Under God

[Book of Jeremiah]

When this country abandoned God, the decline began. Some of you may disagree, and that's just fine. But a nation that does not follow God's teachings is a nation that will crumble and die.

So when did we abandon God ? How about a timeframe on when this happened ?

Maybe abandon was a poor choice of words on my part. What I am getting at is the federal government's moves to restrict the practice of religion (except islam).. No prayers to start the school day, no prayer before a high school football game, no nativity scenes, no menoras.

It doesn't have to be just Christian prayers. A school could do a Christian prayer, then a jewish prayer the next day, then a muslim prayer, then a hindu prayer, then a Shinto prayer, then a wicken prayer, and that last day say nothing for the atheists.

One of the things Hitler and all maniacal dictators do is prohibit the practice of religion, then they take away guns, then they denigrate the rich--------------sound familiar?

I do not agree with that thought. It comes from interfaithism and Christians should have no part in the prayers of those who deny Jesus Christ is God. They should get up and walk out of the classroom. Immediately.

 

[Syriusly]

Thanks- absolutely correct- the majority of Democrats and the majority of Republicans voted for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, proposed by JFK, and signed into law by LBJ.

The significant vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the respected Republican Barry Goldwater- one of the few non-Southern Senators to vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The vote by Barry Goldwater came back to haunt the GOP during the Presidential election as MLK Jr. made a point of noting Goldwater's 'no' vote.

By party
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

And thank you for noting Judge Johnson- a fantastic judge who modern Conservatives would call an 'activist' judge. His rulings on actions, along with the actions of Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson who mobilized the National Guard, worked to protect Civil Rights Marchers- who marched to protect black lives and rights.

Yep, Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The CRA was divided by region, not party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, Democrat controlled regions opposed the CRA, Republican regions embarrassed it.

Well that of course is again weird revisionist history, read with partisan blinders.

"Democrat controlled regions" included most of the United States- including the entire Northeast- which pushed through the Civil Rights Act.

It would be more accurate to say "Conservatives opposed the CRA- liberals promoted the CRA"

“The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time,” PolitiFact said in a 2010 analysis of the GOP role in civil rights.

Have a nice day!

Great article

And not wearing partisan blinders like you are

When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays).

The primary reason that Republican support was higher than Democratic support -- even though the legislation was pushed hard by a Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson -- is that the opposition to the bill primarily came from Southern lawmakers. In the mid 1960s, the South was overwhelmingly Democratic -- a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction, when the Republican Party was the leading force against slavery and its legacy. Because of this history, the Democratic Party in the 1960s was divided between Southern Democrats, most of whom opposed civil rights legislation, and Democrats from outside the South who more often than not supported it.

This pattern showed clearly in the House vote. Northern Democrats backed the Civil Rights Act by a margin even larger than that of Republicans -- 141 for, just four against -- while Southern Democrats were strongly opposed, by a margin of 11 yeas to 92 nays.

When the Voting Rights Act hit the floor in 1965, the vote results mirrored those of the Civil Rights Act. In the House, the measure passed by a 333-85 margin, with 78 percent of Democrats backing it (221 yeas and 61 nays) and 82 percent of Republicans backing it (112 yeas to 24 nays).

In the Senate, the measure passed by a 77-19 vote, with 73 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans supporting the bill.

So it's clear that Republican support for both bills was deep. But to make sure we weren't missing something, we contacted a number of scholars who have studied that period, asking whether Republicans were dragged into supporting the bills reluctantly, or whether they took frontline roles in advancing them.

Generally speaking, the scholars we talked to agreed that Republicans were important players, usually working cooperatively with Johnson and other leading Democrats.

Democrats deserve credit for being the driving force behind the legislation, our experts said, particularly Johnson, who had only been in office for three months yet who staked his own re-election prospects on a tough, divisive legislative battle. Other crucial Democratic players were Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana and Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, who had been championing the issue of civil rights for a decade and a half.

But Republicans took leading positions as well, including Rep. Charles (Mac) Mathias of Maryland and Sen. Jacob Javits of New York. And during the 1950s, a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, had supported a civil rights legislation, though he never signed anything as sweeping as either the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act.

In the strategic challenge of getting the Civil Rights Act passed, Democrats knew that they would need to reach out to Republicans in order to overcome their own party's splits on the issue -- especially in the Senate, where a determined minority of one-third of the chamber could block consideration of a bill. (Today that number is two-fifths.)

The key to Senate passage of the Civil Rights Act was winning the support of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., our experts said. By various accounts, Dirksen had some reservations with certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act, but Mansfield and Humphrey "worked very closely" with him, and "key parts of the bill were worked out in Dirksen’s office in the evenings," said U.S. Senate Historian Donald A. Ritchie. Other midwestern Republicans followed Dirksen's lead and supported the bill. Once the filibuster was broken, Time magazine put Dirksen on its cover.

"You can gauge Everett Dirksen and the Republicans in various ways, but you have to give them real credit," said University of Kansas political scientist Burdett Loomis, who called Dirksen "a tough, veteran politician, and a pragmatist of the first order."

To be sure, Republican support was not unanimous. Most notably, the party's 1964 presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights Act and stuck to that position during the campaign (which he lost to Johnson in a landslide). And Yale University political scientist David Mayhew notes that the large Republican vote totals for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were not replicated in other key civil rights battles, such as an earlier one relating to fair employment practices in 1949 and 1950 and a subsequent one on fair housing in 1966.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yep, Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The CRA was divided by region, not party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, Democrat controlled regions opposed the CRA, Republican regions embarrassed it.

Well that of course is again weird revisionist history, read with partisan blinders.

"Democrat controlled regions" included most of the United States- including the entire Northeast- which pushed through the Civil Rights Act.

It would be more accurate to say "Conservatives opposed the CRA- liberals promoted the CRA"

“The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time,” PolitiFact said in a 2010 analysis of the GOP role in civil rights.

Have a nice day!

Great article

And not wearing partisan blinders like you are

When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays).

The primary reason that Republican support was higher than Democratic support -- even though the legislation was pushed hard by a Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson -- is that the opposition to the bill primarily came from Southern lawmakers. In the mid 1960s, the South was overwhelmingly Democratic -- a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction, when the Republican Party was the leading force against slavery and its legacy. Because of this history, the Democratic Party in the 1960s was divided between Southern Democrats, most of whom opposed civil rights legislation, and Democrats from outside the South who more often than not supported it.

This pattern showed clearly in the House vote. Northern Democrats backed the Civil Rights Act by a margin even larger than that of Republicans -- 141 for, just four against -- while Southern Democrats were strongly opposed, by a margin of 11 yeas to 92 nays.

When the Voting Rights Act hit the floor in 1965, the vote results mirrored those of the Civil Rights Act. In the House, the measure passed by a 333-85 margin, with 78 percent of Democrats backing it (221 yeas and 61 nays) and 82 percent of Republicans backing it (112 yeas to 24 nays).

In the Senate, the measure passed by a 77-19 vote, with 73 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans supporting the bill.

So it's clear that Republican support for both bills was deep. But to make sure we weren't missing something, we contacted a number of scholars who have studied that period, asking whether Republicans were dragged into supporting the bills reluctantly, or whether they took frontline roles in advancing them.

Generally speaking, the scholars we talked to agreed that Republicans were important players, usually working cooperatively with Johnson and other leading Democrats.

Democrats deserve credit for being the driving force behind the legislation, our experts said, particularly Johnson, who had only been in office for three months yet who staked his own re-election prospects on a tough, divisive legislative battle. Other crucial Democratic players were Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana and Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, who had been championing the issue of civil rights for a decade and a half.

But Republicans took leading positions as well, including Rep. Charles (Mac) Mathias of Maryland and Sen. Jacob Javits of New York. And during the 1950s, a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, had supported a civil rights legislation, though he never signed anything as sweeping as either the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act.

In the strategic challenge of getting the Civil Rights Act passed, Democrats knew that they would need to reach out to Republicans in order to overcome their own party's splits on the issue -- especially in the Senate, where a determined minority of one-third of the chamber could block consideration of a bill. (Today that number is two-fifths.)

The key to Senate passage of the Civil Rights Act was winning the support of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., our experts said. By various accounts, Dirksen had some reservations with certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act, but Mansfield and Humphrey "worked very closely" with him, and "key parts of the bill were worked out in Dirksen’s office in the evenings," said U.S. Senate Historian Donald A. Ritchie. Other midwestern Republicans followed Dirksen's lead and supported the bill. Once the filibuster was broken, Time magazine put Dirksen on its cover.

"You can gauge Everett Dirksen and the Republicans in various ways, but you have to give them real credit," said University of Kansas political scientist Burdett Loomis, who called Dirksen "a tough, veteran politician, and a pragmatist of the first order."

To be sure, Republican support was not unanimous. Most notably, the party's 1964 presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights Act and stuck to that position during the campaign (which he lost to Johnson in a landslide). And Yale University political scientist David Mayhew notes that the large Republican vote totals for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were not replicated in other key civil rights battles, such as an earlier one relating to fair employment practices in 1949 and 1950 and a subsequent one on fair housing in 1966.

Al Gore Sr voted no, so what's your point? As your post shows, Republicans supported the bill, Democrats were the opposition.

 

[Syriusly]

The CRA was divided by region, not party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, Democrat controlled regions opposed the CRA, Republican regions embarrassed it.

Well that of course is again weird revisionist history, read with partisan blinders.

"Democrat controlled regions" included most of the United States- including the entire Northeast- which pushed through the Civil Rights Act.

It would be more accurate to say "Conservatives opposed the CRA- liberals promoted the CRA"

“The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time,” PolitiFact said in a 2010 analysis of the GOP role in civil rights.

Have a nice day!

Great article

And not wearing partisan blinders like you are

When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays).

The primary reason that Republican support was higher than Democratic support -- even though the legislation was pushed hard by a Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson -- is that the opposition to the bill primarily came from Southern lawmakers. In the mid 1960s, the South was overwhelmingly Democratic -- a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction, when the Republican Party was the leading force against slavery and its legacy. Because of this history, the Democratic Party in the 1960s was divided between Southern Democrats, most of whom opposed civil rights legislation, and Democrats from outside the South who more often than not supported it.

This pattern showed clearly in the House vote. Northern Democrats backed the Civil Rights Act by a margin even larger than that of Republicans -- 141 for, just four against -- while Southern Democrats were strongly opposed, by a margin of 11 yeas to 92 nays.

When the Voting Rights Act hit the floor in 1965, the vote results mirrored those of the Civil Rights Act. In the House, the measure passed by a 333-85 margin, with 78 percent of Democrats backing it (221 yeas and 61 nays) and 82 percent of Republicans backing it (112 yeas to 24 nays).

In the Senate, the measure passed by a 77-19 vote, with 73 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans supporting the bill.

So it's clear that Republican support for both bills was deep. But to make sure we weren't missing something, we contacted a number of scholars who have studied that period, asking whether Republicans were dragged into supporting the bills reluctantly, or whether they took frontline roles in advancing them.

Generally speaking, the scholars we talked to agreed that Republicans were important players, usually working cooperatively with Johnson and other leading Democrats.

Democrats deserve credit for being the driving force behind the legislation, our experts said, particularly Johnson, who had only been in office for three months yet who staked his own re-election prospects on a tough, divisive legislative battle. Other crucial Democratic players were Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana and Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, who had been championing the issue of civil rights for a decade and a half.

But Republicans took leading positions as well, including Rep. Charles (Mac) Mathias of Maryland and Sen. Jacob Javits of New York. And during the 1950s, a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, had supported a civil rights legislation, though he never signed anything as sweeping as either the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act.

In the strategic challenge of getting the Civil Rights Act passed, Democrats knew that they would need to reach out to Republicans in order to overcome their own party's splits on the issue -- especially in the Senate, where a determined minority of one-third of the chamber could block consideration of a bill. (Today that number is two-fifths.)

The key to Senate passage of the Civil Rights Act was winning the support of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., our experts said. By various accounts, Dirksen had some reservations with certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act, but Mansfield and Humphrey "worked very closely" with him, and "key parts of the bill were worked out in Dirksen’s office in the evenings," said U.S. Senate Historian Donald A. Ritchie. Other midwestern Republicans followed Dirksen's lead and supported the bill. Once the filibuster was broken, Time magazine put Dirksen on its cover.

"You can gauge Everett Dirksen and the Republicans in various ways, but you have to give them real credit," said University of Kansas political scientist Burdett Loomis, who called Dirksen "a tough, veteran politician, and a pragmatist of the first order."

To be sure, Republican support was not unanimous. Most notably, the party's 1964 presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights Act and stuck to that position during the campaign (which he lost to Johnson in a landslide). And Yale University political scientist David Mayhew notes that the large Republican vote totals for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were not replicated in other key civil rights battles, such as an earlier one relating to fair employment practices in 1949 and 1950 and a subsequent one on fair housing in 1966.

Al Gore Sr voted no, so what's your point? As your post shows, Republicans supported the bill, Democrats were the opposition.

As my post shows, Democrats supported the bill, Republicans were the opposition.

Including the 1964 GOP Presidential candidate.

I mean I am really enjoying playing this game of 1964 Civil Rights one upmanship with you.

The facts are pretty clear:
Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act with the support of Republicans.
Democrats could not have passed the CRA without the support of Republicans.
Southern lawmakers- both Democrat and Republican- opposed the passage of the CRA

What this has to do with Redfish's bizarre belief that God was more involved in the U.S. when we still had segregration- I don't know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks- absolutely correct- the majority of Democrats and the majority of Republicans voted for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, proposed by JFK, and signed into law by LBJ.

The significant vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the respected Republican Barry Goldwater- one of the few non-Southern Senators to vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The vote by Barry Goldwater came back to haunt the GOP during the Presidential election as MLK Jr. made a point of noting Goldwater's 'no' vote.

By party
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

And thank you for noting Judge Johnson- a fantastic judge who modern Conservatives would call an 'activist' judge. His rulings on actions, along with the actions of Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson who mobilized the National Guard, worked to protect Civil Rights Marchers- who marched to protect black lives and rights.

Yep, Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The CRA was divided by region, not party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, Democrat controlled regions opposed the CRA, Republican regions embarrassed it.

Well that of course is again weird revisionist history, read with partisan blinders.

"Democrat controlled regions" included most of the United States- including the entire Northeast- which pushed through the Civil Rights Act.

It would be more accurate to say "Conservatives opposed the CRA- liberals promoted the CRA"

“The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time,” PolitiFact said in a 2010 analysis of the GOP role in civil rights.

Have a nice day!

The GOP opposed the bill completely in the Southern membership of the House and the Senate. Not even the Dems could say that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The CRA was divided by region, not party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, Democrat controlled regions opposed the CRA, Republican regions embarrassed it.

Well that of course is again weird revisionist history, read with partisan blinders.

"Democrat controlled regions" included most of the United States- including the entire Northeast- which pushed through the Civil Rights Act.

It would be more accurate to say "Conservatives opposed the CRA- liberals promoted the CRA"

“The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time,” PolitiFact said in a 2010 analysis of the GOP role in civil rights.

Have a nice day!

Great article

And not wearing partisan blinders like you are

When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays).

The primary reason that Republican support was higher than Democratic support -- even though the legislation was pushed hard by a Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson -- is that the opposition to the bill primarily came from Southern lawmakers. In the mid 1960s, the South was overwhelmingly Democratic -- a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction, when the Republican Party was the leading force against slavery and its legacy. Because of this history, the Democratic Party in the 1960s was divided between Southern Democrats, most of whom opposed civil rights legislation, and Democrats from outside the South who more often than not supported it.

This pattern showed clearly in the House vote. Northern Democrats backed the Civil Rights Act by a margin even larger than that of Republicans -- 141 for, just four against -- while Southern Democrats were strongly opposed, by a margin of 11 yeas to 92 nays.

When the Voting Rights Act hit the floor in 1965, the vote results mirrored those of the Civil Rights Act. In the House, the measure passed by a 333-85 margin, with 78 percent of Democrats backing it (221 yeas and 61 nays) and 82 percent of Republicans backing it (112 yeas to 24 nays).

In the Senate, the measure passed by a 77-19 vote, with 73 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans supporting the bill.

So it's clear that Republican support for both bills was deep. But to make sure we weren't missing something, we contacted a number of scholars who have studied that period, asking whether Republicans were dragged into supporting the bills reluctantly, or whether they took frontline roles in advancing them.

Generally speaking, the scholars we talked to agreed that Republicans were important players, usually working cooperatively with Johnson and other leading Democrats.

Democrats deserve credit for being the driving force behind the legislation, our experts said, particularly Johnson, who had only been in office for three months yet who staked his own re-election prospects on a tough, divisive legislative battle. Other crucial Democratic players were Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana and Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, who had been championing the issue of civil rights for a decade and a half.

But Republicans took leading positions as well, including Rep. Charles (Mac) Mathias of Maryland and Sen. Jacob Javits of New York. And during the 1950s, a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, had supported a civil rights legislation, though he never signed anything as sweeping as either the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act.

In the strategic challenge of getting the Civil Rights Act passed, Democrats knew that they would need to reach out to Republicans in order to overcome their own party's splits on the issue -- especially in the Senate, where a determined minority of one-third of the chamber could block consideration of a bill. (Today that number is two-fifths.)

The key to Senate passage of the Civil Rights Act was winning the support of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., our experts said. By various accounts, Dirksen had some reservations with certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act, but Mansfield and Humphrey "worked very closely" with him, and "key parts of the bill were worked out in Dirksen’s office in the evenings," said U.S. Senate Historian Donald A. Ritchie. Other midwestern Republicans followed Dirksen's lead and supported the bill. Once the filibuster was broken, Time magazine put Dirksen on its cover.

"You can gauge Everett Dirksen and the Republicans in various ways, but you have to give them real credit," said University of Kansas political scientist Burdett Loomis, who called Dirksen "a tough, veteran politician, and a pragmatist of the first order."

To be sure, Republican support was not unanimous. Most notably, the party's 1964 presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights Act and stuck to that position during the campaign (which he lost to Johnson in a landslide). And Yale University political scientist David Mayhew notes that the large Republican vote totals for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were not replicated in other key civil rights battles, such as an earlier one relating to fair employment practices in 1949 and 1950 and a subsequent one on fair housing in 1966.

Al Gore Sr voted no, so what's your point? As your post shows, Republicans supported the bill, Democrats were the opposition.

The greater Dem numbers outweighed the Republican numbers for passage. The Republicans from the South opposed it to the last man and woman.

 

[Redfish]

[

You on the left are trying to get God taken off our money, out of our pledge, and out of our schools.

Why do you think God wants to be on our money?

Why do you think God needs to be in our pledge- when the writer of the pledge never intended for God to be in it?

Which God do you think should be in our public schools? Do you think the States should give Christians a monopoly on God and force all students to praise Jesus- even if they are Jewish or Muslim?

Why do you want a State religion exactly?

When did I ever say I wanted a state religion? please provide my quote saying that, or you could just stop lying.

My point with this thread is that the country was a better place when religion (all of them) had a place in our public dialog.

I also never said the God "wants to be on our money" putting "in God we trust" is a statement of national belief that we are here because of a loving caring God. The words and rituals you use, or don't, to worship don't matter, and there was never an intent to create a theocracy in the USA.

I am sorry that our history is something that you are unfamiliar with, I guess you can blame the teachers union.

Stop it.

Religious values are part of the public discussion, always have been and always will be.

But you cannot pray next to me in school or the court house if you interfere with what I am doing.

Religion today is being denigrated by the statists and far left ideologues. You cannot dominate a population if they place God above the state.

If you doubt that, look at north korea or China under Mao. Study some world history, you might learn something about what you are wishing for.

Who is denigrating religion? The far right- attacking the faith of Muslim Americans.

No one is attacking the religion of islam. The radical muslims that are trying to kill YOU and ME are not practicing Islam. They are no better than rabid dogs and should be put down like rabid dogs.

 

[Redfish]

Revisionist history at his finest!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Name one thing he said not true.
Christians brought an end to slavery. Check.
Democrats were for slavery. Check.
Africans built slave ports. Check.

Okay- I will also bring up true points:
Christians brought chattel slavery to the United States
Christians fought against the end of slavery in the United States
Democrats were against slavery
Americans built slave ports in the United States.

Link with names. Otherwise bullshit.

Weatherman revisionist history would always get an F in any honest conservative or liberal classrom. What weatherman calls for means nothing, kid, absolutely nothing.

The Africans did not carry the slaves to the America on their ships.

Some Christians opposed the end of slavery in America, notably leading to divisions in the Baptist and Methodist congregations.

The Democrats of the South overwhelmingly support slavery.

The Democrats of the North, when the Democrats of the South fired on Sumter, joined Lincoln and the Republican to war on the South's aggression.

Boston and Salem were early slave ports in America.

These are common knowledge facts, and any who disagree are mentally feeble or woefully ignorant or malignantly motivated, or a combination of any or all three.

Of course- there is a wierd dichotomy of the far right wing nuts.

They want to attack Democrats for slavery- and want to embrace the Confederacy as an example of 'states rights'.
They want to claim that modern Democrats are the same party that was pro-slavery in 1860- while they want to ignore that the Confederate states were set up by Democrats.

As they want to ignore the Northern Democrats who fought against Confederacy.

Just as they want to ignore the essential truth that Southern Democrats were always Conservative- and after the 1964 Civil Rights Act- the Conservatives of the South rather rapidly became Republicans.

None of this has to do with Redfish's bizarre interpretation of God in America.

Is it really a surprise to anyone that Redfish's ideal 'Christian America' ended in 1964?

To Redfish- the America that had slavery was better because America put God first.
To Redfish- the America that had segregation was better because America put God first.

And by 'God' Redfish means the God he identifies with.

It doesn't mean the god worshipped by Muslims or Hindus or anyone else.

First, you know nothing about me or what I believe.

To claim that I want a return to slavery is the most insane comment you have ever made.

To claim that I want only the Christian worship of God ignores my repeated comments on that subject.

Segregation in the USA was wrong, in the 60s and 70s it was going through a self correction---------then the government stepped in and forced little kids of all races to ride buses for miles and forced them to go to schools far from home.

my point with this thread, which you seem incapable of comprehending, is that a country that acknowledges and respects God (of all religions) is a better country. That's the only message.

You obviously think that a Godless society is a better society, I suggest that you relocate to North Korea where that belief is practiced.

 

[Redfish]

Yes, Democrat controlled regions opposed the CRA, Republican regions embarrassed it.

Well that of course is again weird revisionist history, read with partisan blinders.

"Democrat controlled regions" included most of the United States- including the entire Northeast- which pushed through the Civil Rights Act.

It would be more accurate to say "Conservatives opposed the CRA- liberals promoted the CRA"

“The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time,” PolitiFact said in a 2010 analysis of the GOP role in civil rights.

Have a nice day!

Great article

And not wearing partisan blinders like you are

When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays).

The primary reason that Republican support was higher than Democratic support -- even though the legislation was pushed hard by a Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson -- is that the opposition to the bill primarily came from Southern lawmakers. In the mid 1960s, the South was overwhelmingly Democratic -- a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction, when the Republican Party was the leading force against slavery and its legacy. Because of this history, the Democratic Party in the 1960s was divided between Southern Democrats, most of whom opposed civil rights legislation, and Democrats from outside the South who more often than not supported it.

This pattern showed clearly in the House vote. Northern Democrats backed the Civil Rights Act by a margin even larger than that of Republicans -- 141 for, just four against -- while Southern Democrats were strongly opposed, by a margin of 11 yeas to 92 nays.

When the Voting Rights Act hit the floor in 1965, the vote results mirrored those of the Civil Rights Act. In the House, the measure passed by a 333-85 margin, with 78 percent of Democrats backing it (221 yeas and 61 nays) and 82 percent of Republicans backing it (112 yeas to 24 nays).

In the Senate, the measure passed by a 77-19 vote, with 73 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans supporting the bill.

So it's clear that Republican support for both bills was deep. But to make sure we weren't missing something, we contacted a number of scholars who have studied that period, asking whether Republicans were dragged into supporting the bills reluctantly, or whether they took frontline roles in advancing them.

Generally speaking, the scholars we talked to agreed that Republicans were important players, usually working cooperatively with Johnson and other leading Democrats.

Democrats deserve credit for being the driving force behind the legislation, our experts said, particularly Johnson, who had only been in office for three months yet who staked his own re-election prospects on a tough, divisive legislative battle. Other crucial Democratic players were Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana and Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, who had been championing the issue of civil rights for a decade and a half.

But Republicans took leading positions as well, including Rep. Charles (Mac) Mathias of Maryland and Sen. Jacob Javits of New York. And during the 1950s, a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, had supported a civil rights legislation, though he never signed anything as sweeping as either the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act.

In the strategic challenge of getting the Civil Rights Act passed, Democrats knew that they would need to reach out to Republicans in order to overcome their own party's splits on the issue -- especially in the Senate, where a determined minority of one-third of the chamber could block consideration of a bill. (Today that number is two-fifths.)

The key to Senate passage of the Civil Rights Act was winning the support of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., our experts said. By various accounts, Dirksen had some reservations with certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act, but Mansfield and Humphrey "worked very closely" with him, and "key parts of the bill were worked out in Dirksen’s office in the evenings," said U.S. Senate Historian Donald A. Ritchie. Other midwestern Republicans followed Dirksen's lead and supported the bill. Once the filibuster was broken, Time magazine put Dirksen on its cover.

"You can gauge Everett Dirksen and the Republicans in various ways, but you have to give them real credit," said University of Kansas political scientist Burdett Loomis, who called Dirksen "a tough, veteran politician, and a pragmatist of the first order."

To be sure, Republican support was not unanimous. Most notably, the party's 1964 presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights Act and stuck to that position during the campaign (which he lost to Johnson in a landslide). And Yale University political scientist David Mayhew notes that the large Republican vote totals for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were not replicated in other key civil rights battles, such as an earlier one relating to fair employment practices in 1949 and 1950 and a subsequent one on fair housing in 1966.

Al Gore Sr voted no, so what's your point? As your post shows, Republicans supported the bill, Democrats were the opposition.

The greater Dem numbers outweighed the Republican numbers for passage. The Republicans from the South opposed it to the last man and woman.

Robert KKK Byrd was not a republican.

 

[Redfish]

When this country abandoned God, the decline began. Some of you may disagree, and that's just fine. But a nation that does not follow God's teachings is a nation that will crumble and die.

So when did we abandon God ? How about a timeframe on when this happened ?

Maybe abandon was a poor choice of words on my part. What I am getting at is the federal government's moves to restrict the practice of religion (except islam).. No prayers to start the school day, no prayer before a high school football game, no nativity scenes, no menoras.

It doesn't have to be just Christian prayers. A school could do a Christian prayer, then a jewish prayer the next day, then a muslim prayer, then a hindu prayer, then a Shinto prayer, then a wicken prayer, and that last day say nothing for the atheists.

One of the things Hitler and all maniacal dictators do is prohibit the practice of religion, then they take away guns, then they denigrate the rich--------------sound familiar?

I do not agree with that thought. It comes from interfaithism and Christians should have no part in the prayers of those who deny Jesus Christ is God. They should get up and walk out of the classroom. Immediately.

I guess we will just have to disagree on that. Freedom of religion in this country means freedom of all religions, including no religion (atheism).

As a Christian I would not leave the room if a Jewish prayer was being spoken, or a muslim prayer, or a hindu prayer, and I would expect the others to remain in the room on the days that Christian prayers were offered.

That's what is meant by religious tolerance. You actually sound like a muslim in Saudi Arabia where no other religion is allowed to be practiced.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Name one thing he said not true.
Christians brought an end to slavery. Check.
Democrats were for slavery. Check.
Africans built slave ports. Check.

Okay- I will also bring up true points:
Christians brought chattel slavery to the United States
Christians fought against the end of slavery in the United States
Democrats were against slavery
Americans built slave ports in the United States.

Link with names. Otherwise bullshit.

Weatherman revisionist history would always get an F in any honest conservative or liberal classrom. What weatherman calls for means nothing, kid, absolutely nothing.

The Africans did not carry the slaves to the America on their ships.

Some Christians opposed the end of slavery in America, notably leading to divisions in the Baptist and Methodist congregations.

The Democrats of the South overwhelmingly support slavery.

The Democrats of the North, when the Democrats of the South fired on Sumter, joined Lincoln and the Republican to war on the South's aggression.

Boston and Salem were early slave ports in America.

These are common knowledge facts, and any who disagree are mentally feeble or woefully ignorant or malignantly motivated, or a combination of any or all three.

Of course- there is a wierd dichotomy of the far right wing nuts.

They want to attack Democrats for slavery- and want to embrace the Confederacy as an example of 'states rights'.
They want to claim that modern Democrats are the same party that was pro-slavery in 1860- while they want to ignore that the Confederate states were set up by Democrats.

As they want to ignore the Northern Democrats who fought against Confederacy.

Just as they want to ignore the essential truth that Southern Democrats were always Conservative- and after the 1964 Civil Rights Act- the Conservatives of the South rather rapidly became Republicans.

None of this has to do with Redfish's bizarre interpretation of God in America.

Is it really a surprise to anyone that Redfish's ideal 'Christian America' ended in 1964?

To Redfish- the America that had slavery was better because America put God first.
To Redfish- the America that had segregation was better because America put God first.

And by 'God' Redfish means the God he identifies with.

It doesn't mean the god worshipped by Muslims or Hindus or anyone else.

First, you know nothing about me or what I believe.

To claim that I want a return to slavery is the most insane comment you have ever made.

To claim that I want only the Christian worship of God ignores my repeated comments on that subject.

Segregation in the USA was wrong, in the 60s and 70s it was going through a self correction---------then the government stepped in and forced little kids of all races to ride buses for miles and forced them to go to schools far from home.

my point with this thread, which you seem incapable of comprehending, is that a country that acknowledges and respects God (of all religions) is a better country. That's the only message.

You obviously think that a Godless society is a better society, I suggest that you relocate to North Korea where that belief is practiced.

What Redfish believes is clear to everyone.

Yes, Redfish, believes in a Christianity that enforces the separation of races.

Yes, Redfish, believes that community separation of races is fine.

Yes, Redfish, believes wrongly the federal government erred in endorsing the American dream by stepping in on the issue of segregation.

Yes, Redfish, although an atheist, believes forcing organized religion into the public square helps his far right conservatist agenda.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The greater Dem numbers outweighed the Republican numbers for passage. The Republicans from the South opposed it to the last man and woman.

Robert KKK Byrd was not a republican.

Goldwater and Thurmond were GOP, and Thurmond never, ever had the human decency to acknowledge publicly his black daughter.

 

[Vandalshandle]

 

[Syriusly]

​

Why do you think God wants to be on our money?

Why do you think God needs to be in our pledge- when the writer of the pledge never intended for God to be in it?

Which God do you think should be in our public schools? Do you think the States should give Christians a monopoly on God and force all students to praise Jesus- even if they are Jewish or Muslim?

Why do you want a State religion exactly?

When did I ever say I wanted a state religion? please provide my quote saying that, or you could just stop lying.

My point with this thread is that the country was a better place when religion (all of them) had a place in our public dialog.

I also never said the God "wants to be on our money" putting "in God we trust" is a statement of national belief that we are here because of a loving caring God. The words and rituals you use, or don't, to worship don't matter, and there was never an intent to create a theocracy in the USA.

I am sorry that our history is something that you are unfamiliar with, I guess you can blame the teachers union.

Stop it.

Religious values are part of the public discussion, always have been and always will be.

But you cannot pray next to me in school or the court house if you interfere with what I am doing.

Religion today is being denigrated by the statists and far left ideologues. You cannot dominate a population if they place God above the state.

If you doubt that, look at north korea or China under Mao. Study some world history, you might learn something about what you are wishing for.

Who is denigrating religion? The far right- attacking the faith of Muslim Americans.

No one is attacking the religion of islam. The radical muslims that are trying to kill YOU and ME are not practicing Islam. They are no better than rabid dogs and should be put down like rabid dogs.

"no one is attacking the religion of islam'?

While I agree that the enemy are the radical islamists who abuse their religion, not Muslims- the far right has indeed been attacking the religion of Islam. Donald Trump himself has proposed banning immigration of those who follow Islam. Many on the far right here at USMB attack Islam and claim that it isn't even a religion.

Pam Geller the right wing loon- has proposed demolishing mosques and banning Islam.

Franklin Graham- right wing evangelical has attacked Islam

Reverend Graham was asked about comments he made in 2001 about Islam, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He said he had not changed his opinion at all and, when looking today at the Islamic State, the Taliban, or Boko Haram he thinks, “This is Islam. It has not been hijacked by radicals. This is the faith, this is the religion. It is what it is. It speaks for itself.”

 

[Syriusly]

Well that of course is again weird revisionist history, read with partisan blinders.

"Democrat controlled regions" included most of the United States- including the entire Northeast- which pushed through the Civil Rights Act.

It would be more accurate to say "Conservatives opposed the CRA- liberals promoted the CRA"

“The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time,” PolitiFact said in a 2010 analysis of the GOP role in civil rights.

Have a nice day!

Great article

And not wearing partisan blinders like you are

When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays).

The primary reason that Republican support was higher than Democratic support -- even though the legislation was pushed hard by a Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson -- is that the opposition to the bill primarily came from Southern lawmakers. In the mid 1960s, the South was overwhelmingly Democratic -- a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction, when the Republican Party was the leading force against slavery and its legacy. Because of this history, the Democratic Party in the 1960s was divided between Southern Democrats, most of whom opposed civil rights legislation, and Democrats from outside the South who more often than not supported it.

This pattern showed clearly in the House vote. Northern Democrats backed the Civil Rights Act by a margin even larger than that of Republicans -- 141 for, just four against -- while Southern Democrats were strongly opposed, by a margin of 11 yeas to 92 nays.

When the Voting Rights Act hit the floor in 1965, the vote results mirrored those of the Civil Rights Act. In the House, the measure passed by a 333-85 margin, with 78 percent of Democrats backing it (221 yeas and 61 nays) and 82 percent of Republicans backing it (112 yeas to 24 nays).

In the Senate, the measure passed by a 77-19 vote, with 73 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans supporting the bill.

So it's clear that Republican support for both bills was deep. But to make sure we weren't missing something, we contacted a number of scholars who have studied that period, asking whether Republicans were dragged into supporting the bills reluctantly, or whether they took frontline roles in advancing them.

Generally speaking, the scholars we talked to agreed that Republicans were important players, usually working cooperatively with Johnson and other leading Democrats.

Democrats deserve credit for being the driving force behind the legislation, our experts said, particularly Johnson, who had only been in office for three months yet who staked his own re-election prospects on a tough, divisive legislative battle. Other crucial Democratic players were Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana and Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, who had been championing the issue of civil rights for a decade and a half.

But Republicans took leading positions as well, including Rep. Charles (Mac) Mathias of Maryland and Sen. Jacob Javits of New York. And during the 1950s, a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, had supported a civil rights legislation, though he never signed anything as sweeping as either the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act.

In the strategic challenge of getting the Civil Rights Act passed, Democrats knew that they would need to reach out to Republicans in order to overcome their own party's splits on the issue -- especially in the Senate, where a determined minority of one-third of the chamber could block consideration of a bill. (Today that number is two-fifths.)

The key to Senate passage of the Civil Rights Act was winning the support of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., our experts said. By various accounts, Dirksen had some reservations with certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act, but Mansfield and Humphrey "worked very closely" with him, and "key parts of the bill were worked out in Dirksen’s office in the evenings," said U.S. Senate Historian Donald A. Ritchie. Other midwestern Republicans followed Dirksen's lead and supported the bill. Once the filibuster was broken, Time magazine put Dirksen on its cover.

"You can gauge Everett Dirksen and the Republicans in various ways, but you have to give them real credit," said University of Kansas political scientist Burdett Loomis, who called Dirksen "a tough, veteran politician, and a pragmatist of the first order."

To be sure, Republican support was not unanimous. Most notably, the party's 1964 presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights Act and stuck to that position during the campaign (which he lost to Johnson in a landslide). And Yale University political scientist David Mayhew notes that the large Republican vote totals for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were not replicated in other key civil rights battles, such as an earlier one relating to fair employment practices in 1949 and 1950 and a subsequent one on fair housing in 1966.

Al Gore Sr voted no, so what's your point? As your post shows, Republicans supported the bill, Democrats were the opposition.

The greater Dem numbers outweighed the Republican numbers for passage. The Republicans from the South opposed it to the last man and woman.

Robert KKK Byrd was not a republican.

Barry Goldwater was a Republican- and the GOP Presidential nominee

As Martin Luther King Jr. noted:

 

[Syriusly]

Name one thing he said not true.
Christians brought an end to slavery. Check.
Democrats were for slavery. Check.
Africans built slave ports. Check.

Okay- I will also bring up true points:
Christians brought chattel slavery to the United States
Christians fought against the end of slavery in the United States
Democrats were against slavery
Americans built slave ports in the United States.

Link with names. Otherwise bullshit.

Weatherman revisionist history would always get an F in any honest conservative or liberal classrom. What weatherman calls for means nothing, kid, absolutely nothing.

The Africans did not carry the slaves to the America on their ships.

Some Christians opposed the end of slavery in America, notably leading to divisions in the Baptist and Methodist congregations.

The Democrats of the South overwhelmingly support slavery.

The Democrats of the North, when the Democrats of the South fired on Sumter, joined Lincoln and the Republican to war on the South's aggression.

Boston and Salem were early slave ports in America.

These are common knowledge facts, and any who disagree are mentally feeble or woefully ignorant or malignantly motivated, or a combination of any or all three.

Of course- there is a wierd dichotomy of the far right wing nuts.

They want to attack Democrats for slavery- and want to embrace the Confederacy as an example of 'states rights'.
They want to claim that modern Democrats are the same party that was pro-slavery in 1860- while they want to ignore that the Confederate states were set up by Democrats.

As they want to ignore the Northern Democrats who fought against Confederacy.

Just as they want to ignore the essential truth that Southern Democrats were always Conservative- and after the 1964 Civil Rights Act- the Conservatives of the South rather rapidly became Republicans.

None of this has to do with Redfish's bizarre interpretation of God in America.

Is it really a surprise to anyone that Redfish's ideal 'Christian America' ended in 1964?

To Redfish- the America that had slavery was better because America put God first.
To Redfish- the America that had segregation was better because America put God first.

And by 'God' Redfish means the God he identifies with.

It doesn't mean the god worshipped by Muslims or Hindus or anyone else.

First, you know nothing about me or what I believe.

To claim that I want a return to slavery is the most insane comment you have ever made.

To claim that I want only the Christian worship of God ignores my repeated comments on that subject.

Segregation in the USA was wrong, in the 60s and 70s it was going through a self correction---------then the government stepped in and forced little kids of all races to ride buses for miles and forced them to go to schools far from home.

my point with this thread, which you seem incapable of comprehending, is that a country that acknowledges and respects God (of all religions) is a better country. That's the only message..

Your point in this thread is that you think that you think this country stopped being 'godly' the same year that the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Your era of 'a better country' encompasses our era of slavery and segregation- why do you think that the United States was a better country when we had slavery - than we are now?

 

[Syriusly]

[
You obviously think that a Godless society is a better society, I suggest that you relocate to North Korea where that belief is practiced.

You obviously think that government has a mandate to force god onto society. I suggest you relocate to Iran where the belief is practiced.

I happen to think that every American has the right to worship- or not worship as they want to. And that the government doesn't need to- or should be- in the business of promoting religion- any religion- nor in the business of denigrating religion- any religion.

You want to go to church- go to church. You want to pray- pray. You want to force little kids to pray in public schools- that is un-American and more like North Korea and Iran than our ideals.

 

[Weatherman2020]

[
You obviously think that a Godless society is a better society, I suggest that you relocate to North Korea where that belief is practiced.

You obviously think that government has a mandate to force god onto society. I suggest you relocate to Iran where the belief is practiced.

I happen to think that every American has the right to worship- or not worship as they want to. And that the government doesn't need to- or should be- in the business of promoting religion- any religion- nor in the business of denigrating religion- any religion.

You want to go to church- go to church. You want to pray- pray. You want to force little kids to pray in public schools- that is un-American and more like North Korea and Iran than our ideals.

You obviously think that government has a mandate to be hostile to God. I suggest you relocate to North Korea where that belief is practiced.

 

[BreezeWood]

When this country abandoned God, the decline began. Some of you may disagree, and that's just fine. But a nation that does not follow God's teachings is a nation that will crumble and die.

.

When this country abandoned God, the decline began.

Escaping Religious Persecution - Growth of European Settlers

"In the 1500s England broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and formed its own church called the Church of England. However, the Separatists also known as the Pilgrims wanted nothing to do with that church. And as a result they were persecuted and harassed by followers of the new Church of England and accused of being traitors of the state. Many of these people feared for their lives, so under the leadership of William Bradford the Separatist decided to leave and go to a land where they could worship freely. In order to accomplish this new mission they sought the permission of the Virginia Company to establish their new home in this new land. Once they got permission the Pilgrims set sail in September 1620 on the Mayflower."


this country was established by the abandonment of a god religion to establish a new one ...

But a nation that does not follow God's teachings ...

actually, people are just abandoning the dictatorial republican "Party" as is this nations heritage, nothing wrong with that with a better understanding for the future ...

.

 

[Syriusly]

[
You obviously think that a Godless society is a better society, I suggest that you relocate to North Korea where that belief is practiced.

You obviously think that government has a mandate to force god onto society. I suggest you relocate to Iran where the belief is practiced.

I happen to think that every American has the right to worship- or not worship as they want to. And that the government doesn't need to- or should be- in the business of promoting religion- any religion- nor in the business of denigrating religion- any religion.

You want to go to church- go to church. You want to pray- pray. You want to force little kids to pray in public schools- that is un-American and more like North Korea and Iran than our ideals.

You obviously think that government has a mandate to be hostile to God. I suggest you relocate to North Korea where that belief is practiced.

You obviously think that government has a mandate to require Americans to worship Jesus. I suggest you relocate to Vatican City where that belief is practiced.