Zone1 Everybody Worships....The Choice is....

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
129,036
Reaction score
65,065
Points
2,615
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I was reading the Pagan Journal, the New York Times, this morning, and was pleasantly surprised to see this essay on religion

‘Believing’ and belonging"​



1. "... religion offers people three B’s: beliefs about the world, behaviors to follow and belonging in a community or culture. Readers seized on the last one. They said they wanted to belong — in rich, profound and sustained ways.

2. A major, global study recently released by Harvard and Baylor universities affirmed what so much other data has shown: People flourish — they live happier, healthier and better lives — if they have strong social connections. It also found that religions, for all their reputational baggage, can provide people with robust communities.

3. I heard from Orthodox, secular and Messianic Jews; Catholics, lapsed and practicing; Muslims; Southern Baptists; Unitarian Universalists; Quakers; and Zen Buddhists. I heard from devotees of Alcoholics Anonymous and a secular-humanist organization in Houston. “I also grew up deeply faithful, as the son of a Presbyterian Minister,” the Rev. Duncan Newcomer wrote. “I had a deep love, like you, of the whole thing.”

4. “The negative relationship between meaning and gross domestic product per capita is particularly striking,” they wrote. “We may need a reconsideration of spiritual pathways to well-being.”



5. That last one struck a chord in me....I have long felt that our society's stress on material wealth, on 'things' rather than spiritualism, and relationships, makes for less happiness, not more.
A particual meaning is how secularism, feminism, insists that women choose a career over a family, and many come to regret that choice.
Feminism, Inc. is simply another Democrat agency designed to “re-imagine” the relationship between an all-powerful state and family, children, marriage.


Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”

Simone de Beauvoir: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Betty Friedan: “[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.”
 
5. That last one struck a chord in me....I have long felt that our society's stress on material wealth, on 'things' rather than spiritualism, and relationships, makes for less happiness, not more.
It is also a threat to the government and our American way.

I really do believe, there is far more corruption in America and society, the more folks turn from the creator. But, the founders knew this.

1746381611950.webp

 
It is also a threat to the government and our American way.

I really do believe, there is far more corruption in America and society, the more folks turn from the creator. But, the founders knew this.

View attachment 1107570



We certainly appear to have lost our way from the inception of this great nation.


I see Trumpism as a chance to regain some of the original ideas.......did you see the Saint Isidore case before the Supreme Court?

Saint Isidore Catholic Charter School is asking to Supreme Court to right the decades long wrong that restricts religion in schools, and prevent tax dollars from funding both religious and atheistic (Marxist) versions that predominate today.




5. “WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments Wednesday over the nation’s first religious charter school that aims to open in Oklahoma, putting the constitutionality of a state-funded Catholic education to the test.

A state board in Oklahoma approved St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School to operate as a publicly funded charter school in 2023. The Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked the school from opening in a June ruling, finding the concept of a religious charter school a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against government-established religion.” U.S. Supreme Court hears Oklahoma Catholic charter school case • Oklahoma Voice



How do you suppose the Supreme Court will decide?
 
How do you suppose the Supreme Court will decide?
In truth? I don't think many on the SCOTUS really care that much about the Constitution.

Most of them interpret cases through the lens of the Constitution, but rule in favor of the global technocratic oligarchs.




. . . and those folks? They want people worshiping the government and off shoots of any variation of empiricism, materialism, hedonism and nihilism only, not the creator.

A creator implies a higher power from which rights are derived, not government or judges.
 
We certainly appear to have lost our way from the inception of this great nation.


I see Trumpism as a chance to regain some of the original ideas.......did you see the Saint Isidore case before the Supreme Court?

Saint Isidore Catholic Charter School is asking to Supreme Court to right the decades long wrong that restricts religion in schools, and prevent tax dollars from funding both religious and atheistic (Marxist) versions that predominate today.




5. “WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments Wednesday over the nation’s first religious charter school that aims to open in Oklahoma, putting the constitutionality of a state-funded Catholic education to the test.

A state board in Oklahoma approved St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School to operate as a publicly funded charter school in 2023. The Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked the school from opening in a June ruling, finding the concept of a religious charter school a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against government-established religion.” U.S. Supreme Court hears Oklahoma Catholic charter school case • Oklahoma Voice



How do you suppose the Supreme Court will decide?

Although I may be biased - Charter Schools are not mandated public schools - meaning Parents have the choice to send their children there - and if the "Catholic" Charter school accepts all students (regardless of religion - they will - all Catholic Schools in the US do) then it should be little different than a Charter School that is based on other educational principles. (Most of them are).
 
In truth? I don't think many on the SCOTUS really care that much about the Constitution.

Most of them interpret cases through the lens of the Constitution, but rule in favor of the global technocratic oligarchs.




. . . and those folks? They want people worshiping the government and off shoots of any variation of empiricism, materialism, hedonism and nihilism only, not the creator.

A creator implies a higher power from which rights are derived, not government or judges.

"Faith in schools

Author HeadshotBy Adam Liptak
I cover the Supreme Court.
In just the last month, the Supreme Court has heard three important religion cases, culminating in yesterday’s argument over a Catholic charter school in Oklahoma. Judging from the justices’ questioning, the side pressing religious-freedom claims seemed likely to prevail in all three.
That would extend a remarkable winning streak for religion at the Supreme Court.
Since 2012,
the pro-religion side has won all but one of 16 First Amendment cases about the government’s relationship with faith. (The exception: The court rejected a challenge to the first Trump administration’s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.)
The court has been especially active in cases involving religious education. It said if the government was helping private schools, it couldn’t exclude religious ones. It exempted religious schools from anti-discrimination laws. In one pending case, the justices seemed poised to let parents with religious objections withdraw their children during discussions of gay and transgender themes. Yesterday they seemed likely to let a Catholic organization start a charter school in Oklahoma — which would make it the first religious school to get state charter funds.
A 2021 study of religion rulings since Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court in 2005 found that the Roberts court ruled in favor of religious people and groups over 83 percent of the time, compared with about 50 percent of the time for other courts since 1953. “In most of these cases, the winning religion was a mainstream Christian organization, whereas in the past pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations,” the study’s authors — Lee Epstein, of Washington University in St. Louis, and Eric Posner, of the University of Chicago — wrote.

If the court rules in favor of religious claims in all three of the pending cases, that figure will rise to 88 percent."
The New York Times


Looks like we have the Devil on the run......
 
Although I may be biased - Charter Schools are not mandated public schools - meaning Parents have the choice to send their children there - and if the "Catholic" Charter school accepts all students (regardless of religion - they will - all Catholic Schools in the US do) then it should be little different than a Charter School that is based on other educational principles. (Most of them are).
There is no requirement to be Christian, nor any such citizenship requirents.

Did you know that most students in NYC Catholic schools are not Catholic?
AI Overview
Learn more

No, most students in Catholic schools in New York City are not Catholic because Catholic schools are open to students of all faiths. Catholic schools in New York City are welcoming to children of other faiths.
 
Despots don’t like a higher power. Look what happened to Jesus.
 
Interesting thread here, so at the risk of (yet another) christian nation debate (done to death) , i have to wonder if we as a people, as a race for that matter, are incapable of achieving a moral civilization ?

unfuzz me plz.....

~S~
 
A particual meaning is how secularism, feminism, insists that women choose a career over a family, and many come to regret that choice.
Feminism, Inc. is simply another Democrat agency designed to “re-imagine” the relationship between an all-powerful state and family, children, marriage.
I think you have this backwards. Feminism, at least in my opinion, means women can choose to have a career if they want. Something previously denied to them as they were restricted to certain, low-paid jobs that were deemed women's work. There was never a time that full-time motherhood was not an option.
 
Interesting thread here, so at the risk of (yet another) christian nation debate (done to death) , i have to wonder if we as a people, as a race for that matter, are incapable of achieving a moral civilization ?

unfuzz me plz.....

~S~
What is the meaning of "christian nation debate"?
 
I think you have this backwards. Feminism, at least in my opinion, means women can choose to have a career if they want. Something previously denied to them as they were restricted to certain, low-paid jobs that were deemed women's work. There was never a time that full-time motherhood was not an option.
I have never found you to be correct in any post, and you have maintained that sad record.

I provided quotes from icons of feminism, and you claimed that they are wrong.


Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”

Simone de Beauvoir: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Betty Friedan: “[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.”



Perhaps posting in my threads is not for you.
 
I was reading the Pagan Journal, the New York Times, this morning, and was pleasantly surprised to see this essay on religion

‘Believing’ and belonging"​



1. "... religion offers people three B’s: beliefs about the world, behaviors to follow and belonging in a community or culture. Readers seized on the last one. They said they wanted to belong — in rich, profound and sustained ways.

2. A major, global study recently released by Harvard and Baylor universities affirmed what so much other data has shown: People flourish — they live happier, healthier and better lives — if they have strong social connections. It also found that religions, for all their reputational baggage, can provide people with robust communities.

3. I heard from Orthodox, secular and Messianic Jews; Catholics, lapsed and practicing; Muslims; Southern Baptists; Unitarian Universalists; Quakers; and Zen Buddhists. I heard from devotees of Alcoholics Anonymous and a secular-humanist organization in Houston. “I also grew up deeply faithful, as the son of a Presbyterian Minister,” the Rev. Duncan Newcomer wrote. “I had a deep love, like you, of the whole thing.”

4. “The negative relationship between meaning and gross domestic product per capita is particularly striking,” they wrote. “We may need a reconsideration of spiritual pathways to well-being.”



5. That last one struck a chord in me....I have long felt that our society's stress on material wealth, on 'things' rather than spiritualism, and relationships, makes for less happiness, not more.
A particual meaning is how secularism, feminism, insists that women choose a career over a family, and many come to regret that choice.
Feminism, Inc. is simply another Democrat agency designed to “re-imagine” the relationship between an all-powerful state and family, children, marriage.


Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”

Simone de Beauvoir: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Betty Friedan: “[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.”
In the final analysis few of us will be thought of as to how much money we made, whatever grand house(s) we lived in or cars we drove or prestigious awards that we won or any other material things. We won't be thought of for a lot of things we said, believed, argued if those are even remembered.

FACT: We will be thought of for how we made people feel, our thoughtfulness, courteousness, caring, giving of ourselves, ability to love and be a positive influence.

In my opinion it is not always the case, but almost always the case that those who fit that FACT will be people reinforced by a higher power and who allow their hearts and minds be influenced by that.

And those presuming the moral authorization/righteousness to judge what is in the heart and mind of others, who presume to dictate to other people what they are required or expected to be are likely not going to be thought of in any positive way. And many, if not most, will not believe in any power higher than themselves.
 
In the final analysis few of us will be thought of as to how much money we made, whatever grand house(s) we lived in or cars we drove or prestigious awards that we won or any other material things. We won't be thought of for a lot of things we said, believed, argued if those are even remembered.

FACT: We will be thought of for how we made people feel, our thoughtfulness, courteousness, caring, giving of ourselves, ability to love and be a positive influence.

In my opinion it is not always the case, but almost always the case that those who fit that FACT will be people reinforced by a higher power and who allow their hearts and minds be influenced by that.

And those presuming the moral authorization/righteousness to judge what is in the heart and mind of others, who presume to dictate to other people what they are required or expected to be are likely not going to be thought of in any positive way. And many, if not most, will not believe in any power higher than themselves.
You've probably heard this one...."I've never seen a hearse pulling a u-Haul."
 
I provided quotes from icons of feminism, and you claimed that they are wrong.

Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”
Maybe you could provide real quotes as opposed to misquotes?
  • Actual quote: "If role reform sounds sexually unsettling, think how it will change the sexual hypocrisy we have now. [...] No more men who are encouraged to spend a lifetime living with inferiors; with housekeepers, or dependent creatures who are still children."

Perhaps posting in my threads is not for you.
You more than anyone, needs a fact-checker.
 
Maybe you could provide real quotes as opposed to misquotes?
  • Actual quote: "If role reform sounds sexually unsettling, think how it will change the sexual hypocrisy we have now. [...] No more men who are encouraged to spend a lifetime living with inferiors; with housekeepers, or dependent creatures who are still children."


You more than anyone, needs a fact-checker.
Which ever way it is phrased is equally clueless. How many women today plant their own vegetable gardens to the extent they are canning fruits and vegetables to last through the winter. How many make their own soap and candles, sew clothes for the entire family, bake bread, cook daily meals for their families. How many are braiding rugs, crocheting or quilting blankets for bedding? Before vacuum cleaners, rugs were taken up, and dust beaten out of them. Sweeping, washing dishes were a part of daily chores, not to mention all the ironing. And, of course, tending and teaching children. Women were also tending chickens, milking cows, selling milk for "egg money". One my female ancestors made her egg money by making and selling brooms in her spare time. Others did fine embroidery that were for sale.

It wasn't until after the second world war and the inventions of vacuums, dishwashers, washers, dryers, refrigerators, freezers, microwaves, canned goods, frozen foods that women--housewives--began to find themselves with time on their hands. It wasn't the government or "feminists" that ushered housewives into the workplace because they were dependents. Housewives--especially as children were of school age--looked around for what else the could do, what else needed to be done because they had time on their hands. Women, by nature are workers, and we are good workers at that.

This generation needs to be deeply ashamed of how they speak and see women of previous generations--and how they perceive men treating these wonderful partners in living the lives that were theirs. Those "Feminists" whining about women being mistreated--thinking that (most) women would even allow themselves to be mistreated--were imbeciles.
 
Maybe you could provide real quotes as opposed to misquotes?
  • Actual quote: "If role reform sounds sexually unsettling, think how it will change the sexual hypocrisy we have now. [...] No more men who are encouraged to spend a lifetime living with inferiors; with housekeepers, or dependent creatures who are still children."


You more than anyone, needs a fact-checker.
Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”



Time Magazine is Democrat propaganda.


Let me provide one simple bromide for you to memorize that will aid to your understanding:

.....a simple rule that will clarify the current milieu:

Any article, event, opinion, data or study that redounds in favor of the Left/Demorat Party, is to be considered a lie or hoax.

Begin with that rule and you will never go wrong.
 
Maybe you could provide real quotes as opposed to misquotes?
  • Actual quote: "If role reform sounds sexually unsettling, think how it will change the sexual hypocrisy we have now. [...] No more men who are encouraged to spend a lifetime living with inferiors; with housekeepers, or dependent creatures who are still children."


You more than anyone, needs a fact-checker.
Question:
Why would feminist icon Gloria Steinem call housewives "parasites"?

Know It All
12 years ago

“[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” ~ Gloria Steinem, “What It Would Be Like If Women Win,” Time, August 31, 1970.

Do feminists really have such a low regard for the invaluable contribution of previous generations of women?
 
Maybe you could provide real quotes as opposed to misquotes?
  • Actual quote: "If role reform sounds sexually unsettling, think how it will change the sexual hypocrisy we have now. [...] No more men who are encouraged to spend a lifetime living with inferiors; with housekeepers, or dependent creatures who are still children."


You more than anyone, needs a fact-checker.
Here, from your Time Mag:


"When society stops encouraging men to be exploiters and women to be parasites,..."
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom