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

[Polishprince]

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

Barry Goldwater got schlonged royally in 1964 by LBJ, when he ran on that platform in 1964. Was a losing proposition when I was a kid, what makes you think the Goldwater platform would be a winner in the 2024 election?

 

[DukeU]

I might actually vote for Republicans from time to time if they ditched the bigoted, science denying religious nuts that constantly make the party look toxic and ignorant.

Instead, you'll vote for the bigoted, science denying left wing nuts who worship at the alter of Globalism.

 

[Correll]

That is the view of your side of the argument, and the side that is winning as you point out.


SO, how it that working out for society?

In the city you live, are they still able to keep people from shitting in the streets?

Generally speaking life is improving all over the world. As technology continues to grow it will change everything. Once religion becomes almost completely irrelevant humanity will be fine. Nobody will miss y'all.

Technology is improving. I think that is masking a lot of the decline of our society.


In my city, we have forgotten how to NOT let people shit in the streets.


We don't have the... whatever it is, that lets us know that is wrong and should not be tolerated.

 

[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.

 

[playtime]

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

Barry Goldwater got schlonged royally in 1964 by LBJ, when he ran on that platform in 1964. Was a losing proposition when I was a kid, what makes you think the Goldwater platform would be a winner in the 2024 election?

uh-huh. do you honestly think that donny will make it 2024 without either keeling over or is prison free?


lol....

 

[AMart]

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.

That isn't in the constitution either.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

That is it.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

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.

How is that oppressing your speech and views? Unless laws are explicitly passed to make it illegal for you to voice your views or practice your beliefs....which oddly enough IS exactly what your side does in order to force your said beliefs on other people.

 

[Anomalism]

So generous. I am allowed freedom of thought.


But, not to speak them in public, or to engage in the political process to have my views and interests represented in policy.


That is bigotry and oppression and tyranny.



Congratulations. You have become your enemy.

You're confused.

 

[Obejoekenobe]

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

In name only and even then it's become synonymous with Qnuts, racist, sedition and traitors.

I never thought Trumpies would get past their president having killed through neglect 430K Americans but his inciting sedition did it.

And it's what he and his base will be remember for.

 

[Anomalism]

And then you want them permanently marginalized and disenfranchised.


That is oppression and tyranny. Based on religious beliefs.

I am happy that religion is losing. I'm not trying to deny anybody a voice.

 

[Anomalism]

Technology is improving. I think that is masking a lot of the decline of our society.


In my city, we have forgotten how to NOT let people shit in the streets.


We don't have the... whatever it is, that lets us know that is wrong and should not be tolerated.

So everybody is just shitting in the street huh? Not just homeless and mentally ill people?

 

[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.

That isn't in the constitution either.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

That is it.

that is based on jefferson's letter to the danbury baptists. i suggest you read it.

 

[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?

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.

 

[AMart]

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.

That isn't in the constitution either.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

That is it.

that is based on jefferson's letter to the danbury baptists. i suggest you read it.

You are free to post it. Nonetheless that letter is not in the constitution either.

 

[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.

 

[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.

That isn't in the constitution either.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

That is it.

that is based on jefferson's letter to the danbury baptists. i suggest you read it.

You are free to post it. Nonetheless that letter is not in the constitution either.

jefferson used that mindset as a basis for that part of the 1st amendment...

also it was part of the basis for anyone running for office.

boy oh boy - when obama was running & well into his termS - the whole ' he's a moooooooooooslem ' sure made the rw fundies nuts.

 

[AMart]

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.

Voting for an unconstitutional law is not unconstitutional. Same for passing said law. In order for it to be deemed unconstitutional you have to get in from of the judicial branch.

 

[impuretrash]

That is the view of your side of the argument, and the side that is winning as you point out.


SO, how it that working out for society?

In the city you live, are they still able to keep people from shitting in the streets?

Generally speaking life is improving all over the world. As technology continues to grow it will change everything. Once religion becomes almost completely irrelevant humanity will be fine. Nobody will miss y'all.

As technology advances, people in 1st world countries are becoming more miserable, not less. do you honestly believe America as a whole is happier today than it was 20 years ago?

 

[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.

How is that oppressing your speech and views? Unless laws are explicitly passed to make it illegal for you to voice your views or practice your beliefs....which oddly enough IS exactly what your side does in order to force your said beliefs on other people.

All laws are groups of people forcing their beliefs on other people.


You and teh op, want to pick out one group of people, the religious right and tell them that they are excluded from what everyone else is allowed to do.
;

Does it bother you that MLK was a preacher and that he used his position of authority in a religious church to advance his political agenda?

 

[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.

Voting for an unconstitutional law is not unconstitutional. Same for passing said law. In order for it to be deemed unconstitutional you have to get in from of the judicial branch.

voting & setting law based on any religious doctrine is itself unconstitutional.

it makes one religious belief more important than any other belief
(or non belief)