Citing rise of ‘Christian nationalism,’ Secular Democrats unveil sweeping recommendations for Biden

[NotfooledbyW]

Christian-fragility disease infected Trump’s base - 26058344 reply to 26055448

The vast majority of the Founders were openly Christian and many were ministers,

How does the majority of founders being Christian make the Constitution a Christian document established to govern a Christian nation? It makes no sense. There is nothing about being a Christian in the US Constitution.

Anyway if that white protestant majority of founders proves it was the founders intent to create a white Protestant Christian nation then it’s obvious now that they have failed:

The latest data from the Pew Research Center puts white Christians at just above 40 percent of the population, with nonwhite Christians accounting for another 25 percent, people who practice a non-Christian faith representing a little less than 10 percent, and Americans who don’t identify with any religious tradition rising to 25 percent (up from 17 percent only a decade ago).​

Given younger generations’ religious preferences, the unmistakable trend line is that Christians—particularly white Christians—will continue to shrink as a share of society, while the share of Americans who don’t ascribe to any religious faith will grow. According to the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute’s latest findings, among adults younger than 30, fully 36 percent don’t ascribe to any religious faith, and another 6 percent belong to a non-Christian religion; white Christians account for less than three in 10 of this group, only slightly more than the share of nonwhite Christians (just over one in four).​

​

The Supreme Court Is Colliding With a Less-Religious America​

 

[WinterBorn]

If you are going to call this a "Christian Nation" you will either need to change the way this nation takes care of it's poor, or change the way you claim Jesus told Christians to live.

It is funny that we are a "christian nation" when you talk about gay marriage or abortion. But when we talk about taking care of the poor or the elderly, somehow we instantly become just good capitalists.

 

[badger2]

Good capitalists, and the intimate relationship capitalism has with the schizophrenic process. First non-indigenous communism was the Mayflower Charter. Then, the Massachusetts Bay Colony tried to establish xian nationalism. The problematic is that females who align with the xian mental geometry, according to Freud et al, must either live in ecstatic melancholy or think of themselves as male homosexuals. This is the crucial point at which god hates gays, and this particular religious protection racket, christianity, learned how to protect authoritarian males from their females going astray.

 

[Picaro]

Is the US Constitution a secular document or a white protestant Christian document - 26056499 reply to 26055448

Obviously a Christian Protestant document; the establishment clause was a result of anti-Anglican agitation from Quakers, Baptists, and Presbytarians in the colonies and aimed at preventing them from becoming a national sect with Federal powers.

Since Baptists and Anglicans were a Christian sect when the Constitution was being written we can see according to your account of history that the Constitution is a wholly and clearly a secular non Christian document. It prevents all religions including all the rival sects of Christianity from having federal powers and more importantly from having any real power over the conscience of every single individual American.

What is you conclusion that the Constitution is solely a White Protestant Christian document.

I’ve never heard of a law being passed and a poll taken of its authors to determine if the law is a Christian law or some other belief system.

Anyway, do you dispute anything I wrote in this post:

#11 reply to #3.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.

You don’t recognize the change.

Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.

What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.

So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.

In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.

There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.

So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.

“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”

in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.

That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.

The Constitution is a secular and pluralistic document.

Brilliant post; I totally forgot the Constitution was written By an assortment of Japanese Buddhists, Zulu animists, and Hindu cargo cultists.

And, I'm an atheist, which means unlike you and your fellow assorted pagan clubs of sexual deviants and commies and sociopaths, I don't have to give a shit about 'fitting in' with any peer group.


"And here is what bothers me so much about modern "scholarship." At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? So what if they are on or off the hook? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take prozac. It was said in Ecclesiastes and it still is true today, people suck. They did then, all of them. They do now, all of us. History is the history of self-interested, competing, aggressive, selfish, murderous humans. At what point did it become a morality play?" -Dave WIlliams, George Mason
Univ.

You just prefer to maek up your own facts, is all, which is why you can't rebut what I said re Christian influence on our Constitution and ignore the fact that many states kept their established religions in 1789.

 

[Picaro]

If you are going to call this a "Christian Nation" you will either need to change the way this nation takes care of it's poor, or change the way you claim Jesus told Christians to live.

It is funny that we are a "christian nation" when you talk about gay marriage or abortion. But when we talk about taking care of the poor or the elderly, somehow we instantly become just good capitalists.

Many churches do take care of poor people; how many do you take care of? I don't see any atheist shelters or soup kitchens, they seem to prefer whining over sexual deviants and promoting social darwinism or demanding the govt. spend millions of pandering to to sickos into extreme sexual mutilation, that sort of stuff. You also think beating slaves is okay, from a previous post where you think mentally ill people being beaten is okay as long as they 'consent' to it or something, so I can see why you would babble some bizarre nonsense like the above. What you meant to say is that the people most likely to donate to the poor are usually low income themselves and often can't cover the entire costs, while the middle class and rich people you admire like to donate to such PC 'programs' as ballets and faggot rights hoaxes or hate crime advocates like BLM and the Democratic Party, but only after they take care of their dope needs, pot, meth, etc., and other critical discretionary spending.

After all, it's better to make drug cartels and street gang vermin well off than icky stuff like donating to charities, since we're supposed to tax 'Everybody Else' for that and not inconvenience Burb Brats n stuff. Not a dime's worth of difference between bourgeois 'Progressives' and right wingers on the poverty issues really, just in rhetoric and levels of hypocrisy. Both also love open borders and flooding the country with cheap labor and a permanent huge underclass, too.

 

[WinterBorn]

If you are going to call this a "Christian Nation" you will either need to change the way this nation takes care of it's poor, or change the way you claim Jesus told Christians to live.

It is funny that we are a "christian nation" when you talk about gay marriage or abortion. But when we talk about taking care of the poor or the elderly, somehow we instantly become just good capitalists.

Many churches do take care of poor people; how many do you take care of? I don't see any atheist shelters or soup kitchens, they seem to prefer whining over sexual deviants and promoting social darwinism or demanding the govt. spend millions of pandering to to sickos into extreme sexual mutilation, that sort of stuff. You also think beating slaves is okay, from a previous post where you think mentally ill people being beaten is okay as long as they 'consent' to it or something, so I can see why you would babble some bizarre nonsense like the above. What you meant to say is that the people most likely to donate to the poor are usually low income themselves and often can't cover the entire costs, while the middle class and rich people you admire like to donate to such PC 'programs' as ballets and faggot rights hoaxes or hate crime advocates like BLM and the Democratic Party, but only after they take care of their dope needs, pot, meth, etc., and other critical discretionary spending.

After all, it's better to make drug cartels and street gang vermin well off than icky stuff like donating to charities, since we're supposed to tax 'Everybody Else' for that and not inconvenience Burb Brats n stuff. Not a dime's worth of difference between bourgeois 'Progressives' and right wingers on the poverty issues really, just in rhetoric and levels of hypocrisy. Both also love open borders and flooding the country with cheap labor and a permanent huge underclass, too.

I have donated quite a bit of meat to local food banks via a hunting association I belong to. I also donate to and volunteer at a local soup kitchen numerous times during the year.

But, if you are claiming this nation is a Christian nation, then the same call to care for the poor applies.

 

[badger2]

But churches have confiscated the ability to take care of poor people. Catholic mafia stands in line for government funding so that it does not have to ask for charity all that often. Further complicating the pathology is that housing has become unaffordable, creating, like a factory, the houseless and dispossessed scapegoats of the system. Home ownership is profoundly American, and there are some rent pimps into their fifth generation as landlords. The investigator must go back to the Neolithic to track shelter pathologies linked to theology (and[italics]) the economy.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

26060163

Brilliant post; I totally forgot the Constitution was written By an assortment of Japanese Buddhists, Zulu animists, and Hindu cargo cultists.

Your ignorance shows more and more with each post.

Aside from the fact that I need not concern myself with the religion or lack thereof of the persons tasked with writing the US CONSTITUTION you have not responded to my request.

Be they Zulu animist or Siberian farters or white Protestant Christians they did not write their personal religious preference into the document.

You have not explained how you and your fellow white Christian nationalists decided to define a document with absolutely no references to the organized religion that was based upon the teachings of a Savior and of virgin birth, who walked among mortals, was crucified dead and buried and then was resurrected and ascended unto heaven - all to save mankind from original sin as long as the sinner believes the story and send money to the organized religion that controlled the part of the world where he resides.

There is no reference to that organized religion in the Constitution so you must explain how and why you persist in falsely claiming the Constitution is a white Protestant Christian document.

Can you do that?

 

[Picaro]

But churches have confiscated the ability to take care of poor people. Catholic mafia stands in line for government funding so that it does not have to ask for charity all that often. Further complicating the pathology is that housing has become unaffordable, creating, like a factory, the houseless and dispossessed scapegoats of the system. Home ownership is profoundly American, and there are some rent pimps into their fifth generation as landlords. The investigator must go back to the Neolithic to track shelter pathologies linked to theology (and[italics]) the economy.

I don't have a problem with 'govt'. letting churches handle the collection and distrubution, it's the whiney cry baby 'Progressives' who snivel and wet themselves over their fake 'separation of church and state' lies just because they hate Da Evul Xians. Jefferson gave Federal funds to missionaries, and Bush II gave some religious orgs federal aid re Africa, and yet nobody died, no sniveling mentally ill faggots got burned at the stake, and no sociopaths had to quit sniveling about Joel Osteen's book sales they think he doesn't pay taxes on, being morons.

 

[Picaro]

If you are going to call this a "Christian Nation" you will either need to change the way this nation takes care of it's poor, or change the way you claim Jesus told Christians to live.

It is funny that we are a "christian nation" when you talk about gay marriage or abortion. But when we talk about taking care of the poor or the elderly, somehow we instantly become just good capitalists.

Many churches do take care of poor people; how many do you take care of? I don't see any atheist shelters or soup kitchens, they seem to prefer whining over sexual deviants and promoting social darwinism or demanding the govt. spend millions of pandering to to sickos into extreme sexual mutilation, that sort of stuff. You also think beating slaves is okay, from a previous post where you think mentally ill people being beaten is okay as long as they 'consent' to it or something, so I can see why you would babble some bizarre nonsense like the above. What you meant to say is that the people most likely to donate to the poor are usually low income themselves and often can't cover the entire costs, while the middle class and rich people you admire like to donate to such PC 'programs' as ballets and faggot rights hoaxes or hate crime advocates like BLM and the Democratic Party, but only after they take care of their dope needs, pot, meth, etc., and other critical discretionary spending.

After all, it's better to make drug cartels and street gang vermin well off than icky stuff like donating to charities, since we're supposed to tax 'Everybody Else' for that and not inconvenience Burb Brats n stuff. Not a dime's worth of difference between bourgeois 'Progressives' and right wingers on the poverty issues really, just in rhetoric and levels of hypocrisy. Both also love open borders and flooding the country with cheap labor and a permanent huge underclass, too.

I have donated quite a bit of meat to local food banks via a hunting association I belong to. I also donate to and volunteer at a local soup kitchen numerous times during the year.

But, if you are claiming this nation is a Christian nation, then the same call to care for the poor applies.

Yes, you want to fault churches for there being poverty n stuff, never mind they do more than 'Progressives' ever do, even being grossly outnumbere by their haters, but you hate policies that would make them a lot more effective, based on your own fake 'facts'.

 

[Picaro]

26060163

Brilliant post; I totally forgot the Constitution was written By an assortment of Japanese Buddhists, Zulu animists, and Hindu cargo cultists.

Your ignorance shows more and more with each post.

Aside from the fact that I need not concern myself with the religion or lack thereof of the persons tasked with writing the US CONSTITUTION you have not responded to my request.

Be they Zulu animist or Siberian farters or white Protestant Christians they did not write their personal religious preference into the document.

You have not explained how you and your fellow white Christian nationalists decided to define a document with absolutely no references to the organized religion that was based upon the teachings of a Savior and of virgin birth, who walked among mortals, was crucified dead and buried and then was resurrected and ascended unto heaven - all to save mankind from original sin as long as the sinner believes the story and send money to the organized religion that controlled the part of the world where he resides.

There is no reference to that organized religion in the Constitution so you must explain how and why you persist in falsely claiming the Constitution is a white Protestant Christian document.

Can you do that?

You've already outed yourself as the dumbass uneducated moron in this thread. "Poasting Last!!!' with idiotic troll poasts isn't helping you cover that up, moron. Your premise that just because they didn't insert completely unnecessary terms like 'White Protestant Christians' in every sentence is just silly idiocy only some clown car from DU would run around using as a 'talking point'. I guess those Zulus and Japs who you think wrote all our early documents are all outraged n stuff at the blatant discrimination, eh?

Take some more Prozac and have a good cry over some endangered hoot owls or something.

 

[WinterBorn]

If you are going to call this a "Christian Nation" you will either need to change the way this nation takes care of it's poor, or change the way you claim Jesus told Christians to live.

It is funny that we are a "christian nation" when you talk about gay marriage or abortion. But when we talk about taking care of the poor or the elderly, somehow we instantly become just good capitalists.

Many churches do take care of poor people; how many do you take care of? I don't see any atheist shelters or soup kitchens, they seem to prefer whining over sexual deviants and promoting social darwinism or demanding the govt. spend millions of pandering to to sickos into extreme sexual mutilation, that sort of stuff. You also think beating slaves is okay, from a previous post where you think mentally ill people being beaten is okay as long as they 'consent' to it or something, so I can see why you would babble some bizarre nonsense like the above. What you meant to say is that the people most likely to donate to the poor are usually low income themselves and often can't cover the entire costs, while the middle class and rich people you admire like to donate to such PC 'programs' as ballets and faggot rights hoaxes or hate crime advocates like BLM and the Democratic Party, but only after they take care of their dope needs, pot, meth, etc., and other critical discretionary spending.

After all, it's better to make drug cartels and street gang vermin well off than icky stuff like donating to charities, since we're supposed to tax 'Everybody Else' for that and not inconvenience Burb Brats n stuff. Not a dime's worth of difference between bourgeois 'Progressives' and right wingers on the poverty issues really, just in rhetoric and levels of hypocrisy. Both also love open borders and flooding the country with cheap labor and a permanent huge underclass, too.

I have donated quite a bit of meat to local food banks via a hunting association I belong to. I also donate to and volunteer at a local soup kitchen numerous times during the year.

But, if you are claiming this nation is a Christian nation, then the same call to care for the poor applies.

Yes, you want to fault churches for there being poverty n stuff, never mind they do more than 'Progressives' ever do, even being grossly outnumbere by their haters, but you hate policies that would make them a lot more effective, based on your own fake 'facts'.

I want to fault churches? Please show where I said ANYTHING resembling a call to fault churches. But I guess it is easier to argue if you get to invent what I say.

The same applies to your claim that I hate policies that would make them more effective.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Feed em to the lions!
Do we even have that many lions available?

Church and state are separated for good reasons.
Too much blurring of those lines in the last four decades.
No one is attacking your right to practice your religion.
We just don't want it shoved down our throats...that's all.

well people don't want homosexuality, transgender and so on forced down their throats either.

Providing equal rights and equal opportunities are directly confirmed for all in both the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution.

The right to vote needed to be affirmed in several Amendments to COTUS, and yet the new iteration of Republicans seek to deny these rights even as we sit here reading this page.

 

[Picaro]

If you are going to call this a "Christian Nation" you will either need to change the way this nation takes care of it's poor, or change the way you claim Jesus told Christians to live.

It is funny that we are a "christian nation" when you talk about gay marriage or abortion. But when we talk about taking care of the poor or the elderly, somehow we instantly become just good capitalists.

Many churches do take care of poor people; how many do you take care of? I don't see any atheist shelters or soup kitchens, they seem to prefer whining over sexual deviants and promoting social darwinism or demanding the govt. spend millions of pandering to to sickos into extreme sexual mutilation, that sort of stuff. You also think beating slaves is okay, from a previous post where you think mentally ill people being beaten is okay as long as they 'consent' to it or something, so I can see why you would babble some bizarre nonsense like the above. What you meant to say is that the people most likely to donate to the poor are usually low income themselves and often can't cover the entire costs, while the middle class and rich people you admire like to donate to such PC 'programs' as ballets and faggot rights hoaxes or hate crime advocates like BLM and the Democratic Party, but only after they take care of their dope needs, pot, meth, etc., and other critical discretionary spending.

After all, it's better to make drug cartels and street gang vermin well off than icky stuff like donating to charities, since we're supposed to tax 'Everybody Else' for that and not inconvenience Burb Brats n stuff. Not a dime's worth of difference between bourgeois 'Progressives' and right wingers on the poverty issues really, just in rhetoric and levels of hypocrisy. Both also love open borders and flooding the country with cheap labor and a permanent huge underclass, too.

I have donated quite a bit of meat to local food banks via a hunting association I belong to. I also donate to and volunteer at a local soup kitchen numerous times during the year.

But, if you are claiming this nation is a Christian nation, then the same call to care for the poor applies.

And, we're a nation founded on Christian values, whether you deviants like it or not, and the history proves it. Whether or not a majority actually practice it os not the same issue. But it's nice to know you endorse beating and sexually abusing slaves, as long as the 'slaves' claim they consented to that sicko stuff.

 

[Picaro]

If you are going to call this a "Christian Nation" you will either need to change the way this nation takes care of it's poor, or change the way you claim Jesus told Christians to live.

It is funny that we are a "christian nation" when you talk about gay marriage or abortion. But when we talk about taking care of the poor or the elderly, somehow we instantly become just good capitalists.

Many churches do take care of poor people; how many do you take care of? I don't see any atheist shelters or soup kitchens, they seem to prefer whining over sexual deviants and promoting social darwinism or demanding the govt. spend millions of pandering to to sickos into extreme sexual mutilation, that sort of stuff. You also think beating slaves is okay, from a previous post where you think mentally ill people being beaten is okay as long as they 'consent' to it or something, so I can see why you would babble some bizarre nonsense like the above. What you meant to say is that the people most likely to donate to the poor are usually low income themselves and often can't cover the entire costs, while the middle class and rich people you admire like to donate to such PC 'programs' as ballets and faggot rights hoaxes or hate crime advocates like BLM and the Democratic Party, but only after they take care of their dope needs, pot, meth, etc., and other critical discretionary spending.

After all, it's better to make drug cartels and street gang vermin well off than icky stuff like donating to charities, since we're supposed to tax 'Everybody Else' for that and not inconvenience Burb Brats n stuff. Not a dime's worth of difference between bourgeois 'Progressives' and right wingers on the poverty issues really, just in rhetoric and levels of hypocrisy. Both also love open borders and flooding the country with cheap labor and a permanent huge underclass, too.

I have donated quite a bit of meat to local food banks via a hunting association I belong to. I also donate to and volunteer at a local soup kitchen numerous times during the year.

But, if you are claiming this nation is a Christian nation, then the same call to care for the poor applies.

Yes, you want to fault churches for there being poverty n stuff, never mind they do more than 'Progressives' ever do, even being grossly outnumbere by their haters, but you hate policies that would make them a lot more effective, based on your own fake 'facts'.

I want to fault churches? Please show where I said ANYTHING resembling a call to fault churches. But I guess it is easier to argue if you get to invent what I say.

The same applies to your claim that I hate policies that would make them more effective.

Trying to deflect again, I see. That's because you can't refute facts about our Founders and our history. But I'm sure all that deer and moose meat going bad really but a dent in hunger in America and surpassed anything Da Evul Xians have ever done, right? .... lol

 

[WinterBorn]

If you are going to call this a "Christian Nation" you will either need to change the way this nation takes care of it's poor, or change the way you claim Jesus told Christians to live.

It is funny that we are a "christian nation" when you talk about gay marriage or abortion. But when we talk about taking care of the poor or the elderly, somehow we instantly become just good capitalists.

Many churches do take care of poor people; how many do you take care of? I don't see any atheist shelters or soup kitchens, they seem to prefer whining over sexual deviants and promoting social darwinism or demanding the govt. spend millions of pandering to to sickos into extreme sexual mutilation, that sort of stuff. You also think beating slaves is okay, from a previous post where you think mentally ill people being beaten is okay as long as they 'consent' to it or something, so I can see why you would babble some bizarre nonsense like the above. What you meant to say is that the people most likely to donate to the poor are usually low income themselves and often can't cover the entire costs, while the middle class and rich people you admire like to donate to such PC 'programs' as ballets and faggot rights hoaxes or hate crime advocates like BLM and the Democratic Party, but only after they take care of their dope needs, pot, meth, etc., and other critical discretionary spending.

After all, it's better to make drug cartels and street gang vermin well off than icky stuff like donating to charities, since we're supposed to tax 'Everybody Else' for that and not inconvenience Burb Brats n stuff. Not a dime's worth of difference between bourgeois 'Progressives' and right wingers on the poverty issues really, just in rhetoric and levels of hypocrisy. Both also love open borders and flooding the country with cheap labor and a permanent huge underclass, too.

I have donated quite a bit of meat to local food banks via a hunting association I belong to. I also donate to and volunteer at a local soup kitchen numerous times during the year.

But, if you are claiming this nation is a Christian nation, then the same call to care for the poor applies.

And, we're a nation founded on Christian values, whether you deviants like it or not, and the history proves it. Whether or not a majority actually practice it os not the same issue. But it's nice to know you endorse beating and sexually abusing slaves, as long as the 'slaves' claim they consented to that sicko stuff.

Jeez, you are really going overboard with these claims of what I said. Of course, it doesn't help your argument that I did not say them.

I have never, not once, endorsed beating and sexually abusing people without their consent. So that claim is an outright lie.

But I do see that you obviously want to decide for other people whether they are allowed to consent or not.

 

[Picaro]

Feed em to the lions!
Do we even have that many lions available?

Church and state are separated for good reasons.
Too much blurring of those lines in the last four decades.
No one is attacking your right to practice your religion.
We just don't want it shoved down our throats...that's all.

well people don't want homosexuality, transgender and so on forced down their throats either.

Providing equal rights and equal opportunities are directly confirmed for all in both the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution.

The right to vote needed to be affirmed in several Amendments to COTUS, and yet the new iteration of Republicans seek to deny these rights even as we sit here reading this page.

lol really? What about Nazis and their rights to murder Jews? Are they in need of 'equal rights'? Waht about rapists? Don't their needs matter too? Don't they need to be tolerated and allowed equal rights to do whatever they want? lol go smoke some more meth and watch some BLM videos.

 

[WinterBorn]

If you are going to call this a "Christian Nation" you will either need to change the way this nation takes care of it's poor, or change the way you claim Jesus told Christians to live.

It is funny that we are a "christian nation" when you talk about gay marriage or abortion. But when we talk about taking care of the poor or the elderly, somehow we instantly become just good capitalists.

Many churches do take care of poor people; how many do you take care of? I don't see any atheist shelters or soup kitchens, they seem to prefer whining over sexual deviants and promoting social darwinism or demanding the govt. spend millions of pandering to to sickos into extreme sexual mutilation, that sort of stuff. You also think beating slaves is okay, from a previous post where you think mentally ill people being beaten is okay as long as they 'consent' to it or something, so I can see why you would babble some bizarre nonsense like the above. What you meant to say is that the people most likely to donate to the poor are usually low income themselves and often can't cover the entire costs, while the middle class and rich people you admire like to donate to such PC 'programs' as ballets and faggot rights hoaxes or hate crime advocates like BLM and the Democratic Party, but only after they take care of their dope needs, pot, meth, etc., and other critical discretionary spending.

After all, it's better to make drug cartels and street gang vermin well off than icky stuff like donating to charities, since we're supposed to tax 'Everybody Else' for that and not inconvenience Burb Brats n stuff. Not a dime's worth of difference between bourgeois 'Progressives' and right wingers on the poverty issues really, just in rhetoric and levels of hypocrisy. Both also love open borders and flooding the country with cheap labor and a permanent huge underclass, too.

I have donated quite a bit of meat to local food banks via a hunting association I belong to. I also donate to and volunteer at a local soup kitchen numerous times during the year.

But, if you are claiming this nation is a Christian nation, then the same call to care for the poor applies.

Yes, you want to fault churches for there being poverty n stuff, never mind they do more than 'Progressives' ever do, even being grossly outnumbere by their haters, but you hate policies that would make them a lot more effective, based on your own fake 'facts'.

I want to fault churches? Please show where I said ANYTHING resembling a call to fault churches. But I guess it is easier to argue if you get to invent what I say.

The same applies to your claim that I hate policies that would make them more effective.

Trying to deflect again, I see. That's because you can't refute facts about our Founders and our history. But I'm sure all that deer and moose meat going bad really but a dent in hunger in America and surpassed anything Da Evul Xians have ever done, right? .... lol

Deflect? If you think my calling you out when you lie about what I have said is trying to deflect, then you haven't a clue.

And no, the meat I donate has not gone bad. In fact, it is inspected when I donate it. I never said I did more than anyone else. Without knowing me, you accused me of doing nothing. I corrected you.

 

[Picaro]

If you are going to call this a "Christian Nation" you will either need to change the way this nation takes care of it's poor, or change the way you claim Jesus told Christians to live.

It is funny that we are a "christian nation" when you talk about gay marriage or abortion. But when we talk about taking care of the poor or the elderly, somehow we instantly become just good capitalists.

Many churches do take care of poor people; how many do you take care of? I don't see any atheist shelters or soup kitchens, they seem to prefer whining over sexual deviants and promoting social darwinism or demanding the govt. spend millions of pandering to to sickos into extreme sexual mutilation, that sort of stuff. You also think beating slaves is okay, from a previous post where you think mentally ill people being beaten is okay as long as they 'consent' to it or something, so I can see why you would babble some bizarre nonsense like the above. What you meant to say is that the people most likely to donate to the poor are usually low income themselves and often can't cover the entire costs, while the middle class and rich people you admire like to donate to such PC 'programs' as ballets and faggot rights hoaxes or hate crime advocates like BLM and the Democratic Party, but only after they take care of their dope needs, pot, meth, etc., and other critical discretionary spending.

After all, it's better to make drug cartels and street gang vermin well off than icky stuff like donating to charities, since we're supposed to tax 'Everybody Else' for that and not inconvenience Burb Brats n stuff. Not a dime's worth of difference between bourgeois 'Progressives' and right wingers on the poverty issues really, just in rhetoric and levels of hypocrisy. Both also love open borders and flooding the country with cheap labor and a permanent huge underclass, too.

I have donated quite a bit of meat to local food banks via a hunting association I belong to. I also donate to and volunteer at a local soup kitchen numerous times during the year.

But, if you are claiming this nation is a Christian nation, then the same call to care for the poor applies.

And, we're a nation founded on Christian values, whether you deviants like it or not, and the history proves it. Whether or not a majority actually practice it os not the same issue. But it's nice to know you endorse beating and sexually abusing slaves, as long as the 'slaves' claim they consented to that sicko stuff.

Jeez, you are really going overboard with these claims of what I said. Of course, it doesn't help your argument that I did not say them.

I have never, not once, endorsed beating and sexually abusing people without their consent. So that claim is an outright lie.

But I do see that you obviously want to decide for other people whether they are allowed to consent or not.

lol so you went back and deleted your stupid post? Not surprised.

 

[WinterBorn]

If you are going to call this a "Christian Nation" you will either need to change the way this nation takes care of it's poor, or change the way you claim Jesus told Christians to live.

It is funny that we are a "christian nation" when you talk about gay marriage or abortion. But when we talk about taking care of the poor or the elderly, somehow we instantly become just good capitalists.

Many churches do take care of poor people; how many do you take care of? I don't see any atheist shelters or soup kitchens, they seem to prefer whining over sexual deviants and promoting social darwinism or demanding the govt. spend millions of pandering to to sickos into extreme sexual mutilation, that sort of stuff. You also think beating slaves is okay, from a previous post where you think mentally ill people being beaten is okay as long as they 'consent' to it or something, so I can see why you would babble some bizarre nonsense like the above. What you meant to say is that the people most likely to donate to the poor are usually low income themselves and often can't cover the entire costs, while the middle class and rich people you admire like to donate to such PC 'programs' as ballets and faggot rights hoaxes or hate crime advocates like BLM and the Democratic Party, but only after they take care of their dope needs, pot, meth, etc., and other critical discretionary spending.

After all, it's better to make drug cartels and street gang vermin well off than icky stuff like donating to charities, since we're supposed to tax 'Everybody Else' for that and not inconvenience Burb Brats n stuff. Not a dime's worth of difference between bourgeois 'Progressives' and right wingers on the poverty issues really, just in rhetoric and levels of hypocrisy. Both also love open borders and flooding the country with cheap labor and a permanent huge underclass, too.

I have donated quite a bit of meat to local food banks via a hunting association I belong to. I also donate to and volunteer at a local soup kitchen numerous times during the year.

But, if you are claiming this nation is a Christian nation, then the same call to care for the poor applies.

And, we're a nation founded on Christian values, whether you deviants like it or not, and the history proves it. Whether or not a majority actually practice it os not the same issue. But it's nice to know you endorse beating and sexually abusing slaves, as long as the 'slaves' claim they consented to that sicko stuff.

Jeez, you are really going overboard with these claims of what I said. Of course, it doesn't help your argument that I did not say them.

I have never, not once, endorsed beating and sexually abusing people without their consent. So that claim is an outright lie.

But I do see that you obviously want to decide for other people whether they are allowed to consent or not.

lol so you went back and deleted your stupid post? Not surprised.

More lies. I have not deleted a single post of mine. If you can't debate based on what I actually say, you might want to just quit. This crap only makes you look foolish.