS are tied to stuff which makes it hard to go like for like with other G8 nations for example.
-
TRANSLATION: if the current version or subsequent versions of SCOTUS don't interpret the Constitution in conformity with my political beliefs or world vision, then I am all for changing the rules and rigging the game.
Curious. I don't recall hearing anything about term limits or packing the Court or changing the way Justices are selected during the 16 years Clinton and Obama were making appointments to the Court. Funny how that works.
The court wasn’t packed with Christofascists that put religious beliefs ahead of the law.
The constitution was not based on Christianity but on secularism. When justices are openly praying with a group that wants to inject Christianity into everyday life of all Americans, they have opened the discussion wide
-
I think people have a fear of a constitution that is too fluid and "living" that it caters/molds to/accommodates whatever sentiment or cause du jour. Which would, in theory, lead to a mess. However, while that might be well meaning in its intention or ideation, its based on a flawed understanding of the legislative process. That leads to treating the Constitution as sacrosanct and borderline untouchable...which is obviously a problem.
I think reverence to a constitution and "what America means/stands for" is another one of those uniquely American complications. Same as guns. Most other 1st world countries weren't solely created out of armed rebellion that a right to bear arms against the government was fundamental and tied to identity (right or wrong, obviously much to the latter these days). But also, those countries by and large didn't have a complete founding tied to that constitution. They had a country and identity via monarchy, or outcome of war, or other form of government. The constitution that made them a democracy or republic or whatnot was just another evolution, so changing it repeatedly is whatever. The US doesn't share that.
Its not excusing any of the BS, just highlighting how some problems and convoluted BS are tied to stuff which makes it hard to go like for like with other G8 nations for example.
American exceptionalism is sometimes the same thing as American chauvinism. It’s inconceivable to many we can somehow be better and admit we aren’t perfect
-
No, that's you projecting. As brew mentioned, many first world countries entirely rewrite their constitutions every couple of decades.
Imagine worshiping an entirely flawed document with the belief that the founding fathers were somehow infallible, and then considering yourself a serious person.
Okay, let's rewrite the Constitution. And by the way, who's going to do that-------me, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alioto, et al???? Or you, Brew and your friends???
The U.S. Constitution has served us pretty well for almost 250 years. I'd leave it alone.
-
Okay, let's rewrite the Constitution. And by the way, who's going to do that-------me, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alioto, et al???? Or you, Brew and your friends???
The U.S. Constitution has served us pretty well for almost 250 years. I'd leave it alone.
Yeah, rewriting the constitution sounds like the beginning of the end. We do have a thing called amendments.
-
TRANSLATION: if the current version or subsequent versions of SCOTUS don't interpret the Constitution in conformity with my political beliefs or world vision, then I am all for changing the rules and rigging the game.
Curious. I don't recall hearing anything about term limits or packing the Court or changing the way Justices are selected during the 16 years Clinton and Obama were making appointments to the Court. Funny how that works.
If you don’t think people were saying those thing back then, you weren’t paying attention. Which is not surprising.
-
Yeah, rewriting the constitution sounds like the beginning of the end. We do have a thing called amendments.
Not to mention that there is also a mechanism beyond amending it. Let’s get a Constitutional convention together!
-
Not to mention that there is also a mechanism beyond amending it. Let’s get a Constitutional convention together!
That would be fascinating.
-
TRANSLATION: if the current version or subsequent versions of SCOTUS don't interpret the Constitution in conformity with my political beliefs or world vision, then I am all for changing the rules and rigging the game.
The current SCOTUS is the first one in modern history where their interpretation of the Constitution always varies, but amazingly always in ways that match their personal beliefs. Thomas wants to reexamine contraceptives, gay marriage, etc., but NOT interracial marriage. Wow, what luck for him!
Just like the people that tell you want god wants, and-- SURPRISE!-- it matches exactly what they personally want the Christofascist 6 are going to interpret the Constitution as exactly in line with their own extremist personal beliefs.
-
If you don’t think people were saying those thing back then, you weren’t paying attention. Which is not surprising.
One side or the other is always unhappy with the Supreme Court. I know FDR tried (and failed) court packing way back when but I don’t recall any serious discussion of it in my lifetime until the last 18 months.
-
One side or the other is always unhappy with the Supreme Court. I know FDR tried (and failed) court packing way back when but I don’t recall any serious discussion of it in my lifetime until the last 18 months.
It didn’t happen until recently because of Moscow Mitch’s shenanigans
-
https://www.amazon.com/Bill-Rights-Secure-Americas-Liberties/dp/1476743800
I recently read this book that offers an unconventional and absolutely fascinating explanation as to what Madison's push for the Bill of Rights was about. My brief summary:
There were fierce opponents to the Federal government's primacy and, although in the minority in the first congress, they hoped to eventually become the majority in the next election and effectively shred the new government's authority over the states either via a massive number (over 100) amendments that would de facto revive the Articles of Confederation or by calling for another constitutional convention that would achieve the same goal. Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry serves as a very good example of the attitude of the constitution's opponents. When he referred to "our country", he meant Virginia.
James Madison, an ardent Federalist at the time, pushed hard for a Bill of Rights, suspecting that the anti-Federalists were planning on eventually using one in the near future to embarrass the Federalists and turn voters against them. In other words, Madison wanted to beat them at their own game. The Federalists kept brushing off Madison, as two issues were front and center in the first congress- taxation and establishing the Federal judiciary. Taxation was crucial as the US was functionally bankrupt. The Federalists treated Madison as a pest but eventually he got a Bill of Rights passed- just not exactly the one he wanted.
As one poster stated, our beginning was very different from that of other countries. It was a massive undertaking to get 11 former colonies to sign on. North Carolina and Rhode Island joined in the following year to make it 13 and sent representatives to the second Congress. Just as there was a tremendous amount of tension then as now (and the new government's future was far from certain), the country not only survived but thrived.
Take a deep breath!
-
One side or the other is always unhappy with the Supreme Court. I know FDR tried (and failed) court packing way back when but I don’t recall any serious discussion of it in my lifetime until the last 18 months.
As I understand it, FDR threatened packing, so the court backed down from some of their positions. Therefore FDR didn't need to follow through.
-
As I understand it, FDR threatened packing, so the court backed down from some of their positions. Therefore FDR didn't need to follow through.
[/quote
He received unexpected criticism and resistance from members of his own party regarding his plan to pack the court. Many historians note that the court did back down on some of their positions, but we will never know if FDR would have had the votes he needed to pack the court despite the Democrats' having a solid majority.
-
He received unexpected criticism and resistance from members of his own party regarding his plan to pack the court. Many historians note that the court did back down on some of their positions, but we will never know if FDR would have had the votes he needed to pack the court despite the Democrats' having a solid majority.
Appreciate the clarification
-
The court wasn’t packed with Christofascists that put religious beliefs ahead of the law.
The constitution was not based on Christianity but on secularism. When justices are openly praying with a group that wants to inject Christianity into everyday life of all Americans, they have opened the discussion wide
Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ...
bless·ing
noun
plural noun: blessings
God's favor and protection.
Not quite secular. Our freedoms are favors from God that protect us from a tyrannical state and one of our first freedoms is religious freedom or freedom not to believe.
The Dobbs decision in no way is forcing religion on anybody. It just returned to the states their ability to regulate abortion just as they regulate guns according to the will of the people through their elected representatives. Why such animus towards Christians?
-
It was legal and the odds on favorite to win the presidency was Hillary Clinton. So Mitch played the long shot and won. If you really think about it, RBG screwed the liberals by not resigning when Obama was President. I agree with your concern if the GOP does win a majority in the Senate they essentially will have veto rights over any political appointees made by Biden, but it was the Democrats that got rid of the filibuster which in my view was a big mistake. It at least forced the executive to appoint more moderate appointees especially if his party had a majority in the Senate. Do you think Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barett would have been confirmed if the filibuster was in place? Do you really think the Democrats would approve political appointees of a Republican President if they had a majority in the Senate? Unfortunately partisan politics
will keep Washington totally dysfunctional as there are no moderates in either party.
My understanding is the Dems did not "get rid" of the filibuster but were the first to state it did not apply to approving District Court appointees. Since then, both parties have had a hand in weakening it further.
Forcing the executive to appoint a more moderate jurist is exactly what happened when Obama selected Garland. McConnell laughed in his face and pushed the country closer to the partisanship you reference.
As to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett - we'll never know. I believe that some Dems would have crossed over to support them.
As to whether the Dems would approve a Supreme Court nominee (you use the term "political appointee" but I assume you mean a SCOTUS appointee) of a GOP president, I believe they would have had McConnell not pulled his Garland stunt.
-
My understanding is the Dems did not "get rid" of the filibuster but were the first to state it did not apply to approving District Court appointees. Since then, both parties have had a hand in weakening it further.
Forcing the executive to appoint a more moderate jurist is exactly what happened when Obama selected Garland. McConnell laughed in his face and pushed the country closer to the partisanship you reference.
As to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett - we'll never know. I believe that some Dems would have crossed over to support them.
As to whether the Dems would approve a Supreme Court nominee (you use the term "political appointee" but I assume you mean a SCOTUS appointee) of a GOP president, I believe they would have had McConnell not pulled his Garland stunt.
Gorsuch probably. Kavanaugh would have gotten no support. Barrett, possibly, but very unlikely.
-
One side or the other is always unhappy with the Supreme Court. I know FDR tried (and failed) court packing way back when but I don’t recall any serious discussion of it in my lifetime until the last 18 months.
FDR's threat to pack succeeded though. He threatened, they backed down.
And the current discussion is because the court has already been packed against the will of the American people by McConnell stealing two seats.
-
Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ...
bless·ing
noun
plural noun: blessings
God's favor and protection.
Not quite secular. Our freedoms are favors from God that protect us from a tyrannical state and one of our first freedoms is religious freedom or freedom not to believe.
The Dobbs decision in no way is forcing religion on anybody. It just returned to the states their ability to regulate abortion just as they regulate guns according to the will of the people through their elected representatives. Why such animus towards Christians?
That is a definition of blessing. I'm sure you realize that there are others.
-
Our freedoms are favors from God that protect us from a tyrannical state and one of our first freedoms is religious freedom or freedom not to believe.
What a crock. If cult mythology is going to play a role in government, it should at least start paying taxes first.
-
What a crock. If cult mythology is going to play a role in government, it should at least start paying taxes first.
My church does pay taxes. Each municipality is different but in our town the first 5 acres are exempt from property taxes. My Church has a 12 acre campus and our education Center is located on land outside of the tax free exemption and subject to paying property taxes. Our parish pays the matching FICA taxes that all employers must pay for each employee. So yes, the church does pay taxes.
I guess Christianity can be characterized as mythology, but it just so happens to be true as it is based on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. St. Paul emphatically explains in his letter to the Corinthians that if Christ did not rise from the dead then Christianity is a lie and that he himself is the biggest liar; but he continues documenting eye witness accounts of people seeing the risen Christ and on one occasion appearing to a crowd of 500. Though to Christians Jesus is divine He is also a historical figure as well. The early Christians were persecuted and died for their beliefs and if Christianity were a lie it too would have died with them long ago.
You can believe whatever you want but Christians come to their faith not blind but with their eyes wide open.
-
What a crock. If cult mythology is going to play a role in government, it should at least start paying taxes first.
Does it make you feel like a bigger man to mock other people's religious beliefs?
-
Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ...
bless·ing
noun
plural noun: blessings
God's favor and protection.
Not quite secular. Our freedoms are favors from God that protect us from a tyrannical state and one of our first freedoms is religious freedom or freedom not to believe.
The Dobbs decision in no way is forcing religion on anybody. It just returned to the states their ability to regulate abortion just as they regulate guns according to the will of the people through their elected representatives. Why such animus towards Christians?
The constitution is purely secular. History leading into the writing of it was rife with state-based religion plunging nations into wars because that’s what religion does best, kill. If you want to ignore what the founding fathers said about how this nation was formed, so be it. You’re wrong. This specifically wanted a government removed from religion because history shows what happens when the two are mixed.
I’m not surprised when christofascists ignore this. They don’t want history taught because it isn’t pretty for them
-
My church does pay taxes. Each municipality is different but in our town the first 5 acres are exempt from property taxes. My Church has a 12 acre campus and our education Center is located on land outside of the tax free exemption and subject to paying property taxes. Our parish pays the matching FICA taxes that all employers must pay for each employee. So yes, the church does pay taxes.
I guess Christianity can be characterized as mythology, but it just so happens to be true as it is based on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. St. Paul emphatically explains in his letter to the Corinthians that if Christ did not rise from the dead then Christianity is a lie and that he himself is the biggest liar; but he continues documenting eye witness accounts of people seeing the risen Christ and on one occasion appearing to a crowd of 500. Though to Christians Jesus is divine He is also a historical figure as well. The early Christians were persecuted and died for their beliefs and if Christianity were a lie it too would have died with them long ago.
You can believe whatever you want but Christians come to their faith not blind but with their eyes wide open.
Now do Islam, Hinduism and so on
-
You can believe whatever you want but Christians come to their faith not blind but with their eyes wide open.
Sure sure sure. Eyes wide open getting dunk tanked into special water as a baby dressed in a white dress.
Tax the revenue, remove tax exempt status.
-
Okay, let's rewrite the Constitution. And by the way, who's going to do that-------me, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alioto, et al???? Or you, Brew and your friends???
The U.S. Constitution has served us pretty well for almost 250 years. I'd leave it alone.
Dream on. It's served SOME people well for 246 years, but not everyone.
If you think humans haven't had any better ideas for governance in the last 246 years, you're beyond hope. Our system is a disaster, and instead of fixing it, one side is going to exploit every unintended technicality to benefit their minority view under the guise of 'originalism'. What a crock. The two party system needs to be extinguished and replaced with an actually representative system that many modern European countries use. Just look at Ireland. They manage to govern just fine with 10 represented parties. Everyone gets a voice. What a wild proposition!
Even Thomas Jefferson wanted the US constitution rewritten every 19 years.
-
My church does pay taxes. Each municipality is different but in our town the first 5 acres are exempt from property taxes. My Church has a 12 acre campus and our education Center is located on land outside of the tax free exemption and subject to paying property taxes. Our parish pays the matching FICA taxes that all employers must pay for each employee. So yes, the church does pay taxes.
I guess Christianity can be characterized as mythology, but it just so happens to be true as it is based on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. St. Paul emphatically explains in his letter to the Corinthians that if Christ did not rise from the dead then Christianity is a lie and that he himself is the biggest liar; but he continues documenting eye witness accounts of people seeing the risen Christ and on one occasion appearing to a crowd of 500. Though to Christians Jesus is divine He is also a historical figure as well. The early Christians were persecuted and died for their beliefs and if Christianity were a lie it too would have died with them long ago.
You can believe whatever you want but Christians come to their faith not blind but with their eyes wide open.
The vast majority of people who are Christian grew up Christian. Same with Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc. If you talk with many adherents of other religions, they believe as deeply in the foundations of their faith as you do. Christianity is hardly unique in that regard.
-
Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ...
bless·ing
noun
plural noun: blessings
God's favor and protection.
Not quite secular. Our freedoms are favors from God that protect us from a tyrannical state and one of our first freedoms is religious freedom or freedom not to believe.
The Dobbs decision in no way is forcing religion on anybody. It just returned to the states their ability to regulate abortion just as they regulate guns according to the will of the people through their elected representatives. Why such animus towards Christians?
You're not really this foolish, are you?
-
My church does pay taxes. Each municipality is different but in our town the first 5 acres are exempt from property taxes. My Church has a 12 acre campus and our education Center is located on land outside of the tax free exemption and subject to paying property taxes. Our parish pays the matching FICA taxes that all employers must pay for each employee. So yes, the church does pay taxes.
I guess Christianity can be characterized as mythology, but it just so happens to be true as it is based on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. St. Paul emphatically explains in his letter to the Corinthians that if Christ did not rise from the dead then Christianity is a lie and that he himself is the biggest liar; but he continues documenting eye witness accounts of people seeing the risen Christ and on one occasion appearing to a crowd of 500. Though to Christians Jesus is divine He is also a historical figure as well. The early Christians were persecuted and died for their beliefs and if Christianity were a lie it too would have died with them long ago.
You can believe whatever you want but Christians come to their faith not blind but with their eyes wide open.
Oh, you believe that this actually happened, and isn't a morality story based on other morality stories.
-
Even Thomas Jefferson wanted the US constitution rewritten every 19 years.
Jefferson hung around the French too much, which reminds me of a joke.
A man walks into a library and asks the librarian:
"Can I see the a copy of the French Constitution?"
to which the librarian responds, "Sorry, we don't carry periodicals."
-
Jefferson hung around the French too much, which reminds me of a joke.
A man walks into a library and asks the librarian:
"Can I see the a copy of the French Constitution?"
to which the librarian responds, "Sorry, we don't carry periodicals."
They all did. We owe the existence of the US to France... not necessarily for altruistic reasons, but the French helped the US gain independence.
-
They all did. We owe the existence of the US to France... not necessarily for altruistic reasons, but the French helped the US gain independence.
Well. when Hamilton got in a rap battle with Jefferson, oh wait.nevermind
-
Dream on. It's served SOME people well for 246 years, but not everyone.
If you think humans haven't had any better ideas for governance in the last 246 years, you're beyond hope. Our system is a disaster, and instead of fixing it, one side is going to exploit every unintended technicality to benefit their minority view under the guise of 'originalism'. What a crock. The two party system needs to be extinguished and replaced with an actually representative system that many modern European countries use. Just look at Ireland. They manage to govern just fine with 10 represented parties. Everyone gets a voice. What a wild proposition!
Even Thomas Jefferson wanted the US constitution rewritten every 19 years.
Serious question. How do you propose getting more parties involved? I am for it.
-
Serious question. How do you propose getting more parties involved? I am for it.
Have to get rid of the 'first horse past the post' type of election style we ascribe to. Probably would require an amendment. And then the two parties would have to agree to do it... which they won't.
So yeah... nothing likely to happen any time in the future, but it would probably cut a lot of the division in the country. Multiple partiess could find common ground on issues instead of being one issue voters. Maybe something would get done for once here in the old USA.
-
Have to get rid of the 'first horse past the post' type of election style we ascribe to. Probably would require an amendment. And then the two parties would have to agree to do it... which they won't.
So yeah... nothing likely to happen any time in the future, but it would probably cut a lot of the division in the country. Multiple partiess could find common ground on issues instead of being one issue voters. Maybe something would get done for once here in the old USA.
There’s definitely room for a centrist party in this country that cuts out the Trump republicans and far left dems.
Press coverage has been an issue in the past for third-parties but a party taking on both radical wings of the dominant parties would be interesting. Of course, the entrenched money funding both parties make that unlikely anyway
-
There isn't going to be a third party anytime soon. It's not just the press. It's the entire way money is tied up in the process. There is just too much vested interest to invest in a third party.
What you will see is evolutions within the party like we saw with Trump Republicans. The Republican Party of today is nothing like the party of Reagan, Bush and Romney. For all intents and purposes, it is a completely different party with some agreement on issues.
So there is some hope for Democrats, but they are going to have to change. They are going to have to break free of their coastal mindset - and that includes their leadership in both houses of Congress. We will see how John Fetterman ultimately does in Pennsylvania, I mean he isn't out on the campaign trail due to his stroke, but if ends up winning there, they need to learn a lesson about what messaging does work.
-
My church does pay taxes. Each municipality is different but in our town the first 5 acres are exempt from property taxes. My Church has a 12 acre campus and our education Center is located on land outside of the tax free exemption and subject to paying property taxes. Our parish pays the matching FICA taxes that all employers must pay for each employee. So yes, the church does pay taxes.
I guess Christianity can be characterized as mythology, but it just so happens to be true as it is based on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. St. Paul emphatically explains in his letter to the Corinthians that if Christ did not rise from the dead then Christianity is a lie and that he himself is the biggest liar; but he continues documenting eye witness accounts of people seeing the risen Christ and on one occasion appearing to a crowd of 500. Though to Christians Jesus is divine He is also a historical figure as well. The early Christians were persecuted and died for their beliefs and if Christianity were a lie it too would have died with them long ago.
You can believe whatever you want but Christians come to their faith not blind but with their eyes wide open.
Again, believe whatever you want. It is your right, and I strongly support it. But keep your particular mythology out of government, out of laws, and out of everyone's life. Your right to your belief does not extend to forcing it upon others.
-
There isn't going to be a third party anytime soon. It's not just the press. It's the entire way money is tied up in the process. There is just too much vested interest to invest in a third party.
What you will see is evolutions within the party like we saw with Trump Republicans. The Republican Party of today is nothing like the party of Reagan, Bush and Romney. For all intents and purposes, it is a completely different party with some agreement on issues.
So there is some hope for Democrats, but they are going to have to change. They are going to have to break free of their coastal mindset - and that includes their leadership in both houses of Congress. We will see how John Fetterman ultimately does in Pennsylvania, I mean he isn't out on the campaign trail due to his stroke, but if ends up winning there, they need to learn a lesson about what messaging does work.
I was at a Clinton rally in rural Wisconsin in 1996. It was enthusiastic and well attended. There was a guy that understood messaging and the people. You don’t have to like him and I don’t blame anyone that doesn’t, but he connected with people better than any democrat since. I can’t imagine such a thing happening today with the current crop of visible democrats
-
I guess Christianity can be characterized as mythology
From the Oxford Languages Dictionary. Christianity is both a cult and a mythology:
Cult (N): A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. "The cult of St. Olaf"
Mythology (N): A collection of myths, especially once belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition. "a book discussing Jewish and Christian mythologies."
Unless you are going to give equal deference to Hindu, Islam, Scientology, Heaven's Gate, Buddhism, and any other religious cult you can imagine, your religious cult should be kept out of laws and legislation.
I was at a Clinton rally in rural Wisconsin in 1996. It was enthusiastic and well attended. There was a guy that understood messaging and the people. You don’t have to like him and I don’t blame anyone that doesn’t, but he connected with people better than any democrat since. I can’t imagine such a thing happening today with the current crop of visible democrats
John Fetterman would like a word. He would be my current pick for the 2024 nominee.
-
From the Oxford Languages Dictionary. Christianity is both a cult and a mythology:
Cult (N): A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. "The cult of St. Olaf"
Mythology (N): A collection of myths, especially once belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition. "a book discussing Jewish and Christian mythologies."
Unless you are going to give equal deference to Hindu, Islam, Scientology, Heaven's Gate, Buddhism, and any other religious cult you can imagine, your religious cult should be kept out of laws and legislation.
John Fetterman would like a word. He would be my current pick for the 2024 nominee.
He's going to have to beat Oz...and actually be healthy.
-
He's going to have to beat Oz...and actually be healthy.
He's going to beat Oz handily. Healthy... might be more difficult, but I'm with Brew.
-
Dream on. It's served SOME people well for 246 years, but not everyone.
If you think humans haven't had any better ideas for governance in the last 246 years, you're beyond hope. Our system is a disaster, and instead of fixing it, one side is going to exploit every unintended technicality to benefit their minority view under the guise of 'originalism'. What a crock. The two party system needs to be extinguished and replaced with an actually representative system that many modern European countries use. Just look at Ireland. They manage to govern just fine with 10 represented parties. Everyone gets a voice. What a wild proposition!
Even Thomas Jefferson wanted the US constitution rewritten every 19 years.
Maybe?
Game theory, however, suggests that multi-party systems are incentivized to coalesce into a bipolar system. If you have 5 left wing parties (and let's be real, since the French Revolution there has never been anything that resembles a unified "left" and instead there's dozens of fractured, backbiting, infighting groups vying for some kind of ideological purity while they lose every fight), and 1 viable right wing party, then you end up with right wing party rule.
The Tories in the UK are the one arrayed against the several (Labour, Liberal Democrats, etc). This is how the GOP has won, by being militantly, obsessively, lockstep in unity of purpose and welcoming of everyone on the right so long as they get in line and do as they are told.
-
There’s definitely room for a centrist party in this country that cuts out the Trump republicans and far left dems.
Press coverage has been an issue in the past for third-parties but a party taking on both radical wings of the dominant parties would be interesting. Of course, the entrenched money funding both parties make that unlikely anyway
Agree. You hit on two major points. The long history of third parties in the US has been that they often are formed with a presidential candidate to lead the way and-no surprise-fade into obscurity. The centrists in both parties are becoming dinosaurs. While Republican centrists should perhaps be declared an endangered species, the Democrats are under heavy attack from their own party's far left wing. So, point #1-room for an independent third party-strikes me as true. Point #2-money-is a much bigger issue. It's almost impossible to win without a big pile of money. A third issue is the infrastructure to run a campaign.
Presidential and senate races are mind-boggling expensive. If a third party-preferably with experienced candidates who have left their former parties-put all its effort and limited money into a few winnable House seats scattered around the country, a viable alternative party just might be born. As of today, it would take only a small number to be in the driver's seat (or maybe I should say the referees) in the House.
-
Oh, you believe that this actually happened, and isn't a morality story based on other morality stories.
I do. Paul's letters are not a morality story but a testament of Christ's life, death and resurrection.
-
I do. Paul's letters are not a morality story but a testament of Christ's life, death and resurrection.
Now do Islam, Hinduism and other faiths
-
Does it make you feel like a bigger man to mock other people's religious beliefs?
When unfounded mythological beliefs are being used to infringe upon or strip outright the rights of American citizens? Yes, you are damn right I will push back on that.
-
What's the definition of "centrist"? Is it a political candidate who espouses policies that the majority of Americans want?
-
Serious question. How do you propose getting more parties involved? I am for it.
We continue to vote for neither of the main parties.
-
I do. Paul's letters are not a morality story but a testament of Christ's life, death and resurrection.
You ever hear the saying, "Don't believe everything you hear"? Don't you think it is awfully strange that the supernatural miracles performed in the bible and the centuries thereafter haven't happened since? It's a story to teach people to be virtuous, and give them solace and hope in the worst of times.
Consider that the Christ story is highly similar to large parts of Greek and Roman mythology.
Of course, you're welcome to believe what you want, and I would never advocate for legislation that would infringe on that belief system.
-
When unfounded mythological beliefs are being used to infringe upon or strip outright the rights of American citizens? Yes, you are damn right I will push back on that.
OK, duly noted. You decide to mock a whole religion, or probably all religions, instead of mocking the individual person. Character revealed.
-
The constitution is purely secular. History leading into the writing of it was rife with state-based religion plunging nations into wars because that’s what religion does best, kill. If you want to ignore what the founding fathers said about how this nation was formed, so be it. You’re wrong. This specifically wanted a government removed from religion because history shows what happens when the two are mixed.
I’m not surprised when christofascists ignore this. They don’t want history taught because it isn’t pretty for them
Yep.
Franklin the agnostic probably an atheist.
Jefferson the Animist.
Adams who really hated a powerful church and blamed pastors for not stopping things like the Salem Witch trials and other hysteria.
Washington who only referred to Providence and never kneeled in church services because he didn't bow to anyone.
Hamilton didn't really belong to any church until much later in life after he stepped down from Secretary of Treasury and had to something back in NYC.
I was on a founders kick for a decade and devoured multiple biographies.
-
There’s definitely room for a centrist party in this country that cuts out the Trump republicans and far left dems.
Press coverage has been an issue in the past for third-parties but a party taking on both radical wings of the dominant parties would be interesting. Of course, the entrenched money funding both parties make that unlikely anyway
Without third parties, Ranked Choice voting would probably soften out and cull out some of the extremists. Not quite a cure all.
I believe Alaska and Maine already utilize.
-
You ever hear the saying, "Don't believe everything you hear"? Don't you think it is awfully strange that the supernatural miracles performed in the bible and the centuries thereafter haven't happened since? It's a story to teach people to be virtuous, and give them solace and hope in the worst of times.
Consider that the Christ story is highly similar to large parts of Greek and Roman mythology.
Of course, you're welcome to believe what you want, and I would never advocate for legislation that would infringe on that belief system.
It also came about as a sort of argument or debate to reason back in the day. Reason assesses and faith trusts. I think they can coexist, but we allow ourselves to get into debates over faith versus reason. I am a confirmed Catholic, however I am not Catholic, nor Christian. But, I do find the existence of a higher power fascinating and quite possibly true. I have faith…in people. I think we can allow for someone to be truly faithful and a follower of their religion, they have to be equally open to faith in humanity and law. Most people are open, we just like to listen to those who aren’t.
I find it hard to believe that the country wasn’t founded with some belief that god is important, it’s all over our documents, coins, recitations. In my opinion, any church not paying taxes or functioning or being treated like a citizen or business is clearly in bed with the government. Separation of the two is a myth.
A specific religion certainly should not play a role in our laws, but it does, like many many other countries in the world, maybe all. It’s up to the religious to take a look at what they are saying and understand that maybe their personal strong belief in a Christian religion is the best argument for that Christian religion not to be part of our system of laws.
-
It also came about as a sort of argument or debate to reason back in the day. Reason assesses and faith trusts. I think they can coexist, but we allow ourselves to get into debates over faith versus reason. I am a confirmed Catholic, however I am not Catholic, nor Christian. But, I do find the existence of a higher power fascinating and quite possibly true. I have faith…in people. I think we can allow for someone to be truly faithful and a follower of their religion, they have to be equally open to faith in humanity and law. Most people are open, we just like to listen to those who aren’t.
I find it hard to believe that the country wasn’t founded with some belief that god is important, it’s all over our documents, coins, recitations. In my opinion, any church not paying taxes or functioning or being treated like a citizen or business is clearly in bed with the government. Separation of the two is a myth.
A specific religion certainly should not play a role in our laws, but it does, like many many other countries in the world, maybe all. It’s up to the religious to take a look at what they are saying and understand that maybe their personal strong belief in a Christian religion is the best argument for that Christian religion not to be part of our system of laws.
Great post. Personally, I have a strong distaste for organized religion. I understand the societal desire for community and the inherent value in it, but I naturally have a strong distrust of authority. Especially when that authority is a means to controlling people, their finances, and their politics.
-
OK, duly noted. You decide to mock a whole religion, or probably all religions, instead of mocking the individual person. Character revealed.
I'm sure you and everyone else here would happily sign up for Sharia Law if that was the religious push on our legal system. ::)
Separation of church and state. Period. No mythology should administer or have any say in legislation in a society where not everyone claims that mythology for their own.
-
I'm sure you and everyone else here would happily sign up for Sharia Law if that was the religious push on our legal system. ::)
Separation of church and state. Period. No mythology should administer or have any say in legislation in a society where not everyone claims that mythology for their own.
This is an impossible standard.
-
This is an impossible standard.
I agree. There is a difference between a moral code based upon one's religion and actually pushing that religion. There is still a separation of church and state. The recent Supreme Court rulings , some argue, strengthen individuals rights to exercise their religion free from governmental restraints. All religion. And many argue Roe v Wade has nothing to do with religion.
-
I do. Paul's letters are not a morality story but a testament of Christ's life, death and resurrection.
Great. So should we make ol' Joe Smith's writings the basis of our laws? If not, why not? How about Mohammed's? If not, why not?
Are you OK with making the Bhagavad-Gita the law of the land?
Surely we can all agree that the teachings of Buddha should be the law, no?
Maybe Battlefield Earth Dianetics?
The Invisible Pink Unicorn? If not, why not?
-
Great post. Personally, I have a strong distaste for organized religion. I understand the societal desire for community and the inherent value in it, but I naturally have a strong distrust of authority. Especially when that authority is a means to controlling people, their finances, and their politics.
Appreciate you. I used to feel like you, after my parents Catholic marriage was annulled after 30 years, after my mom was basically shunned by her church while my dad had a second Catholic wedding, and my Catholic priest godfather was kicked out of the church for being gay and falling in love with an adult male parishioner, I was disgusted with organized religion. I then had both my sons baptized, because that’s what I thought should happen and my wife was more open than I was. After finding Montessori education and really questioning myself, I moved on from my religious faith. Then…I sent both my boys to a Jesuit high school! I can’t get away from it!
My point, I am no longer disgusted nor do I have a strong distaste for organized religion. So many good people are faithful, religious people, some of the kindest people I have ever met. It’s just not for me, and I don’t need or want a god to tell me how to act, it’s 100% on me.
Now, I also believe we as humans like to be grouped, labeled, and led. My personal goal for the last oh five years or so is to try to remove groupings and labels from difficult discussions. It is quite possibly impossible, but I try. So, what I mean is that I am all for organized religion, it is really important to billions of people. I’m all for law. I am all for humanity. I strongly believe people are good at the core even when left to their own devices. I know deep down that no single belief, group, organization could possibly represent the person I am. That’s not meant to be arrogant, it’s actually meant as the complete opposite. It also helps me to be open. For abortion, for example, I could never fathom my wife getting one, AND I could never fathom letting my wife die if an abortion will save her life. I think what some of the self described religious people get mixed up is that they don’t have to get an abortion. They can still choose to live their kind of virtuous life. Yes, they can choose. Remove pro-life and pro-choice from the discussion, because we are all both!
Anyway, my diarrhea of the mouth is rarely a good thing, so I’ll continue to read our posts here and faith that we all have some mutual respect for each other, deep down somewhere, it’s there. We just have to find it.
-
100%
-
We continue to vote for neither of the main parties.
I've been doing that in elections since 1980. I have since learned that I'm going to need more help with this lol.
-
I've been doing that in elections since 1980. I have since learned that I'm going to need more help with this lol.
Same, not quite as long, but Papa Bush is/was my first and only main party vote, my parents told me to. Then after complaining to my future father-in-law about the system and saying I would never vote again, he looked me dead in the eye and said that’s lazy, that’s the problem, find the person who best represents you, or go be that person. Well, okay then. I have had so many people tell me I’m throwing away my vote, I’m the reason that Trump won or Obama won. Well, for me, this is one of those stubborn mindsets I have, and I’ve since thought if I voted for a main party candidate I would personally be throwing away my vote.
He was also a strong believer in Jesus as the leader of men and did not go to church. Interesting man he was, lost way too early to ALS. I told my boys he might be in Heaven, he might be in the earth, he might be our dog or the cardinal in our yard, and that he is within them. Politics and religion are tricky, for everyone.
-
When unfounded mythological beliefs are being used to infringe upon or strip outright the rights of American citizens? Yes, you are damn right I will push back on that.
Man, if you guys are going to toss your cookies everytime the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling you don't agree with, you're going to be in for a long, long 10-15 years or so, given the relative youth of the majority Justices.
-
Appreciate you. I used to feel like you, after my parents Catholic marriage was annulled after 30 years, after my mom was basically shunned by her church while my dad had a second Catholic wedding, and my Catholic priest godfather was kicked out of the church for being gay and falling in love with an adult male parishioner, I was disgusted with organized religion. I then had both my sons baptized, because that’s what I thought should happen and my wife was more open than I was. After finding Montessori education and really questioning myself, I moved on from my religious faith. Then…I sent both my boys to a Jesuit high school! I can’t get away from it!
My point, I am no longer disgusted nor do I have a strong distaste for organized religion. So many good people are faithful, religious people, some of the kindest people I have ever met. It’s just not for me, and I don’t need or want a god to tell me how to act, it’s 100% on me.
Now, I also believe we as humans like to be grouped, labeled, and led. My personal goal for the last oh five years or so is to try to remove groupings and labels from difficult discussions. It is quite possibly impossible, but I try. So, what I mean is that I am all for organized religion, it is really important to billions of people. I’m all for law. I am all for humanity. I strongly believe people are good at the core even when left to their own devices. I know deep down that no single belief, group, organization could possibly represent the person I am. That’s not meant to be arrogant, it’s actually meant as the complete opposite. It also helps me to be open. For abortion, for example, I could never fathom my wife getting one, AND I could never fathom letting my wife die if an abortion will save her life. I think what some of the self described religious people get mixed up is that they don’t have to get an abortion. They can still choose to live their kind of virtuous life. Yes, they can choose. Remove pro-life and pro-choice from the discussion, because we are all both!
Anyway, my diarrhea of the mouth is rarely a good thing, so I’ll continue to read our posts here and faith that we all have some mutual respect for each other, deep down somewhere, it’s there. We just have to find it.
Too many people use a dislike or grievance with a particular church, or organized religion, as an excuse to bash faith, belief, or religious people in general, and thats what I have always had an issue with.
Do I want extremely conservative dogmatic people making decisions for a whole population? No. Can I keep that separate from trashing Christianity? Absolutely. Plenty of others cant.
-
Jefferson hung around the French too much, which reminds me of a joke.
A man walks into a library and asks the librarian:
"Can I see the a copy of the French Constitution?"
to which the librarian responds, "Sorry, we don't carry periodicals."
You must have been a big ‘Freedom Fries’ advocate.
-
Does it make you feel like a bigger man to mock other people's religious beliefs?
Evangelicals believe trump is a Christian.
Yes, that should be made fun of.
-
Man, if you guys are going to toss your cookies everytime the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling you don't agree with, you're going to be in for a long, long 10-15 years or so, given the relative youth of the majority Justices.
Yeah no kidding, why else would there be anger? We're just trying to advocate for balance on the court, and not the willy nilly flip flopping on settled law. Republicans have absolutely no qualms about playing dirty, some folks around here think it's about time for a tit for tat from the Dems.
As I've said, the GOP will dump the filibuster rule in the senate the very first time they need to. The Democrats want to continue to play by the rules as if they even exist anymore. 1994 was the turning point in the political discourse in the US, and the Dems are still trying to play by the rules of 1993.
-
Yeah no kidding, why else would there be anger? We're just trying to advocate for balance on the court, and not the willy nilly flip flopping on settled law. Republicans have absolutely no qualms about playing dirty, some folks around here think it's about time for a tit for tat from the Dems.
As I've said, the GOP will dump the filibuster rule in the senate the very first time they need to. The Democrats want to continue to play by the rules as if they even exist anymore. 1994 was the turning point in the political discourse in the US, and the Dems are still trying to play by the rules of 1993.
Yup, yup
-
You must have been a big ‘Freedom Fries’ advocate.
Actually no. I just find humor in a lot of things. I have spent quite a bit of time in France. My wife has a host family in the Loire Valley where we go quite often. I am a francophile. I just don't see the need to rewrite the Constitution.
-
https://youtu.be/fUp0luobb10
-
I don't know what I find more hilarious... The people trying to defend the fecked Republicans, or the people thinking that the Democrats give a single crap about them.
Time to vote third party boys and girls, run both of these douches off the cliff.
-
I don't know what I find more hilarious... The people trying to defend the fecked Republicans, or the people thinking that the Democrats give a single crap about them.
Time to vote third party boys and girls, run both of these douches off the cliff.
Ah yes, the moral victory and practical defeat plan. I expect this will work swimmingly.
-
Well, I appreciate that most of you are willing and able to have reasonable discussions here. We also obviously ignored the no politics / religion rules here for a couple weeks.
But, the time has come to get back to our no politics ways. Enjoy the rest of summer!