The Faux Faith of Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney

a reply to: jrod

We could talk about Mayor Pete ...

a reply to: jrod

Who's he gonna lose to again? The DNC are literally bleeding independents right now. The DNC cannot win without them. The Democrats do not have a viable candidate that they are willing to support. That is a huge problem for democracy.

The popular vote is meaningless in this context. The current system has been the creature of both parties for decades. It takes more than screaming about a popular vote to change that system. The Electoral college is the way we elect Presidents in the US. There are only two paths toward changing that and I wish you good fortune because both are really, really hard, for good reasons.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

On a side note, my 65 year old aunt just converted to Mormon faith. She is a very intelligent woman (started and sold 3 businesses, before getting into her last one about 30 years ago and opening several locations, most of which still operate). I just can't get my head around that decision. She is an accomplished artist (with quite a few awards for various types of media ranging from pottery to painting to photography), business woman, and overall human being. How did she bite the mormon hook?

Knowing a good number of Mormons in the Air Force I find them at the family level to be a very wholesome group of people that are willing to help at anytime. They also don't typically push their religion outside of their 2 year mission, so I have zero issues with them.

I do find their religion to be based more on loony tunes though, but live and let live. With your aunt I find there are people that seek comfort in the group/community environment and religion/church fills that desire. Mormons are a very close nit group that do a ton of community service together and maybe that is what she is looking for. Personally I find church extremely boring and somewhat hypocritical in nature even though my wife is a die hard Catholic, and I tend to back away from the whole group fest thing so that doesn't fit my nature either.

a reply to: yuppa

No. The aide was not released early, and congress had to pass a law to prevent it from being lost.
No, they weren't hoarding the goods, they had no way to distribute it across the hurricane ravaged islands. In Haiti, our military was used to airdrop aide. We did more for Haiti than we did for our own citizens. And they never got all of the aide congress passed for them.
So, are you saying that if he had let people testify and handed over the documents that were asked for, he would have incriminated himself?? Lol...surely you arent saying that!!!

The "us" could have just as easily meant him, rudy, and the three amigos. And. Show me the proof that the ambassador even communicated with biden during this time, let alone tipped him off.

Ya, they have been throwing some money towards building the wall for years. But trump wanted more!! They wouldn't give him more so he just took it from other important projects that congress had approved. Like a school for a military base, housing for our servicemen and women and their families, along with some more important items.

a reply to: dawnstar

The lock her up man is flynn..

Considering Trump has stated the same thing in the past, perhaps you should have specified.

And if any president dem or republican was doing the things trump is doing...
Diverting a bunch of tax money to his own properties by making it his "winter white house".

I'm sure he stays there free, since it is his hotel. I'd love to see actual figures on how much that is actually costing the taxpayers. I have a feeling it is far, far below what you think.

Publicly asking other countries to assist him by investigating his political rivals. Holding congressionally approved aide till the comply.

What part of "acquitted on both counts" are you having trouble with?

Holding aid to hurricane stricken US territories.

That would be the governor of Puerto Rico.

Diverting approved funding to pet projects like the wall.

Pet project? Maybe for millions of Americans. Believe it or not, a lot of us want that wall. Or do we just not count in your book?

And tying up the court system to keep from having to cooperate with Congress in even the smallest way.

Considering that he was barred from having counsel, calling his own witnesses, or in any way participating in this secret inquiry, and considering that is the very purpose of the court system, I can't blame any man for trying to legally defend himself the best he could. His only crime there is not helping his accusers to prove their case against him!

You really seem to be clueless on how the court system works, how impeachment works, how the government works, or even what the President does. Not one of the things you mentioned even comes close to being a "high crime and misdemeanor," despite most of them being false to start with.

You are also getting badly predictable. I started this thread about Pelosi and Romney, who have taken steps in their lives to actually restrict Christianity, trying to preach to those of us who are actually believers. And you want to talk about Trump. Do you dream about him at night? What, is this some sick kind of fetish you have with the man? Do you ever think about anything else?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Okay, outside of going against your golden man,
What have they done to restrict christianity?
And, not letting them restrict those who dont follow their dictates dont count!!

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Im fine with the electoral college, but I do no like the winner take all system, EC votes should be split proportionally to how the state voted.

I think Trump supporters are blind to how unpopular Trump really is. Don't be surprised when he loses and don't cry foul because you don't like the Bernie/Buttigeig ticket.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Scripture is based on an understanding that one cannot gain from human experience. That's why I rarely ever criticize someone over religious views. This is the first thread I have authored on the subject, and only because the hypocrisy was so thick I needed a bushhog to wade through it.

What you're experiencing is the true meaning behind "first remove the beam from thy own eye." None of us have all the answers... we only see glimpses of the greatness that begat us.

Great post!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's been really eye-opening. I'll be honest. My first thought with regard to ATS was that I would have to log out as who I am and login as someone "new." That would have been pretty cowardly of me in so many ways so I decided not to do it.

I actually don't know much. I certainly have no business lecturing anyone about their faith. I am a frustrated writer who wishes he was doing comedy or science fiction (or even romance) but I have forgotten how to be bold in so many ways that actually matter and I am slowly rediscovering what that means. I need to work on the beam in my own eye because that feels like the only valid way forward for me (and I feel joy!).

Thanks for your post!

a reply to: jrod

My point is when you say, 'Let America decide!', the reality is Trump lost the popular vote by about 2.8million votes. I don't see how how Trump will win the popular vote in 2020 either.

I do not want to hear you guys cry foul when he loses in November.

Really?

Really?

It was the Democrats who were worried that Trump wouldn't accept the results of the 2016 election... and the Democrats who have been crying foul ever since. Kinda ironic that others are talking about the beam in one's own eye...

TheRedneck

a reply to: dawnstar

What have they done to restrict christianity?

In 2013 she opposed a ban on abortions over 20 weeks, despite allowances for medical necessities. But worse, she opposed the Hyde Amendment which simply banned taxpayer funded abortions. In other words, she supported forcing me, under force of law, to support the killing of innocent lives.

I'm not going to get into an abortion debate with you here, but the fact that she wants to force anyone to support something they find both morally and religiously offensive is an affront to everything she now claims to stand for and be an authority on.

She is also a big supporter of the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, both decidedly anti-Christian organizations that openly lobby for legal restrictions on Christian activity.

Mitt Romney is also a card-carrying supporter of the ACLU, which has spent decades fighting prayer in schools (not talking about open, teacher-led prayer, but moments of silence to allow children to pray on their own), student-based religious clubs, brought lawsuits against coaches for participating in student-led athletic events, and so on and so forth. I'm not going to spend the next 7 pages giving examples, but their actions have been consistent enough to be relabeled the "Anti-Christian Litigation Unit" by the American Center for Law and Justice.

TheRedneck

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

The beam in the eye is one of (in my experience) the hardest lessons, if that helps you any. The other one that is tough is forgiveness. There's a fine line in that one: when you forgive someone who has hurt you, and they do not ask for God's forgiveness, some pretty bad things can happen to them. I've seen that first-hand. But, and this is the tough part, if you are only forgiving them so that can happen, you haven't really forgave them.

There seems to be something in the human spirit that just wants to be right. But too often we don't realize that we may be doing the same thing, sinning in the same way, as what we are convicting others of. In that way, the beam in the eye and forgiveness are one and the same. Thus, since God alone knows the totality of why someone is acting the way they are, it is our place to step back and allow God to handle things. That way, true justice is carried out and we don't end up looking like fools.

Many blessings on your journey. Oh, and something else I once heard: when you're "in the valley" (meaning at a low point in life), rejoice; that's where the lilies grow.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Morally offensive should be enough, what any particular religion says is secondary. So while you are griping about polosi not supporting a 20 week ban, there are way too many hospitals being allowed to force doctors to ignore their conscious when it tells them the moral thing to do is terminate a nonviable pregnancy that is endangering the mothers life.. and. I dont feel like getting into the abortion issue either. You find it morally unacceptable to be forced to pay for an abortion. So, because you have the backing of the church, you feel you shouldn't have to. And you dont.
Too bad the rest of us cant block the govt from using our money for things we find reprehensible.

As for the rest...
I admit, it has gone too far but if one religion have priviledge, everyone should have them. And, I imagine the Christian's would have a fit if the wiccan club started teaching spells and practicing casting them. Schools are for learning, churches and other religious temples are for prayer and worship. And far too many wars have been fought because of what some god supposedly said.

a reply to: dawnstar

I admit, it has gone too far but if one religion have priviledge, everyone should have them. And, I imagine the Christian's would have a fit if the wiccan club started teaching spells and practicing casting them. Schools are for learning, churches and other religious temples are for prayer and worship. And far too many wars have been fought because of what some god supposedly said.

Your premise is wrong. I don't have a problem with government allowing any religious organization. As long as they do not violate reasonable laws (human sacrifice?) then they are (should be) free to practice as they choose. Yes, that includes Wiccan... I actually call a few Wiccans friend. I have no interest in their religion, and they have no interest in mine. That does not preclude any other associations.

That's the whole point: we have "Freedom of Religion" in the United States, but people like to turn it into "Freedom from Religion." No one has the right to have religion banned from their existence, any religion. Take me, for example: I have been kicked out of every decent church in this county. I do not follow ideologies blindly. I do not want these churches saying I can't believe as I see fit, so I don't want anyone telling anyone they can't believe as they see fit.

As for churches not being for learning, on that you are just plain wrong and worse, it indicates a desire for indoctrination of youth on your part. Of course churches are for learning! That's the whole point of going to church! When I go, it is to learn more about the writings I am trying to understand.

You probably think science and religion cannot co-exist, either. Well, you're wrong there, too. I am an electronic engineer who does private research. My life is immersed in science. Yet, nowhere in that science have I found anything that directly refutes the idea of God. As a matter of fact, I find it fascinating how some will go to such mental gymnastics as is required to try and explain the beautiful complexity and magnificence we see around us any other way.

Science is a search for knowledge; religion is a search for wisdom. When one cannot differentiate between knowledge and wisdom, it serves to emphasize that they have neither.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You misunderstood me, churches exist in the spiritual realm of human existence and I didnt mean that they didnt have the authority to teach their views on such within their own churches and circles. But our public schools aren't there to teach religion or doctrines and are there to serve everyone, regardless of their faith or no faith. To say that the school isnt allowing a time of prayer that all must take part in, or not allowing religious clubs, is banning religion from anyone's existence is just not true and you should know that. There is too many churches and other houses of worship with all different kinds of doctrines and beliefs around too argue is doesnt exist. The question is why do you feel they should all have a space in the schools? The schools have no authority over these beleifs or responsibility to teach any of them. Ya know, give unto ceaser what is ceaser and all that.

a reply to: dawnstar

The question is why do you feel they should all have a space in the schools? The schools have no authority over these beleifs or responsibility to teach any of them.

Actually, I would ask why you think religion should be banned from schools? The very nature of religion dictates that one follow their religion at all times. One cannot be a Christian from 5:00 until 9:00 the next morning. One cannot be a Muslim only on Fridays. One cannot be Wiccan only during the summer. A religion is a part of one's very being. As such, every public institution that requires a person to attend should allow for the free exercise of religion. Perhaps you should re-familiarize yourself with what the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, I agree that the schools have no right to teach religion, except where its existence is a part of history. That is the place of the church and the parents. However, they should also not teach anti-religion. That happens, you know. There are fine lines there that will be tested, but simple common sense should prevail if we simply follow the words I posted above: is anyone being forced or coerced to observe any religious practices, and is anyone's religious belief being denigrated unnecessarily? If no, then it is allowed.

I know, I know... there are those who would complain over the Theory of Evolution being taught. That is a leading scientific theory and should be taught. I don't necessarily believe in all of it (I do accept micro-evolution as another example of the wisdom behind Creation), but I do believe that as a scientific theory it should be presented. I will even say that Global Warming should be taught! As long as it is presented as a theory that some disagree with, and other scientific subjects are also taught (even those which deny it), no problem.

This is a big planet. There is plenty of space for all of us to live on it. The problem is those who would determine for others what is right and wrong... as Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney seem to want to do.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Maybe someday we can all push these made up religions aside and actually evolve as a race

a reply to: TheRedneck

I thought there was a separation of church and state in this country . Can’t you pray in your home after school ?

a reply to: Thenail

I thought there was a separation of church and state in this country . Can’t you pray in your home after school ?

No, the state cannot interfere with the church. I posted the exact wording above. It never mentions a "separation," only a restriction on the government to stay out of religion... don't promote it, and don't deny it. Stay out of it.

There is no such restriction on religion.

So let me ask: can't you sit quietly while others say a silent prayer?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


Geez TheRedneck , you must have a Really Big Chest There , I am Jealous .................Oh Yeah , an I Agree ! ...........)