If Jesus was just some story, then no. Your ideology would not be the same.
Zone1 What would Jesus do about the GOP plan?
- Thread starter citygator
- Start date
So you mean that ever since Nixon with his calls for law and order, (A hitler slogan), trying to appeal to the "silent majority", and Reagan with his calls for law and order ( a hitler slogan) and praise of "family values" code for white christian nationalism, and now Trump holding up a bible like it was dogs shit, and calls to "make America great again" they really were just pandering, trying to pull the wool over the faithfuls eyes? Overturning roe vs wade had nothing to do with religion?
So in spite of your incoherent ramblings after I said, "Currently there is only the illusion of a separation between church and state." You only confirmed it.
Good job!
Last edited:
Correct. Overturning roe vs wade had to do with the Constitution.
So the "leftists" who you say are destroying the country by defending human rights, standing up for the poor, women, and those marginalized and those demonized by religious assholes are doing it for power and greed?
Now thats really stupid.
Last edited:
Incorrect. For some odd reason you are confusing that with participation in secular government.
Thats really stupid.
That you think that is really stupid. Read the court’s opinion.
"Under the banner of “family values” we find opposition to legal abortion; support for prayer in schools; opposition to civil rights for gays and lesbians; support for censorship of the arts, movies and popular culture; welfare reform; opposition to gun control; the “war on drugs.” These measures are usually found on the conservative agenda, although liberals have increasingly championed some of them in their efforts to jump on the “family values” bandwagon. Many of these issues have nothing to do with families—but they all have to do with values. And they all inspire fierce passions and heated debates.
It is also clear that “family values” is a term often used as a code and marker of race and class. For example, poor black single mothers, and educated white professional women, are both likely to be blamed for society’s ills as a result of their alleged defiance of “family values.” Presumably, a mother on welfare who goes out and gets a job demonstrates good family values; one who stays home with her kids does not. Yet an educated middle-class woman who goes out and gets a job demonstrates bad family values; one who stays home with her kids does not. The rules change according to racial and class position, as well as marital status. The gender, class, and sexual expectations also change over time. In the 1930s, for example, welfare payments were made to poor mothers to enable them to stay home with their children. Now mothers on welfare are required to hold jobs."
You can wave your arms all you want but the reality is we have a secular government that people of all faiths participate in."Under the banner of “family values” we find opposition to legal abortion; support for prayer in schools; opposition to civil rights for gays and lesbians; support for censorship of the arts, movies and popular culture; welfare reform; opposition to gun control; the “war on drugs.” These measures are usually found on the conservative agenda, although liberals have increasingly championed some of them in their efforts to jump on the “family values” bandwagon. Many of these issues have nothing to do with families—but they all have to do with values. And they all inspire fierce passions and heated debates.
It is also clear that “family values” is a term often used as a code and marker of race and class. For example, poor black single mothers, and educated white professional women, are both likely to be blamed for society’s ills as a result of their alleged defiance of “family values.” Presumably, a mother on welfare who goes out and gets a job demonstrates good family values; one who stays home with her kids does not. Yet an educated middle-class woman who goes out and gets a job demonstrates bad family values; one who stays home with her kids does not. The rules change according to racial and class position, as well as marital status. The gender, class, and sexual expectations also change over time. In the 1930s, for example, welfare payments were made to poor mothers to enable them to stay home with their children. Now mothers on welfare are required to hold jobs."
Read the opinion of the court.
I have already and am not impressed.
If people don't want an abortion for religious reasons even in the cases of rape or incest they never had to.
Forcing women to bring to term non viable pregnancies, as the result of rape or incest or even if they choose to for personal reasons is unconstitutional.
If I want to hear about clever ways to take bribes or sell your vote to the highest bidder then I will ask them.
If you read the opinion of the court then you must know that the ruling was that abortion is not a constitutional right and that it’s up to each state to write their own laws regarding abortion.
Religion isn’t mentioned at all.
That’s some conspiracy theory you have there. Do you have any evidence to support that? Because it sounds like an emotional response to me.
The court didn’t do that. The court left it up to each state to decide because that’s how the constitution works. The court allows for the federal government to write laws legalizing abortion but the federal government has not done so. So until then it’s up to each state to decide because that’s how the constitution works.
Putting it on the state to decide just passes the buck. When people of those states that outlawed abortion appeal the Supreme Court is going to still have to deal with it. It is a national issue. Many claim that the unborn have a right to life but I think this unborn has the right to not be born to live like this. And I didn't mention religion at all.
That’s literally how the constitution works.
Incorrect. They have already ruled. But if the federal government wrote a law that would be a horse of another color.
You are so wrong.
"The supreme courts primary purpose is to serve as the final interpreter of the constitution and federal law, insuring equal justice under the law and protecting individual rights. It acts as the highest court in the land, resolving legal disputes and establishing precedents that guide all lower courts."
The issue of a woman's individual right to have an abortion is a national issue not to be dictated state by state.
A romans right to have an abortion would still be the law of the land if not for religiously addled corrupt judges.
Last edited:
You are disagreeing with the finding not the legal ramification of the finding. The legal ramification is that if abortion is found to not be constitutionally protected, then legislation of abortion is passed to the states. That’s how the constitution works.
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
France preparing to escort ships in Strait of Hormuz when war calms- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 1
-
Mexico and USA Begin Bilateral Preparations to Dissolve USMCA Without Canada- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
American Nationalism is whitecentric eventhough they claim its colorblind yes or no?- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 3
