Real news vs. Fake news... with all this talk, let's take a real look.

[Dragonlady]

yeah and where his birth certificate? did trump ever hear from those investigators he sent to Hawaii or did hillary have them taken out with her secret ninja army?

If you want to talk of that start a thread on it.....or resume your bashing of Christians. It seems you're obsessed with that topic

No one bashes Christians. But we will call out those who preach hate, misogyny, and anti-semitism while claiming to follow the Jesus. How you can justify racism, bigotry and intolerance and claim to love Jesus who said "Love one another, as I have loved you". Notice there are no qualifications or restrictions on who is to be loved, or in "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".

Anything less isn't Christianity

Many people bash Christians, it's the only group not given special protections in speech. However, you don't get to be God and declare who is or who isn't a Christian. You need to read up on it if you are going to discuss it.

The problem with these anti Christian loons is they expect Christians to meek and humble (they cherry pick Bible verses to "prove" their point".)...and are stunned when a Christian tells them to pound sand. What's hilarious is they demand Christians turn the other cheek....while them themselves refuse to do so.

And it wasn't a meek Jesus that over turned the money changer tables and whipped them out.

No one expects Christians to turn the other cheek. But this doesn't give anyone license to get even or seek revenge. We expect is that they treat those who do not believe as they do, with the same respect they ask of others.

Respect from right-wing Christians for those who do not believe as they do, has been a rare commodity indeed.

From the false claims of a "War on Christmas", to the shameful treatment of gays by fringe right-wing cultists is hardly an endorsement for the teaching of Jesus. Refusal to take is refugees goes against everything that Jesus ever taught or said.

The American Nazi movement's determination to restore the white male supremicist American government of the 1950's, one of the darkest eras for the treatment of blacks, women, non-whites, in American history, is beyond disgusting.

As a child, I wondered how the KKK could go around burning crosses on peoples' lawns, killing those who go too "uppity", how could people do that to one another. When I read some of the posters in this forum, and the hate they spew, it's easy to see how.

That the so-called Christian right is helping the KKK and the rest of the American Nazi movement, rise again, makes people who really try to live their lives by the teachings of Jesus, all the more determined to make sure it doesn't happen.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear occupied
I'm taking it further.
I'm saying even the political beliefs are faith based and not neutrally secular!

For example "civil unions" for everyone would be secular. But legislating on "marriage" involves faith based beliefs, even with "secular exoressions" of liberal beliefs.

So I argue those are NOT passing the secular neutral test, but are in essence introducing faith based bias into law.

Just because this is masked by secular language doesn't exclude the content which I argue IS faith based and biased against people of other faiths.

Doesn't matter at all. Religious organizations are not barred from political activity as long as they are funded and taxed as a political organization. It's not like Christians do not have a voice in government, they just are not given the last word like they want. Our founders knew the dangers of having the clergy sit in on policy discussions because they lived under the church of England.

Dear occupied even if a group
Is a registered political group,
I don't see how that gives license to
Violate beliefs of others by abusing govt to pass biased faith based laws.

I've run into others here who don't believe political beliefs are barred from govt, but I see it causes the same damage or worse as religious beliefs pushed through govt against the beliefs of others.

So I find these matters should be resolved by consensus before passing laws to avoid imposing one sides beliefs or another.

Just because political beliefs were imposed by majority rule in the past, doesn't mean this isn't as damaging as religious beliefs imposed by govt.

So I disagree with imposing political beliefs which I argue violates equal Constitutional protections, it's favoring one creed and discriminating against another.

Look at it this way: You keep framing this question as Christians VS Liberals but that is not how it is. There are some religions/christian denominations out there that do not like RW Evangelical beliefs/methods, why do you think conservative Christians should be held above all those others? The only fair and constitutional solution is to not let any of them to be the sole moral compass of the nation. They all have the right to join in the national discussion with the understanding that secular law will cover secular matters and that religious objections cannot be considered if they are unconstitutional.

I'm not saying to let Christians impose.
I'm saying don't let political groups impose those beliefs either! occupied

What I'm saying is that Christians have to follow the law same as anyone. The government cannot consider your feelings when questions arise pertaining to equal protection, equal rights or anything not specific to religion. I can understand why you feel like these questions do not get a fair hearing but the government cannot withhold constitutional rights from anyone without a sound legal argument. Religious political groups do not make legal arguments, they make moralistic arguments that all too often have no legal legs to stand on.

Dear occupied I'm not arguing or against anything you've said. I agree.

I'm just saying to apply that Same standard to political beliefs!

The same way you are saying personal beliefs are not justification for denying protections to others, I'm saying hold political parties and beliefs to those same standards.

Treat parties as political religions and it puts everyone's agenda on the same level.

Nobody on left or right should use political party to abuse govt to push biased beliefs that others should have free choice in without penalty of law.

I'm saying don't just stop at checking religious groups from pushing agenda through govt that is subjective and faith based, but also check corporations from abusing govt and check political parties from mandating political beliefs through govt.

On issues contested as political beliefs require consensus or separate funding by party. The same way you said religious groups can fund their own practices outside govt. Do the same with political groups that have subjective agenda not everyone supports. Let them get tax breaks for investing and building their own programs instead of imposing on others who believe in funding their own.

 

[occupied]

Doesn't matter at all. Religious organizations are not barred from political activity as long as they are funded and taxed as a political organization. It's not like Christians do not have a voice in government, they just are not given the last word like they want. Our founders knew the dangers of having the clergy sit in on policy discussions because they lived under the church of England.

Dear occupied even if a group
Is a registered political group,
I don't see how that gives license to
Violate beliefs of others by abusing govt to pass biased faith based laws.

I've run into others here who don't believe political beliefs are barred from govt, but I see it causes the same damage or worse as religious beliefs pushed through govt against the beliefs of others.

So I find these matters should be resolved by consensus before passing laws to avoid imposing one sides beliefs or another.

Just because political beliefs were imposed by majority rule in the past, doesn't mean this isn't as damaging as religious beliefs imposed by govt.

So I disagree with imposing political beliefs which I argue violates equal Constitutional protections, it's favoring one creed and discriminating against another.

Look at it this way: You keep framing this question as Christians VS Liberals but that is not how it is. There are some religions/christian denominations out there that do not like RW Evangelical beliefs/methods, why do you think conservative Christians should be held above all those others? The only fair and constitutional solution is to not let any of them to be the sole moral compass of the nation. They all have the right to join in the national discussion with the understanding that secular law will cover secular matters and that religious objections cannot be considered if they are unconstitutional.

I'm not saying to let Christians impose.
I'm saying don't let political groups impose those beliefs either! occupied

What I'm saying is that Christians have to follow the law same as anyone. The government cannot consider your feelings when questions arise pertaining to equal protection, equal rights or anything not specific to religion. I can understand why you feel like these questions do not get a fair hearing but the government cannot withhold constitutional rights from anyone without a sound legal argument. Religious political groups do not make legal arguments, they make moralistic arguments that all too often have no legal legs to stand on.

Dear occupied I'm not arguing or against anything you've said. I agree.

I'm just saying to apply that Same standard to political beliefs!

The same way you are saying personal beliefs are not justification for denying protections to others, I'm saying hold political parties and beliefs to those same standards.

Treat parties as political religions and it puts everyone's agenda on the same level.

Nobody on left or right should use political party to abuse govt to push biased beliefs that others should have free choice in without penalty of law.

I'm saying don't just stop at checking religious groups from pushing agenda through govt that is subjective and faith based, but also check corporations from abusing govt and check political parties from mandating political beliefs through govt.

On issues contested as political beliefs require consensus or separate funding by party. The same way you said religious groups can fund their own practices outside govt. Do the same with political groups that have subjective agenda not everyone supports. Let them get tax breaks for investing and building their own programs instead of imposing on others who believe in funding their own.

Political beliefs are the basis of our political system. There are not just two but hundreds of competing political agendas shaping our national dialog. The first amendment protects the speech rights of all of them to freely participate in the process, even the ones backed by RW Christians. It still seems to me you are seeking some favored position for your particular ideology but in the land of the free it too must compete with all the rest on an equal basis when it comes to secular matters. The process whereby we decide how we will govern ourselves protects your beliefs as much as it puts up barriers to them becoming the last word.

It has been a lovely discussion we have had without recrimination or name calling but dinner awaits and then some heavy holiday drinking, If you still have comments I will address them tomorrow.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"Fake news" is just a code word the left uses to shut down opposing views. Liberal media outlets, hate anyone that challenges the "official" narrative of the government-media complex.

Using fake news against opposing views

 

[toxicmedia]

"Fake news" is just a code word the left uses to shut down opposing views. Liberal media outlets, hate anyone that challenges the "official" narrative of the government-media complex.

Using fake news against opposing views

Um...no Lass

Fake news is shit that never happened!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"Fake news" is just a code word the left uses to shut down opposing views. Liberal media outlets, hate anyone that challenges the "official" narrative of the government-media complex.

Using fake news against opposing views

Um...no Lass

Fake news is shit that never happened!

You're getting there....keep trying

 

[toxicmedia]

"Fake news" is just a code word the left uses to shut down opposing views. Liberal media outlets, hate anyone that challenges the "official" narrative of the government-media complex.

Using fake news against opposing views

Um...no Lass

Fake news is shit that never happened!

You're getting there....keep trying

"Fake" means not real?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"Fake news" is just a code word the left uses to shut down opposing views. Liberal media outlets, hate anyone that challenges the "official" narrative of the government-media complex.

Using fake news against opposing views

Um...no Lass

Fake news is shit that never happened!

You're getting there....keep trying

"Fake" means not real?

Yeah...but why use it? It serves a purpose

 

[Dragonlady]

Yeah...but why use it? It serves a purpose

You're the one who fully believes in shit that never happened, so tell us, what purpose does it serve?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Yeah...but why use it? It serves a purpose

You're the one who fully believes in shit that never happened, so tell us, what purpose does it serve?

I'd explain it to you (or you could actually research it) but I doubt you'd understand it.

Please stop wasting my time

 

[francoHFW]

"Fake news" is just a code word the left uses to shut down opposing views. Liberal media outlets, hate anyone that challenges the "official" narrative of the government-media complex.

Using fake news against opposing views

Um...no Lass

Fake news is shit that never happened!

You're getting there....keep trying

"Fake" means not real?

Yeah...but why use it? It serves a purpose

To dupe dopes like you?

 

[louie888]

You people are distracted and way off topic...

The following items link to sources.

Saddam's Nuclear Weapons, Assad Used Sarin Gas On His Own People, Humans Are Warming The Planet, Side Mounted Fuel Tanks, Radiation is Good For You, Food Lion, Israel's Attack on USS Liberty Was Just an Accident, Torpedoes in The Gulf of Tonkin, Spanish Mine in Havana Harbor, USS Iowa Explosion Was Caused by a Gay Sailor, Putin Shot Down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, TWA 800 Was Destroyed By a Fuel Tank Explosion And The Hundreds of Witnesses Who Saw a Missile Hit the 747 Were All Drunk, John F. Kennedy Was Assassinated By a Lone Gunman, Robert Kennedy Was Assassinated From Behind by a Palestinian Standing in Front of Him Who Fired 14 Shots From a Gun That Held only 8 bullets, The Lusitania Was Not Smuggling Weapons to Britain When Sunk by the Germans, Vaccines Are Safe, GMOs Are Safe, Food Sold at Organic Stores is Just as Bad as Supermarket Food, Jaunita Broaddrick Was Not Raped, Gennifer Flowers Was a Flake, Vincent Foster Committed Suicide, Brian Williams Was Shot Down (And Other Lies), If You Like Your Doctor You Can Keep Your Doctor, The NSA Does Not Spy on US Citizens, Common Core is Quality Education, Glyphosate is Safe, The Gulf of Mexico is Perfectly Fine After the Deepwater Horizon Disaster, Mercury in Vaccines and Dental Fillings is Harmless, Cholesterol Causes Heart Disease but Statins Will Save You, The Stock Market Proves the Entire Economy is Working, 94 Million Americans Out of Work Translates to a 5% Unemployment Rate, Illegal Immigrants Do Not Bring Disease Into the US But Unvaccinated Children Are a Danger Even to Vaccinated Children, Dr. William Thompson And His Confession of Rigging the CDC Report on Vaccines and Autism is an Urban Legend, Aspartame is Safe, Monica Lewinsky story ignored, Bush Said Al Qaeda is no Longer a Problem, Arnold Schwarzenegger groped six women, US Troops Gang-Raped Iraqi Women, Hillary Will Win the 2016 Election in a Landslide, Pearl Harbor Was a Complete Surprise, Rather: John F. Kennedy's Head Rocketed FORWARD From the Head Shot, Rather again: George Bush Got Special Treatment in the National Guard, Sarah Palin to Blame for Gabby Gifford shooting, Mitt Romney is a Homophobe, Mitt Romney is Racist, Gang-rape as Fraternity Initiation, 8-Year Old Heroin Addict in DC...

 

[emilynghiem]

If you want to talk of that start a thread on it.....or resume your bashing of Christians. It seems you're obsessed with that topic

No one bashes Christians. But we will call out those who preach hate, misogyny, and anti-semitism while claiming to follow the Jesus. How you can justify racism, bigotry and intolerance and claim to love Jesus who said "Love one another, as I have loved you". Notice there are no qualifications or restrictions on who is to be loved, or in "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".

Anything less isn't Christianity

Many people bash Christians, it's the only group not given special protections in speech. However, you don't get to be God and declare who is or who isn't a Christian. You need to read up on it if you are going to discuss it.

The problem with these anti Christian loons is they expect Christians to meek and humble (they cherry pick Bible verses to "prove" their point".)...and are stunned when a Christian tells them to pound sand. What's hilarious is they demand Christians turn the other cheek....while them themselves refuse to do so.

And it wasn't a meek Jesus that over turned the money changer tables and whipped them out.

No one expects Christians to turn the other cheek. But this doesn't give anyone license to get even or seek revenge. We expect is that they treat those who do not believe as they do, with the same respect they ask of others.

Respect from right-wing Christians for those who do not believe as they do, has been a rare commodity indeed.

From the false claims of a "War on Christmas", to the shameful treatment of gays by fringe right-wing cultists is hardly an endorsement for the teaching of Jesus. Refusal to take is refugees goes against everything that Jesus ever taught or said.

The American Nazi movement's determination to restore the white male supremicist American government of the 1950's, one of the darkest eras for the treatment of blacks, women, non-whites, in American history, is beyond disgusting.

As a child, I wondered how the KKK could go around burning crosses on peoples' lawns, killing those who go too "uppity", how could people do that to one another. When I read some of the posters in this forum, and the hate they spew, it's easy to see how.

That the so-called Christian right is helping the KKK and the rest of the American Nazi movement, rise again, makes people who really try to live their lives by the teachings of Jesus, all the more determined to make sure it doesn't happen.

Dear Dragonlady
Thank you for such a comprehensive post. I think you speak volumes.

One thing I could add as a footnote to the "turn the other cheek" reference:
The best interpretation I've read of this passage explained the difference between a Backhanded slap that was for slaves as noncitizens below ones standing, in contrast to a forehanded slap that was for fellow citizens.
The inference is that if someone rebukes you as less than equal, as their inferior, you ask them to rebuke you as an equal peer -- to address you at the same level. So you turn the cheek that would require a forehanded slap.
This means to stand up and redress and rebuke each other as equals; it does NOT mean to invite being slapped over and over like a doormat or whipping boy. It is to insist on equal respect if correction is going to be delivered. I would equate it with reverse psychology, that by asking that someone correct you with respect it often humbles them and has the reverse effect.

I've seen this used in surprising ways, and it really is effective in a most humbling way: one time a lawyer was practically cursing out another peer. He answered please tell me what I did to deserve to be spoken to this way, what I did to offend you this much that you would say such things to me, and surely I will apologize. This shut the other lawyer up because it was clear nothing the man had done merited that level of verbal abuse. The man was sincere but it worked like reverse psychology. That is the power of Christian rebuke.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you want to talk of that start a thread on it.....or resume your bashing of Christians. It seems you're obsessed with that topic

No one bashes Christians. But we will call out those who preach hate, misogyny, and anti-semitism while claiming to follow the Jesus. How you can justify racism, bigotry and intolerance and claim to love Jesus who said "Love one another, as I have loved you". Notice there are no qualifications or restrictions on who is to be loved, or in "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".

Anything less isn't Christianity

Many people bash Christians, it's the only group not given special protections in speech. However, you don't get to be God and declare who is or who isn't a Christian. You need to read up on it if you are going to discuss it.

The problem with these anti Christian loons is they expect Christians to meek and humble (they cherry pick Bible verses to "prove" their point".)...and are stunned when a Christian tells them to pound sand. What's hilarious is they demand Christians turn the other cheek....while them themselves refuse to do so.

And it wasn't a meek Jesus that over turned the money changer tables and whipped them out.

No one expects Christians to turn the other cheek. But this doesn't give anyone license to get even or seek revenge. We expect is that they treat those who do not believe as they do, with the same respect they ask of others.

Respect from right-wing Christians for those who do not believe as they do, has been a rare commodity indeed.

From the false claims of a "War on Christmas", to the shameful treatment of gays by fringe right-wing cultists is hardly an endorsement for the teaching of Jesus. Refusal to take is refugees goes against everything that Jesus ever taught or said.

The American Nazi movement's determination to restore the white male supremicist American government of the 1950's, one of the darkest eras for the treatment of blacks, women, non-whites, in American history, is beyond disgusting.

As a child, I wondered how the KKK could go around burning crosses on peoples' lawns, killing those who go too "uppity", how could people do that to one another. When I read some of the posters in this forum, and the hate they spew, it's easy to see how.

That the so-called Christian right is helping the KKK and the rest of the American Nazi movement, rise again, makes people who really try to live their lives by the teachings of Jesus, all the more determined to make sure it doesn't happen.

You full of shit. Nothing but shit ever comes off your keyboard. What you expect or don't expect from Christians matters not a whit. The point is that you are in no position to make the determination if they are or aren't a Christian.

The war of Christmas is very real, it's being dismantled in public places across the fruited plains while the majority still self identifies as Christian, with or without your approval.

The Nazis and the KKK? What's that got to do with church goers giving for the needy? That's the equivalent of finding the worse atheists in history and pinning 100 million deaths on your hands. Idiot!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear occupied even if a group
Is a registered political group,
I don't see how that gives license to
Violate beliefs of others by abusing govt to pass biased faith based laws.

I've run into others here who don't believe political beliefs are barred from govt, but I see it causes the same damage or worse as religious beliefs pushed through govt against the beliefs of others.

So I find these matters should be resolved by consensus before passing laws to avoid imposing one sides beliefs or another.

Just because political beliefs were imposed by majority rule in the past, doesn't mean this isn't as damaging as religious beliefs imposed by govt.

So I disagree with imposing political beliefs which I argue violates equal Constitutional protections, it's favoring one creed and discriminating against another.

Look at it this way: You keep framing this question as Christians VS Liberals but that is not how it is. There are some religions/christian denominations out there that do not like RW Evangelical beliefs/methods, why do you think conservative Christians should be held above all those others? The only fair and constitutional solution is to not let any of them to be the sole moral compass of the nation. They all have the right to join in the national discussion with the understanding that secular law will cover secular matters and that religious objections cannot be considered if they are unconstitutional.

I'm not saying to let Christians impose.
I'm saying don't let political groups impose those beliefs either! occupied

What I'm saying is that Christians have to follow the law same as anyone. The government cannot consider your feelings when questions arise pertaining to equal protection, equal rights or anything not specific to religion. I can understand why you feel like these questions do not get a fair hearing but the government cannot withhold constitutional rights from anyone without a sound legal argument. Religious political groups do not make legal arguments, they make moralistic arguments that all too often have no legal legs to stand on.

Dear occupied I'm not arguing or against anything you've said. I agree.

I'm just saying to apply that Same standard to political beliefs!

The same way you are saying personal beliefs are not justification for denying protections to others, I'm saying hold political parties and beliefs to those same standards.

Treat parties as political religions and it puts everyone's agenda on the same level.

Nobody on left or right should use political party to abuse govt to push biased beliefs that others should have free choice in without penalty of law.

I'm saying don't just stop at checking religious groups from pushing agenda through govt that is subjective and faith based, but also check corporations from abusing govt and check political parties from mandating political beliefs through govt.@pvsi

On issues contested as political beliefs require consensus or separate funding by party. The same way you said religious groups can fund their own practices outside govt. Do the same with political groups that have subjective agenda not everyone supports. Let them get tax breaks for investing and building their own programs instead of imposing on others who believe in funding their own.

Political beliefs are the basis of our political system. There are not just two but hundreds of competing political agendas shaping our national dialog. The first amendment protects the speech rights of all of them to freely participate in the process, even the ones backed by RW Christians. It still seems to me you are seeking some favored position for your particular ideology but in the land of the free it too must compete with all the rest on an equal basis when it comes to secular matters. The process whereby we decide how we will govern ourselves protects your beliefs as much as it puts up barriers to them becoming the last word.

It has been a lovely discussion we have had without recrimination or name calling but dinner awaits and then some heavy holiday drinking, If you still have comments I will address them tomorrow.

HI occupied and thanks for continuing and clarifying this discussion I find extremely helpful and productive!
A. No sorry, my point is NOT to treat any system A B C with more or special rights than others. It's the opposite. It's to treat them all, whether religious or political, equally as beliefs and seek consent of the governed in policies touching either religious or political beliefs to avoid any bias, for or against, one belief or creed or another.

So if A - atheist or nontheist beliefs B - bipartisan beliefs C - Christian or Constitutional beliefs D - Democrat or liberal beliefs/rights that others call a belief etc
I'm saying to respect all people for these inherent beliefs, and only make laws that satisfy and don't violate anyone's beliefs -- by resolving conflicts and writing laws neutrally by consensus to avoid imposing elements that trigger or violate one set of beliefs or another

This would require, as you say, keeping religiously held relative beliefs OUT of govt instead of giving them "special rights" to impose by majority.

B. As for voting to impose Political Beliefs -- yes and no.

If we agree to put abortion or gun rights up to the whims of majority rule vote, or a 4-5 ruling by Scotus, then sure we can agree to do that.

But I don't see where either side has ever consented to that! We put up with it but live in constant fear the other party will flip the political balance and vote us out while mandating their beliefs at our expense. Nobody I know agrees for govt to exclude or penalize their inherent beliefs, whether religious or political spiritual or personal.

So no, out of respect for equal protection of the laws and not losing rights by whim of majority rule, I have to say no to such practice. I don't believe it adequately equally or ethically protects both sides beliefs but leaves them equally vulnerable to legal abuse or corporate abuse of govt to force an opposing belief that doesn't represent citizens equally as our Constitutional laws require.

C. I happen to have faith in consensus and separating beliefs by party instead of ramming one side through govt at the expense of equal beliefs of other people and parties.

So I would fall under group B that seeks to defend both A C D and all others.

My beliefs also cannot be rammed through govt but by nature onky chosen freely like the others I ask to treat the same way.

If people don't share faith in forming consensus they resort to bullying and majority rule to force a resolution through govt by arbitration or judge ruling.

I believe in conflict resolution and mediation so both sides can win key points instead of one side winning only to be fought by the losing side that never agreed to give up their beliefs this way.

So how can we work toward proving consensus or separation by party will work except to try it.

if we keep bullying, we get the same results back and forth never agreeing until our beliefs or rights are recognised. So why not recognize them to begin with, start the process there, and work out policies that respect these rights and beliefs up front as a given?

If that means working out private policies that will solve the problem instead of ramming them through govt against the beliefs/rights/will/free choice/consent of others.

If we demand this of Christian beliefs shouldn't all beliefs be treated the same to protect all people equally from beliefs of others just like we do with religions.

Isn't that fair and just plain common sense to respect each other's beliefs if we want ours to be respected?

Thanks occupied

 

[Iceweasel]

Liberalism is not a religious faith.

Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.

Bullshit. It's a deeply religious faith. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. It replaces God with government. Beliefs trump results every time.

 

[occupied]

Liberalism is not a religious faith.

Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.

Bullshit. It's a deeply religious faith. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. It replaces God with government. Beliefs trump results every time.

At no point have liberals attempted to be a church and yet still participate in politics. Conservatives cannot say that. Many of them have their politics and religion so tightly entwined that they are one thing. Liberals are not nearly as irreligious as they are made out to be, they just know that there must be a separation between the religious and secular for freedom to exist.

 

[Iceweasel]

Liberalism is not a religious faith.

Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.

Bullshit. It's a deeply religious faith. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. It replaces God with government. Beliefs trump results every time.

At no point have liberals attempted to be a church and yet still participate in politics. Conservatives cannot say that. Many of them have their politics and religion so tightly entwined that they are one thing. Liberals are not nearly as irreligious as they are made out to be, they just know that there must be a separation between the religious and secular for freedom to exist.

I haven't heard too many church goers try to pass tithing laws but libs have no problem with making you tithe to the state. Most church people know that the heart cannot be governed by law. In fact that's the main theme of the NT. However liberals very much push for legislating every moral belief they have.

 

[occupied]

Liberalism is not a religious faith.

Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.

Bullshit. It's a deeply religious faith. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. It replaces God with government. Beliefs trump results every time.

At no point have liberals attempted to be a church and yet still participate in politics. Conservatives cannot say that. Many of them have their politics and religion so tightly entwined that they are one thing. Liberals are not nearly as irreligious as they are made out to be, they just know that there must be a separation between the religious and secular for freedom to exist.

I haven't heard too many church goers try to pass tithing laws but libs have no problem with making you tithe to the state. Most church people know that the heart cannot be governed by law. In fact that's the main theme of the NT. However liberals very much push for legislating every moral belief they have.

"Liberal moral beliefs" are synonymous with the bill of rights and the ideal that we are all equal under the law. There is no blind moral certitude or spirituality involved, just the rule of law.

 

[emilynghiem]

Liberalism is not a religious faith.

Again, liberalism is not a religious faith.

Bullshit. It's a deeply religious faith. Disagree with a liberal and you are evil. It replaces God with government. Beliefs trump results every time.

At no point have liberals attempted to be a church and yet still participate in politics. Conservatives cannot say that. Many of them have their politics and religion so tightly entwined that they are one thing. Liberals are not nearly as irreligious as they are made out to be, they just know that there must be a separation between the religious and secular for freedom to exist.

I haven't heard too many church goers try to pass tithing laws but libs have no problem with making you tithe to the state. Most church people know that the heart cannot be governed by law. In fact that's the main theme of the NT. However liberals very much push for legislating every moral belief they have.

Dear Iceweasel the most shocking and humbling realization I've had is coming to accept that it's some people's inherent political belief that such rights are protected by govt and authority and responsibility for public welfare belongs there by default.
It's not a choice, it's not natural to go through charities but govt duty to provide for the general welfare


I try to bring up due process of laws and not abusing govt power to deprive people of liberty who haven't committed crimes, and I get blank stares.

Very disturbing to realize that these beliefs cannot change by choice, much less by force, and I just have to work with how people naturally believe and hope they work with me.

I just hope people with such beliefs equally learn to recognize and respect how other people naturally believe rights belong to people by nature and that govt does not create or grant these, but people enforce Constitutional limits on govt to prevent natural rights from being deprived.

People who believe that way can't change our beliefs by choice or by force either..so do we really want to continue this game of competing to overrule the other beliefs about govt.

I hope we come to grasps with the fact that neither side believes in being forced by law to be imposed on by the other approach against our free will.

So that's why I seek consensus on Laws or separation by party to prevent imposing one set of beliefs on the other.