The religious right and social conservatism are going to destroy the Republicans.

[Ringtone]

Your combativeness seems like compensation.

Your obtuseness is the stuff of hypocrisy and rank stupidity. I'm the classical liberal here. You're the statist bootlick. Go peddle your sissified psychoanalysis somewhere else.

 

[Anomalism]

Ahhhhhh, shut up, you hateful, bigoted, race-baiting whore of a fascist punk.

I think you're projecting.

 

[Ringtone]

I do share a negative view of social conservatism, though. And cultural christians are generally very poor representatives of their cause.

How so, precisely?

 

[Anomalism]

As a conservative, the majority of my time here has been spent debating conservatives.

I'm like the opposite of that. I consider myself left wing but spend much of my time debating left wing lunatics.

 

[Ringtone]

Ahhhhhh, shut up, you hateful, bigoted, race-baiting whore of a fascist punk.

I think you're projecting.

Oh, no, leftists are the masters at projecting. It's their favorite ploy.

 

[Ringtone]

I am a nontheist. I do not believe it matters how we got here or what will happen after we die. All that matters is that we are here in this impermanent moment and that our action from each moment to the next is all that matters. When that action is born of respect, compassion and thankfulness to be of service to others then we have contributed to the greater good

No thanks, god. I think I'll get the fundamentals of theology from the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science, not from your box of Cracker Jacks.

 

[Correll]

It is you liberals that are tying to make your views, the only alternatives.

ANY other views, are labeled as ist or phobic and dog piled.

There is no room left for people that think gays shouldn't marry and the scientists are lying to us about evolution and other topics.

You just demonstrated my point.


You are the people that are trying to make your views that only allowable views.

Playtime posted a complaint about religious people, and you just demonstrated the action that she was complaining about.


Does that matter to you? Or are you actively aware that your stated concerns are not your real issues?

Your "views" aren't the issue. It's the legislative action and court stacking (decisions) that come from your "views" that are the issue. You can't just live and let live. Understand that every society, every economy, every country evolves. It's OK to express a view against gay marriage. But when those views as a group translate into action against gay marriage in the form of pressuring courts and legislatures to restrict or make it illegal based on your religious views, that's an issue.

The op disagrees with you. He has stated that our views are the issue.

Mmm, and it seems you agree. YOu are kind enough to let us talk, for now, and that's something.


But, it seems that you don't think that people that disagree with you, should be allowed to engage in the political process.


That is discrimination and oppression based on religious beliefs.


And, that is certainly unconstitutional.

Wrong again.

When the religious right seeks to enact a law or measure repugnant to the Constitution, such as violating the privacy rights of women, or the due process rights of gay and transgender Americans, or compel religious instruction in public schools, it's perfectly appropriate and warranted for the people to oppose those unconstitutional laws and measures.

BUT, this thread, has not limited the attacks on the religious right to when they pursue policies or laws that supposedly violate the constitutional rights of others.


Instead the op's attacks on the RR, were far more general, making fun of them for their religious beliefs and attacking the very idea of them engaging in political process in general.


Furthermore, the way that you "beg the question" by pretending that all of YOUR goals, are, by definition, constitutional rights, is just you further demonstration your dishonesty and close mindedness.

 

[Ringtone]

Liar.

You're another one of those people that likes to tell people what they think.

Not me. People unwittingly reveal what they think all the time, or, more accurately, they unwittingly reveal why they believe the things they do. Leftists in general and atheists in particular routinely don't really know why they believe what they claim to be true.

 

[Correll]

dude couldn't be any more psychic if he tried:

It is you liberals that are tying to make your views, the only alternatives.

ANY other views, are labeled as ist or phobic and dog piled.

barry goldwater was a (R) ... & a fiscal conservative.

that was when the GOP was worth a damn. saint ronny - who - by today's (R) 'standards' would ironiclly be considered a liberal.... started the whole christianity infused political arena.

Wrong...the Republican party was started by Christian abolitionists......they fought a war against the democrat party to free black humans from slavery.

Libs just say shit.

 

[Correll]

It is you liberals that are tying to make your views, the only alternatives.

ANY other views, are labeled as ist or phobic and dog piled.

There is no room left for people that think gays shouldn't marry and the scientists are lying to us about evolution and other topics.

You just demonstrated my point.


You are the people that are trying to make your views that only allowable views.

Playtime posted a complaint about religious people, and you just demonstrated the action that she was complaining about.


Does that matter to you? Or are you actively aware that your stated concerns are not your real issues?

Your "views" aren't the issue. It's the legislative action and court stacking (decisions) that come from your "views" that are the issue. You can't just live and let live. Understand that every society, every economy, every country evolves. It's OK to express a view against gay marriage. But when those views as a group translate into action against gay marriage in the form of pressuring courts and legislatures to restrict or make it illegal based on your religious views, that's an issue.

Okay, so take the word 'religious' out from in front of the word 'views', does that make it okay to then pressure courts and legislatures to restrict what you find as 'immoral'? Why does it matter from where the 'views' are derived? If you're not 'religious', your views came from somewhere, so why are your views more legitimate and able to be subjected on others via government fiat than those that are derived from religion? What's the difference between an atheist seeing murder as morally wrong and a Christian seeing murder as morally wrong? You're saying that the atheist's views are okay to legislate because they're not based on 'religion', but the Christian's views are not because they are?

Lefties are unable to hear you, when you talk sense like that.

 

[Ringtone]

You want public schools to cover opt in Bible study classes? I figured you were one of those people that wants to defund public schools because you think all of the teachers are Marxist atheists.

Actually, I hold to the universal imperatives of natural law and, therefore, respect the inalienable rights of all. You, on the other hand, are a brainwashed rube of conformity who thinks, for example, that Christians should be relegated to second-class citizenry in your one-size-fits-all monopoly of dumbed-down mediocrity and collectivist mobocracy.

The prevailing public education system is a rank violation of natural and constitutional law, and has been for decades.

LOL!

You and your ilk don't hold to the Jeffersonian doctrine of separation all! Your church is the public education system and the religion thereof is paganism, i.e., humanist naturalism and every depravity that comes with it.

 

[Anomalism]

You want public schools to cover opt in Bible study classes? I figured you were one of those people that wants to defund public schools because you think all of the teachers are Marxist atheists.

Actually, I hold to the universal imperatives of natural law and, therefore, respect the inalienable rights of all. You, on the other hand, are a brainwashed rube of conformity who thinks, for example, that Christians should be relegated to second-class citizenry in your one-size-fits-all monopoly of dumbed-down mediocrity and collectivist mobocracy.

The prevailing public education system is a rank violation of natural and constitutional law, and has been for decades.

LOL!

You and your ilk don't hold to the Jeffersonian doctrine of separation all! Your church is the public education system and the religion thereof is paganism, i.e., humanist naturalism and every depravity that comes with it.

Thank goodness your ideology is becoming irrelevant.

 

[Correll]

You want public schools to cover opt in Bible study classes? I figured you were one of those people that wants to defund public schools because you think all of the teachers are Marxist atheists.

Actually, I hold to the universal imperatives of natural law and, therefore, respect the inalienable rights of all. You, on the other hand, are a brainwashed rube of conformity who thinks, for example, that Christians should be relegated to second-class citizenry in your one-size-fits-all monopoly of dumbed-down mediocrity and collectivist mobocracy.

The prevailing public education system is a rank violation of natural and constitutional law, and has been for decades.

LOL!

You and your ilk don't hold to the Jeffersonian doctrine of separation all! Your church is the public education system and the religion thereof is paganism, i.e., humanist naturalism and every depravity that comes with it.

Thank goodness your ideology is becoming irrelevant.

Do you support the moves by the Left, specifically BIG TECH and MSM to deplatform such people, so that their voices and ideas can be silenced?

 

[dblack]

Do you support the moves by the Left, specifically BIG TECH and MSM to deplatform such people, so that their voices and ideas can be silenced?

I support their right to do so. I do, however, oppose some of what they're up to, as in I think it's a bad idea. But no business should be forced to accommodate people or ideas they find repugnant.

 

[Anomalism]

Do you support the moves by the Left, specifically BIG TECH and MSM to deplatform such people, so that their voices and ideas can be silenced?

Nah.

I think silencing points of view is destructive.

 

[Kondor3]

I've been hearing this for as long as I could remember and yet the Republican Party endures.

Yeah... until your Orange Baboon-God showed up... if the Republican Party is going to die anytime soon, it will be on a leash, held by Rump.

Your party leaders have long-since had their ball$ cut off by your demigod and he holds them in as much secret contempt as he holds the rank-and-file.

You are chess pieces... and you have been played by a skilled con-man.

Unfortunately, most of you are too myopic or too stupid or too embarrassed or too greedy-for-power-at-all-costs to see it or to admit it.

It is always possible that Republican leadership will find its courage again and abandon this servile devotion to The Baboon, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Correll]

Do you support the moves by the Left, specifically BIG TECH and MSM to deplatform such people, so that their voices and ideas can be silenced?

I support their right to do so. I do, however, oppose some of what they're up to, as in I think it's a bad idea. But no business should be forced to accommodate people or ideas they find repugnant.

if they claim to NOT be editors or content creators, and sign contracts with these people in good faith,


then betraying those people, is morally, and ethically and possibly legally wrong.

 

[playtime]

btw- dummy -- - - i am a christian. so there's that. & jefferson basically said to keep it to myself in his letter to the danbury baptists.

Don't mean to question your faith but, most Christians know to follow Jesus and not Jefferson.

we are a secular nation. so there is that.

 

[Correll]

Do you support the moves by the Left, specifically BIG TECH and MSM to deplatform such people, so that their voices and ideas can be silenced?

Nah.

I think silencing points of view is destructive.

A fine line you draw, but better than no line I guess.

 

[playtime]

It is you liberals that are tying to make your views, the only alternatives.

ANY other views, are labeled as ist or phobic and dog piled.

There is no room left for people that think gays shouldn't marry and the scientists are lying to us about evolution and other topics.

You just demonstrated my point.


You are the people that are trying to make your views that only allowable views.

Playtime posted a complaint about religious people, and you just demonstrated the action that she was complaining about.


Does that matter to you? Or are you actively aware that your stated concerns are not your real issues?

my 'complaint' is that NO religion belongs in politics

per


the



constitution.

Nowhere in the constitution does it ban religion from politics. That is absurd.

i didn't say anything about 'banning' .... i am talking about the separation of church & state.

when one votes & sets policy based on their religion rather than the constitution - that is in direct violation of the constitution.

When you say you want "no religion" in politics, you are calling for a ban.

It is NOT a violation to vote or set policy based on your religious views.

if it is in direct CONtradiction to the constitution it is.

Which is a statement which applies to all groups. Yet, here you are applying it only to religious groups.

THat is you being a bigot and trying to oppress them and deny them their rights to participate fully in the political process.

wow - you are just extra cray cray today, aren'tcha CB? i oppress nobody - that's the (R) M.O.