Busting the Myth of Separation of Church and State

[pinqy]

Government closes down for Christmas.

Don't forget those blue laws in American history. What purpose did they serve? Why were they established?

Fortunately, in most places, they are going away.

If the first amendment had been interpreted correctly... how exactly did the founders justify, and get away with establishing blue laws?

Until the 14th amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the States, the States were not subject to the 1st amendment. South Carolina had an official church until the Civil War. So state blue laws were constitutional at the time. There were no Federal blue laws.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Government closes down for Christmas.

Don't forget those blue laws in American history. What purpose did they serve? Why were they established?

Fortunately, in most places, they are going away.

If the first amendment had been interpreted correctly... how exactly did the founders justify, and get away with establishing blue laws?

Until the 14th amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the States, the States were not subject to the 1st amendment. South Carolina had an official church until the Civil War. So state blue laws were constitutional at the time. There were no Federal blue laws.

Can you provide a link that illustrates the "official church" of Massachusetts, Connectucut, and later South Carolina?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Government closes down for Christmas.

Don't forget those blue laws in American history. What purpose did they serve? Why were they established?

Do you complain about having MLK day off? not everyone holds him on some pedestal to be worshiped.

Where have I provided a complaint in my response? Do you know the purpose of blue laws as it relates to religion?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Nowhere can this be found in the constitution. Nowhere. It does say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Period. Nothing more.

What's so hard to understand about that?

The article @ Myth Busted: ‘Separation of Church and State’ clearly relates how anti-religious organizations have conducted a campaign to frighten pastors from speaking on political ideals from their pulpits, often using outright lies as part of their threats.

It's about time pastors speak up.

Fine, nothing presents them from actively politicking, but let's be real about it and take away their tax exempt status.

Unions should have their tax exempt status taken away as well.

Why then only Unions? Why not all of the following?

Types of Tax-Exempt Organizations

You see, the Clergy have a special power over the masses, or do you disagree?

Liberals raise hell about politics and religion but never do were Unions are concerned. I think its more than a little hypocritical.

Explain how? Unions advocate for their employees, and religions advocate for their flock. Unions provide tangible benefits (income, retirement, health care, working conditions, job security) and the clergy provides ... words.

Organized religions are no different than Authoritarian forms of governance, they seek power and control over people. They use guilt and fear of punishment and a promise of a wonderful life after death - even as they allow a person at the end of their life to suffer in pain or be drugged, and for Big Pharma and the rest of the Medical Complex to bleed the wealth they may have accumulated in life by keeping them alive with artificial means.

I was in a Union. My rep came by to make sure everyone was voting for the right political candidates. I informed him I was a Republican and wouldn't be voting Democrat. After that I didn't get calls for jobs as much as the other members. After so long no job and not paying dues I was kicked out. I've been threatened by members for not agreeing to a strike.Unions are for Unions not the workers.

 

[pinqy]

Government closes down for Christmas.

Don't forget those blue laws in American history. What purpose did they serve? Why were they established?

Fortunately, in most places, they are going away.

If the first amendment had been interpreted correctly... how exactly did the founders justify, and get away with establishing blue laws?

Until the 14th amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the States, the States were not subject to the 1st amendment. South Carolina had an official church until the Civil War. So state blue laws were constitutional at the time. There were no Federal blue laws.

Can you provide a link that illustrates the "official church" of Massachusetts, Connectucut, and later South Carolina?

1778 South Carolina Constitution
"The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State."

I'm not sure whre I had read that South Carlolina still had an official church until the Civil War. In reality, the 1790 constitution ended it.

Massachusetts did not have a state religion, but did allow the local governments to establish religions.

1780 Massachusetts Constitution "[As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

Connecticut's first real Constitution was in 1818, but until that time, the Fundamental Orders were the ruling document and while no particular religion was explicitly mentioned other than "the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess," the state government was responsible for "the discipline of the Churches"

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Don't forget those blue laws in American history. What purpose did they serve? Why were they established?

Fortunately, in most places, they are going away.

If the first amendment had been interpreted correctly... how exactly did the founders justify, and get away with establishing blue laws?

Until the 14th amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the States, the States were not subject to the 1st amendment. South Carolina had an official church until the Civil War. So state blue laws were constitutional at the time. There were no Federal blue laws.

Can you provide a link that illustrates the "official church" of Massachusetts, Connectucut, and later South Carolina?

1778 South Carolina Constitution
"The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State."

I'm not sure whre I had read that South Carlolina still had an official church until the Civil War. In reality, the 1790 constitution ended it.

Massachusetts did not have a state religion, but did allow the local governments to establish religions.

1780 Massachusetts Constitution "[As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

Connecticut's first real Constitution was in 1818, but until that time, the Fundamental Orders were the ruling document and while no particular religion was explicitly mentioned other than "the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess," the state government was responsible for "the discipline of the Churches"

Here is what I found through the library of congress site.

In reference to the Colonies and the British
London: September, 1769.

There is a cartoon article predating the American Revolution that revealed a plot by the British to impose on the American colonies Angelican bishops. This action brought fears of bringing religious persecution in the Americas where it stood in conflict with the colonists own personal convictions. Such action would have created even further division between the colonies and Great Britain. Persecution based on a difference in denominational faiths, would not be unfamiliar as the colonies have flourished with various beliefs ... Puritans, Quakers, Presbyterians and Congregationalist, among others.

Jonathan Mayhew considered the Church of England to be dangerous and very diabolical in their methods according his view. In fact he believed the Church of England to be the enemy of the New England Way.

As the Revolution came to the colonies, there was a split among certain denominations. The Church of England were perceived to be loyalists to the crown, and Quakers were notably pacifists from among the colonies.

SOURCE: Religion and the American Revolution - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)


With regard to the Continential Confedetation Congress 1774 to 1789

First, there were an extraordinary number of deeply religious men within the legislative body. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although there was no official Article that authorized by the Confederation that allowed Congress to concern itself with religion, the lack of any objection auggests both the public and legislative believed in promoting a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity. Meaning they didn't believe in attacking someone simply for sharing a difference in opinion or belief, rather they encouraged the various views of different faiths to flourish uninhibited by government.

The early Congress would "appoint chaplains for itself and the armed forces, they sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian "morality" on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians." At least twice during the war Congress promoted a day of Thanksgiving as well as a national day dedicated to "fasting and prayer".

On October 1, 1777 after their first chaplain had defected to the British, Congress made the decision to appoint joint chaplains William White (1748-1836), Duché's successor at Christ Church, Philadelphia, and George Duffield (1732-1790), pastor of the Third Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia. By appointing chaplains of two different denominations they were seeking to prevent one single denomination from monopolizing government patronage, and expressing a revolutionary concept of religion that was viewed and treated equal from among all the people. On April 15, 1789, Congress had adopted a joint resolution requiring that the new practice be continued.

SOURCE: Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)


So our early Congress believed in freely promoting religion of all faiths from among the people, an action held without condition and uninhibited by the government.

 

[pinqy]

Fortunately, in most places, they are going away.

If the first amendment had been interpreted correctly... how exactly did the founders justify, and get away with establishing blue laws?

Until the 14th amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the States, the States were not subject to the 1st amendment. South Carolina had an official church until the Civil War. So state blue laws were constitutional at the time. There were no Federal blue laws.

Can you provide a link that illustrates the "official church" of Massachusetts, Connectucut, and later South Carolina?

1778 South Carolina Constitution
"The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State."

I'm not sure whre I had read that South Carlolina still had an official church until the Civil War. In reality, the 1790 constitution ended it.

Massachusetts did not have a state religion, but did allow the local governments to establish religions.

1780 Massachusetts Constitution "[As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

Connecticut's first real Constitution was in 1818, but until that time, the Fundamental Orders were the ruling document and while no particular religion was explicitly mentioned other than "the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess," the state government was responsible for "the discipline of the Churches"

Here is what I found through the library of congress site.

In reference to the Colonies and the British
London: September, 1769.

There is a cartoon article predating the American Revolution that revealed a plot by the British to impose on the American colonies Angelican bishops. This action brought fears of bringing religious persecution in the Americas where it stood in conflict with the colonists own personal convictions. Such action would have created even further division between the colonies and Great Britain. Persecution based on a difference in denominational faiths, would not be unfamiliar as the colonies have flourished with various beliefs ... Puritans, Quakers, Presbyterians and Congregationalist, among others.

Jonathan Mayhew considered the Church of England to be dangerous and very diabolical in their methods according his view. In fact he believed the Church of England to be the enemy of the New England Way.

As the Revolution came to the colonies, there was a split among certain denominations. The Church of England were perceived to be loyalists to the crown, and Quakers were notably pacifists from among the colonies.

SOURCE: Religion and the American Revolution - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)


With regard to the Continential Confedetation Congress 1774 to 1789

First, there were an extraordinary number of deeply religious men within the legislative body. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although there was no official Article that authorized by the Confederation that allowed Congress to concern itself with religion, the lack of any objection auggests both the public and legislative believed in promoting a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity. Meaning they didn't believe in attacking someone simply for sharing a difference in opinion or belief, rather they encouraged the various views of different faiths to flourish uninhibited by government.

The early Congress would "appoint chaplains for itself and the armed forces, they sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian "morality" on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians." At least twice during the war Congress promoted a day of Thanksgiving as well as a national day dedicated to "fasting and prayer".

On October 1, 1777 after their first chaplain had defected to the British, Congress made the decision to appoint joint chaplains William White (1748-1836), Duché's successor at Christ Church, Philadelphia, and George Duffield (1732-1790), pastor of the Third Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia. By appointing chaplains of two different denominations they were seeking to prevent one single denomination from monopolizing government patronage, and expressing a revolutionary concept of religion that was viewed and treated equal from among all the people. On April 15, 1789, Congress had adopted a joint resolution requiring that the new practice be continued.

SOURCE: Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)


So our early Congress believed in freely promoting religion of all faiths from among the people, an action held without condition and uninhibited by the government.

Ok, and? Who has argued otherwise?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fine, nothing presents them from actively politicking, but let's be real about it and take away their tax exempt status.

Unions should have their tax exempt status taken away as well.

Why then only Unions? Why not all of the following?

Types of Tax-Exempt Organizations

You see, the Clergy have a special power over the masses, or do you disagree?

Liberals raise hell about politics and religion but never do were Unions are concerned. I think its more than a little hypocritical.

Explain how? Unions advocate for their employees, and religions advocate for their flock. Unions provide tangible benefits (income, retirement, health care, working conditions, job security) and the clergy provides ... words.

Organized religions are no different than Authoritarian forms of governance, they seek power and control over people. They use guilt and fear of punishment and a promise of a wonderful life after death - even as they allow a person at the end of their life to suffer in pain or be drugged, and for Big Pharma and the rest of the Medical Complex to bleed the wealth they may have accumulated in life by keeping them alive with artificial means.

I was in a Union. My rep came by to make sure everyone was voting for the right political candidates. I informed him I was a Republican and wouldn't be voting Democrat. After that I didn't get calls for jobs as much as the other members. After so long no job and not paying dues I was kicked out. I've been threatened by members for not agreeing to a strike.Unions are for Unions not the workers.

Look up synonyms for the word union (small u)

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If the first amendment had been interpreted correctly... how exactly did the founders justify, and get away with establishing blue laws?

Until the 14th amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the States, the States were not subject to the 1st amendment. South Carolina had an official church until the Civil War. So state blue laws were constitutional at the time. There were no Federal blue laws.

Can you provide a link that illustrates the "official church" of Massachusetts, Connectucut, and later South Carolina?

1778 South Carolina Constitution
"The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State."

I'm not sure whre I had read that South Carlolina still had an official church until the Civil War. In reality, the 1790 constitution ended it.

Massachusetts did not have a state religion, but did allow the local governments to establish religions.

1780 Massachusetts Constitution "[As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

Connecticut's first real Constitution was in 1818, but until that time, the Fundamental Orders were the ruling document and while no particular religion was explicitly mentioned other than "the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess," the state government was responsible for "the discipline of the Churches"

Here is what I found through the library of congress site.

In reference to the Colonies and the British
London: September, 1769.

There is a cartoon article predating the American Revolution that revealed a plot by the British to impose on the American colonies Angelican bishops. This action brought fears of bringing religious persecution in the Americas where it stood in conflict with the colonists own personal convictions. Such action would have created even further division between the colonies and Great Britain. Persecution based on a difference in denominational faiths, would not be unfamiliar as the colonies have flourished with various beliefs ... Puritans, Quakers, Presbyterians and Congregationalist, among others.

Jonathan Mayhew considered the Church of England to be dangerous and very diabolical in their methods according his view. In fact he believed the Church of England to be the enemy of the New England Way.

As the Revolution came to the colonies, there was a split among certain denominations. The Church of England were perceived to be loyalists to the crown, and Quakers were notably pacifists from among the colonies.

SOURCE: Religion and the American Revolution - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)


With regard to the Continential Confedetation Congress 1774 to 1789

First, there were an extraordinary number of deeply religious men within the legislative body. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although there was no official Article that authorized by the Confederation that allowed Congress to concern itself with religion, the lack of any objection auggests both the public and legislative believed in promoting a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity. Meaning they didn't believe in attacking someone simply for sharing a difference in opinion or belief, rather they encouraged the various views of different faiths to flourish uninhibited by government.

The early Congress would "appoint chaplains for itself and the armed forces, they sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian "morality" on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians." At least twice during the war Congress promoted a day of Thanksgiving as well as a national day dedicated to "fasting and prayer".

On October 1, 1777 after their first chaplain had defected to the British, Congress made the decision to appoint joint chaplains William White (1748-1836), Duché's successor at Christ Church, Philadelphia, and George Duffield (1732-1790), pastor of the Third Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia. By appointing chaplains of two different denominations they were seeking to prevent one single denomination from monopolizing government patronage, and expressing a revolutionary concept of religion that was viewed and treated equal from among all the people. On April 15, 1789, Congress had adopted a joint resolution requiring that the new practice be continued.

SOURCE: Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)


So our early Congress believed in freely promoting religion of all faiths from among the people, an action held without condition and uninhibited by the government.

Ok, and? Who has argued otherwise?

The actions by the early Congress showed a desire to embrace religion, the inclusion of various faiths incorporated into public life. They never carried any stipulations when it came to how an individual chooses to express their faith, such as the need for a nativity to include other religious symbols not relative to the display in order to be deemed acceptable in public. The events under my previous response , told of a legislative body that sought to encourage the representation of various denominations to be expressed openly, as they did with the joint chaplains representing two different views of belief, in vast contrast to it's removal that we see through various lawsuits today. There was no fear of a freely expressed open demonstration of one's faith. Their only concern was the singling out of one particular religious denomination ( such as the Church of England ) that would force all other denominations to conform to ... "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ... forbidding any other religious congregation the ability to express an opposing interpretation of the same faith ... or disallowing another religion the same public freedom of expression..

 

[longknife]

...and must treat all religions equally.

not so in Thomas Jefferson's point of view.., e.g., “to the shores of Tripoli,”

I'm sorry, are you claiming that if the Barbary pirates had bee Christians, the U.S. would not have fought them? Attacking Libya was not about religion.

Actually the British Red Coats were believers of their faith, as was George Washington. The revolutionary war was not over religion.

What religion was in England? What religions were in America?

In case you don't understand, the English ruler was and is the head of the Church of England. Up to the late 19th Century, the ONLY religion allowed in Great Britain was the Church of England and anyone practicing any other were found guilty of heresy.

There were a number of religious groups in North America as many fled the religious tyranny of Europe.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

...and must treat all religions equally.

not so in Thomas Jefferson's point of view.., e.g., “to the shores of Tripoli,”

I'm sorry, are you claiming that if the Barbary pirates had bee Christians, the U.S. would not have fought them? Attacking Libya was not about religion.

Actually the British Red Coats were believers of their faith, as was George Washington. The revolutionary war was not over religion.

What religion was in England? What religions were in America?

In case you don't understand, the English ruler was and is the head of the Church of England. Up to the late 19th Century, the ONLY religion allowed in Great Britain was the Church of England and anyone practicing any other were found guilty of heresy.

There were a number of religious groups in North America as many fled the religious tyranny of Europe.

That was the point of my post, and where the freedom of religion under the first amendment sought to prevent in the new established colonial nation. The Continental Confederation Congress demonstrated a desire for various denominations to be represented in expressing their beliefs, by not singling out one particular Chaplin but incorporating two Chaplins of opposing views of their faith.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Unions should have their tax exempt status taken away as well.

Why then only Unions? Why not all of the following?

Types of Tax-Exempt Organizations

You see, the Clergy have a special power over the masses, or do you disagree?

Liberals raise hell about politics and religion but never do were Unions are concerned. I think its more than a little hypocritical.

Explain how? Unions advocate for their employees, and religions advocate for their flock. Unions provide tangible benefits (income, retirement, health care, working conditions, job security) and the clergy provides ... words.

Organized religions are no different than Authoritarian forms of governance, they seek power and control over people. They use guilt and fear of punishment and a promise of a wonderful life after death - even as they allow a person at the end of their life to suffer in pain or be drugged, and for Big Pharma and the rest of the Medical Complex to bleed the wealth they may have accumulated in life by keeping them alive with artificial means.

I was in a Union. My rep came by to make sure everyone was voting for the right political candidates. I informed him I was a Republican and wouldn't be voting Democrat. After that I didn't get calls for jobs as much as the other members. After so long no job and not paying dues I was kicked out. I've been threatened by members for not agreeing to a strike.Unions are for Unions not the workers.

Look up synonyms for the word union (small u)

Pointing out grammar mistakes so no answer.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why then only Unions? Why not all of the following?

Types of Tax-Exempt Organizations

You see, the Clergy have a special power over the masses, or do you disagree?

Liberals raise hell about politics and religion but never do were Unions are concerned. I think its more than a little hypocritical.

Explain how? Unions advocate for their employees, and religions advocate for their flock. Unions provide tangible benefits (income, retirement, health care, working conditions, job security) and the clergy provides ... words.

Organized religions are no different than Authoritarian forms of governance, they seek power and control over people. They use guilt and fear of punishment and a promise of a wonderful life after death - even as they allow a person at the end of their life to suffer in pain or be drugged, and for Big Pharma and the rest of the Medical Complex to bleed the wealth they may have accumulated in life by keeping them alive with artificial means.

I was in a Union. My rep came by to make sure everyone was voting for the right political candidates. I informed him I was a Republican and wouldn't be voting Democrat. After that I didn't get calls for jobs as much as the other members. After so long no job and not paying dues I was kicked out. I've been threatened by members for not agreeing to a strike.Unions are for Unions not the workers.

Look up synonyms for the word union (small u)

Pointing out grammar mistakes so no answer.

Ummm...you've missed the point by a light year.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Liberals raise hell about politics and religion but never do were Unions are concerned. I think its more than a little hypocritical.

Explain how? Unions advocate for their employees, and religions advocate for their flock. Unions provide tangible benefits (income, retirement, health care, working conditions, job security) and the clergy provides ... words.

Organized religions are no different than Authoritarian forms of governance, they seek power and control over people. They use guilt and fear of punishment and a promise of a wonderful life after death - even as they allow a person at the end of their life to suffer in pain or be drugged, and for Big Pharma and the rest of the Medical Complex to bleed the wealth they may have accumulated in life by keeping them alive with artificial means.

I was in a Union. My rep came by to make sure everyone was voting for the right political candidates. I informed him I was a Republican and wouldn't be voting Democrat. After that I didn't get calls for jobs as much as the other members. After so long no job and not paying dues I was kicked out. I've been threatened by members for not agreeing to a strike.Unions are for Unions not the workers.

Look up synonyms for the word union (small u)

Pointing out grammar mistakes so no answer.

Ummm...you've missed the point by a light year.

He's saying they are "sheep followers" who will vote for a D regardless how that candidate may or may not perform to their benefit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Explain how? Unions advocate for their employees, and religions advocate for their flock. Unions provide tangible benefits (income, retirement, health care, working conditions, job security) and the clergy provides ... words.

Organized religions are no different than Authoritarian forms of governance, they seek power and control over people. They use guilt and fear of punishment and a promise of a wonderful life after death - even as they allow a person at the end of their life to suffer in pain or be drugged, and for Big Pharma and the rest of the Medical Complex to bleed the wealth they may have accumulated in life by keeping them alive with artificial means.

I was in a Union. My rep came by to make sure everyone was voting for the right political candidates. I informed him I was a Republican and wouldn't be voting Democrat. After that I didn't get calls for jobs as much as the other members. After so long no job and not paying dues I was kicked out. I've been threatened by members for not agreeing to a strike.Unions are for Unions not the workers.

Look up synonyms for the word union (small u)

Pointing out grammar mistakes so no answer.

Ummm...you've missed the point by a light year.

He's saying they are "sheep followers" who will vote for a D regardless how that candidate may or may not perform to their benefit.

He's wrong. As a director I went head to head with union business managers representing staff belonging to several different unions and lawyers for one professional organization. My style was managing by walking around, talking with staff which included deputies, first and second level supervisors and managers, as well as correctional officers, custodians, cooks and their kitchen staff.

A diverse group of individuals representing every facet of political opinion, some with strong opinions on every issue, others whose sole concern was their pay - in fact the good, the bad and the ugly.

Suggesting they all vote the same way, the way they are told to vote by a union rep is absurd, and is stinking thinking associated with those who believe all liberals, progressives, Democrats and Libertarians, Conservatives, and Minorities all think the same. Human beings are a complicated species no matter how simple some may appear.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I was in a Union. My rep came by to make sure everyone was voting for the right political candidates. I informed him I was a Republican and wouldn't be voting Democrat. After that I didn't get calls for jobs as much as the other members. After so long no job and not paying dues I was kicked out. I've been threatened by members for not agreeing to a strike.Unions are for Unions not the workers.

Look up synonyms for the word union (small u)

Pointing out grammar mistakes so no answer.

Ummm...you've missed the point by a light year.

He's saying they are "sheep followers" who will vote for a D regardless how that candidate may or may not perform to their benefit.

He's wrong. As a director I went head to head with union business managers representing staff belonging to several different unions and lawyers for one professional organization. My style was managing by walking around, talking with staff which included deputies, first and second level supervisors and managers, as well as correctional officers, custodians, cooks and their kitchen staff.

A diverse group of individuals representing every facet of political opinion, some with strong opinions on every issue, others whose sole concern was their pay - in fact the good, the bad and the ugly.

Suggesting they all vote the same way, the way they are told to vote by a union rep is absurd, and is stinking thinking associated with those who believe all liberals, progressives, Democrats and Libertarians, Conservatives, and Minorities all think the same. Human beings are a complicated species no matter how simple some may appear.

It happened. I'm sure there are conservatives in certain Unions like the coal industry but the majority are Democrat.