It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Faux Faith of Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 8 2020 @ 06:45 PM
a reply to: TheRedneck

Think I presented that option earlier, you just didnt bite.

posted on Feb, 8 2020 @ 08:10 PM
a reply to: dawnstar

If you did, I didn't see it.


posted on Feb, 8 2020 @ 08:18 PM
a reply to: dawnstar

That's where you don't understand. I'm not trying to change minds. I want understanding.

That's what communication is for ... so you hear where others are coming from, not so you become like them, but so you understand what motivates them, what they want, why they arrive at the thoughts they do, and hopefully to come to common ground.

As you say, it's not working because too many think it's about changing minds.

I'd honestly like to know how we arrive at a country where you can have what you want without forcing me to also have what you want because I do know enough about most of what you want (or at least how you want it) to know I really don't want that, not in the way you do. So how do we get you what you want without stepping on my toes?

posted on Feb, 8 2020 @ 09:26 PM
a reply to: TheRedneck

Page 4, last post to ya. I speak of a quiet time, a do what you wish time as long as you are quiet. I then go on to say kids reading or doing homework during your moment of prayer would seem to be a tad bit disrespectful.. I mean a time labeled a moment of prayer would convey that the grown ups are hoping you pray, right?
I just expanded on that idea a little. Instead of a moment of prayer, turned it into 15 minutes of preparation. The teacher could have printouts of the days lesson plan as well as a list of homework that is due for them to look over, they could check and ensure their homework is in order, they could spend some time thinking about what they want to accomplish that day, they could bring their thoughts into focus on the day ahead... and, if tapping into their concept of god helps them to do that and they can do that without disrupting those around them ( again, visualizing, this time child pharisees and saducees.. ) I really fail to see why there would be a problem with that.

posted on Feb, 8 2020 @ 09:53 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

My legs arent that danged long, I think your toes are safe??
Personally, I have a live and let live policy. Basically I dont care what you do as long as you arent needlessly harming those within my range of view. If you are harming others outside of that range, you are someone's else's problem.
Heck my neighbor has an abandoned house on his property that has a tree literally cutting it half, every day I notice a little more collapsing, hear a little more collasping. I find myself worrying sometimes about my car, my kitchen.. depending on how it all falls, it could easily do some damage. But, I hear him out there from time to time trying to take care of it so i haven't bothered him about it. He has more than enough problems without me nagging him. He was trying to fix it up before that happened to. Too bad, it really would have made a neat house..
Live and let live.
I used to write letters occasionally to my elected representatives. I came to the conclusion that that was a worthless venture. Now, I am just words one your computer screen, for you to accept or reject on one internet forum. If some people find them worthy, they might carry them onto another. And, my dear, words dont have feet to step on anyone's toes.

posted on Feb, 8 2020 @ 10:31 PM
a reply to: dawnstar

And yet you believe in coercive social policy that catches everyone up in it whether we all want to be caught up or not.

To me, that's not live and let live. You want it, and you don't care what I want.

edit on 8-2-2020 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 8 2020 @ 11:00 PM

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Oblique9043

You know, if you meet one guy who you think is a hater, maybe it's because they're really a hater. If most of the people you meet, you think are haters, it's probably you who is doing the hating.

So much irony and so little self awareness.

You can't even debate someone like you who is completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy and won't even address it when confronted with it. You've fallen for the oldest con in the book. The one man hero that saves the day who's really a pathological lying con man. And you think this man is going to MAGA... you are in for a rude awakening. Or maybe not. The fascist hell hole this country is about to become might just be your wet dream since you'll perceive yourself as part of the dominant group within the new Trumptatorship. Just remember what Jesus said when you all start killing your fellow citizens due to thinking you're saving the country from godless liberals.

John 16:2
In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. 3They will do these things because they have not known the Father or Me.

He wasn't talking about atheists and liberals here. He's talking about those who claim to believe and think they know what God wants but are completely clueless. I've been hearing about Civil War coming to "take the country back" from liberals for decades from my now Trump supporting father and the Christian right are itching for that to happen now with Trump. How very Godly of them.

posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 12:18 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

OK, the part about the disrespect is what caused me to not notice the base idea. I see nothing disrespectful about quietly allowing others to pray. It's just not that big a deal to me to allow others to do something different than what i am doing. I honestly don't see why it is to others.

I remember when the big debates were going on about gay marriage. People were constantly saying over and over, what is it to you? Why does it bother you? Well, now I ask you, why is a child quietly taking a moment to pray such a big deal? Why does it hurt anyone else? Why should it bother anyone else?

That's what I am talking about when I claim people don't have a moral center. If it works for one argument, it works for another argument. The world doesn't reset when the subject of the debate changes.

But yeah, 15 minutes of enforced quiet, during which silent prayer (any religion) is acceptable, is fine with me. No problems with it. My original point, way back several pages, was that the ACLU opposes any such idea, for the simple reason that it can be seen as religious... and Pelosi and Romney both support the ACLU wholeheartedly.


posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 12:29 AM
a reply to: Oblique9043

You know, I raise fowl here, mainly for eggs and occasionally meat. I have a turkey, several chickens, and a few ducks.

When I first started raising ducks, I had to change a bad habit. You see, sometimes if I am finishing up a cigarette and the ground is wet, I'll just toss it down. There's no fire danger, because there's too much water to burn, but it can smolder for a few minutes. I've had to stop doing that and crush every butt out, because of the ducks. See, a chicken will sometimes peck at a dropped cigarette butt once, occasionally twice, but they pretty quickly get the idea that the thing is hot and not food. Even the turkey would sort of give one a test peck at first and decide it didn't want to eat it. But the ducks? Not so much. A duck will see a hot butt fall to the ground, pick it up and try to eat it, drop it when it realizes the butt is hot, notice it fell to the ground, pick it up and try to eat it, drop it when it realizes the butt is hot, notice it fell to the ground, pick it up and try to eat it, drop it when it realizes the butt is hot, notice it fell to the ground, pick it up and try to eat it, drop it when it realizes the butt is hot, notice it fell to the ground, pick it up and try to eat it, drop it when it realizes the butt is hot, notice it fell to the ground, pick it up and try to eat it, drop it when it realizes the butt is hot, notice it fell to the ground, pick it up and try to eat it, drop it when it realizes the butt is hot, notice it fell to the ground, pick it up and try to eat it, drop it when it realizes the butt is hot... you get the idea yet?

Damn duck will burn its bill off before it gives up and figures out it's doing something stupid.

Now, I typed all that just to point out one simple thing to you:

Don't be a duck.

You're welcome.


posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 12:59 AM
You're the duck who fell for a con so old the playbook was written back in 1949.

Prophets of Deceit (A Study of the Techniques of the American Agitator) is a 1949 book co-written by the German sociologist Leo Löwenthal and the Polish-Jewish scholar Norbert Guterman. The authors analyze and define media appeals specific to American pro-fascist and anti-Semite agitators of the 1940s, such as the application of psychosocial manipulation for political ends. The book details psychological deceits that idealogues or authoritarians commonly used. The techniques are grouped under the headings "Discontent", "The Opponent", "The Movement" and "The Leader".

The authors demonstrate repetitive patterns commonly utilized, such as turning unfocused social discontent towards a targeted enemy. The agitator positions himself as a unifying presence: he is the ideal, the only leader capable of freeing his audience from the perceived enemy. Yet, as the authors demonstrate, he is a shallow person who creates social or racial disharmony, thereby reinforcing that his leadership is needed. The authors believed fascist tendencies in America were at an early stage in the 1940s, but warned a time might come when Americans could and would be "susceptible to ... [the] psychological manipulation" of a rabble rouser.

The first chapter, ("The Themes of Agitation"), presents samples of an agitator's diatribe, which might be mistaken as "simply ... the raving of a maniac". Generally agitators rely on core motifs, labeled as "Discontent", "The Opponent", "The Movement" and "The Leader".

"Social Malaise", the second chapter, examines how social malaise or discontent can be manipulated by converting perceived problems into grievances. The response to economic grievances is to say that "too much help is being extended to foreign nations”, that not only are "foreigners taking our money, they also threaten our jobs". Political grievances are addressed by the call to action against international "commitments by the United States government [that] jeopardize political liberties." Media outlets are the source of cultural grievances, and labeled "the enemies of the nation", while other enemies are depicted as morally lax, "a crowd of Marxists, refugees, [and] left-wing internationalists."

The outer world is painted as hostile and filled with enemies in the third chapter ("A Hostile World"). The agitator positions himself as "a bone fide advocate of social change", but in doing so intentionally ”crystallizes and hardens these feelings” of hostility. The remedy is his supposed superior knowledge, which he offers as a shield. He convinces his audience that it needs his guidance because they are victims, cheated by a "comprehensive and carefully planned political conspiracy". He offers himself "a champion of democracy and Christianity", and as the only person who will solve grievances.

Chapter IV, ("The Ruthless Enemy"), outlines how a political enemy, deemed responsible for the audience's suffering, is necessary to the agitator. The enemy is cast as evil, "an alien body in society which has no useful productive function." The next chapter ("The Helpless Enemy”) exposes the ways the enemy is vilified, portrayed as a criminal, degenerate, a low animal, concepts meant to instill loathing. A specific enemy is identified, such as Jews (Chapter VI ("The Enemy as Jew"), though the agitator does not stop there, but frequently "denounces communists, plutocrats, refugees without qualification." A convoluted argument is put forth that Jews are persecuted because they deserve persecution, and furthermore that Jews are the persecutors. Antisemitism is disavowed as the agitator claims to be "a friend of the Jews." Having provided his own definition for the causes of the social malaise, "as a would be leader of a popular movement" he sets goals for improvement in Chapter VII ("A Home for the Homeless"); however his solutions are found to be empty promises. His political or economic goals are motivated by little more than a desire "go one better than the government, his most dangerous competitor."

Followers are provided neither with hope nor positive ideas for change; agitation is historically distinguished by a complete lack of positive change. Chapter VIII ("The Follower") explains that adherents are made to believe the enemy will only be vanquished through means of a movement and by following the leader's dictates. External forces said to threaten American society are emphasized. The size of the movement is quantified, with claims that it consists "75% of the American people". In Chapter IX ("The Leader") he positions himself as someone with special skills, whose interests support theirs, someone who is "one of the plain folk ... yet far above them." Unlike Hitler or Mussolini, who broke with society and abandoned democratic, Chapter X ("Self-Portrait of the Agitator") shows how the American agitator "dares not repudiate established morality and democratic values". Yet the themes, as exposed in the book, do "not prevent him from conveying the principal social tenets of totalitarianism."

In the closing chapter ("What the Listener Heard"), the authors discuss the listener's reactions. They view them as generally drawn to the idea of success, while against "bureaucrats, Jews, congressmen, plutocrats, communists ... He grumbles against the foreigners who come to this country and get good jobs." Löwenthal and Guterman emphasize that American agitators have historically failed to gain traction and are usually marginalized. They warn, however, that under certain circumstances, such as loss of security for the middle class, America should contemplate the "possibility in which a situation will arise in which large numbers of people would be susceptible to his psychological manipulation".

Löwenthal and Guterman examined the latent content of the political agitator's speeches and writings, treating and examining them more comprehensively than any other work of the period.[25] They found that agitators typically employ 21 common tactics in their speeches, such as characterizing the enemy as a low animal (i.e. vermin), or building up an image of a folksy "chosen leader who responds to an inner call." They explain the successes of mid-20th century demagogues such as Gerald L. K. Smith, Carl H. Mote, William Dudley Pelley, Joe McWilliams, and Charles Coughlin. The authors' purpose was subject appeal of these messages to a thorough analysis, to inoculate future generations of Americans against demagogues and ideologues – the "prophets of deceit".

The authors define the difference between the goals of an agitator, revolutionary and reformer. The latter seeks social change and has a clear vision of his goals. An agitator seeks rejection of the status quo and instills intolerance against groups or individuals. An agitator presents himself as an advocate for social change with the purpose of defeating the underlying causes of discontent, builds a movement and proclaims himself its leader; he is "in fact, full of reactionary cliches about 'the good old days' and the 'simple American Way which our ancestors loved'." Yet the agitator fails to analyze causes of discontent, but "seems to require only the willingness to relinquish inhibition ... No resentment is too small for the agitator's attention."

posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 01:00 AM

Löwenthal and Guterman theorize that right-wing agitation increases social dissatisfaction, while simultaneously hampering rational responses to it. Much of the basis of pro-fascist and antisemitic propaganda appears to be irrational in substance, yet Löwenthal's research revealed that it was planned and calculated to achieve a specific response. Paul Apostolidos writes that Prophets in Deceit "precisely catalogues the techniques used by the agitator to promote irrationalism in his audience." Pro-fascist sentiment in America in the 1940s was not spontaneous, more grounded on long held beliefs, which Löwenthal labeled social malaise.

The authors explain the methods the Christian right use to capitalize on advantage of widespread social malaise. They sow "the suspicion that mysterious social powers are penetrating a 'hoax' on the majority of the people and depriving them of society's fruits". These suspicions create a widespread feeling of helplessness, disillusionment, and fear of disaster. According to Löwenthal and Guterman, the social discontent is real, it "reflects the stresses imposed on the individual by the profound transformations taking place in our economic and social structure – the replacement of the class of small independent producers by gigantic industrial bureaucracies, the decay of the patriarchal family, the breakdown of primary personal ties between individuals in an increasingly mechanized world … the substitution of mass culture for traditional patterns." A political agitator will manipulate existing social discontent, distortion the underlying causes, with in turn results in irrational responses and actions. The agitator will trick and mislead his audience, then through "the guise of protest against the oppressive situation, the agitator binds the audience to it .... The agitator does not create the malaise, but he aggravates and fixates it because he bars the path to overcoming it." Christian right agitation is sophisticated trickery, which cannot and will not provide solutions to the public, but will only cause a "despairing obsession with its own suffering."

Often the message is contradictory and nonsensical, yet based on psychological manipulation. To the majority he "may sound crazy, but he knows, with a knowledge that is largely intuitive, precisely what he is doing." He kindles fury and fear in his audience, yet keeps them in check, reminding them that they "are still weak and can free themselves from the enemy's tyranny only be submitting unconditionally to his leadership." Löwenthal and Guterman demonstrate Adorno's belief that the greatest danger to American democracy is manipulation of mass culture: radio, television, and film. The authors feared a time when an American audience could be manipulated via similar techniques and psychological means.

posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 08:20 AM
a reply to: ketsuko

You want laws that would force doctors to sit and twiddle thier thumbs while women and young girls suffer through miscarriages and presenting clear and present danger to them!! And, you think that "religion" should give license to our hospitals to. So much for letting live there!!

But, please be a tad bit more specific. Just what "coercive policies" are you referring to??
And again, I am just words on your computer screen. That is the full extent of my influence in the world. I dont March in the streets, matter of fact I have felt so crappy of late I have been much further than my mailbox in the last two months. I guess if you dont want your toes stepped on, dont come into my house?
And, if you really want understanding, maybe try actually reading what I post instead of taking aim at the first thing you see as an opportunity to knock me down.

But please, expound on those coercive policies.

posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 08:53 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

I am old enough to remember when families would gather around a dinner table for their meals ... "dinnertime" ...
It was a time to eat while your parents gave you the 20 question interrogation of the day. It was a time for the family to connect with each other. And some families were rather strict about what went on during "dinnertime". There were a few things you could do, many you could not.. didnt obey the rules you were sent to your room with no food in your tummy. But the main thing you did during "dinnertime" was you ate dinner!!
Same with bedtime, there may have been a type of ritual that surrounded it, but mainly it was time to crawl into your bed and go to sleep.
So, you set a space of time and you call it a moment of prayer... wonder, just what is the main thing you are supposed to be doing? If I dont eat at suppertime, I get sent to bed. If i dont lay down and at least pretend i am trying to sleep, i get yelled at or maybe spanked... if I dont "pray" during the moment of prayer?
Just change the name of the moment. "Time of preparation" or whatever give some suggestions as to what the kids could be doing to prepare for the day and let them decide what they need to do.. heck, handout some halfway nutritious snack while your at it for those who've come in hungry.. anyone who would complain that they think their classmate is praying during this time needs to get their nose out of other peoples heads and prepare their own head for the day!

Maybe the ACLU is objecting more to the terms yous want to call it....
Like I said, you eat at dinnertime, you go to sleep at bedtime, obviously, you should pray during prayertime.

posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 09:02 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

And now, you're falling back into emotional appeal.

You do support taxpayer funded abortions. Don't tell me you don't.

But I didn't even think about that when I wrote that. I was talking about all manner of collectivist policy that puts us all into a group and coerces those who maybe don't think the group approach is the best one for whatever reason.

Live and let live means an individual does what they need to and they are free to do it. Collectivism and collective policy are the antithesis of that. When you support collective anything, you remove the ability for people to simply live and let live because we are forced to carry our coerced collective obligation *before* we can live and let live, and the more collective obligation we are forced to carry, the less living and letting live we are allowed to do for ourselves.

So, every collective policy you support, where you endorse taking from everyone to pay for this or that for others, you take away from anyone's ability to live as they choose in favor of living as you think we all ought. That is not living and letting live. Clearly, in those instances, you think we are living wrong or something.

posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 10:01 AM
a reply to: ketsuko

I support taxpayer funded abortions WHEN there is a medical need for one. Your taxes were going to pay for an overly cautious mother to run her 5 year old to the doctors whenever she had a runny nose and on top of that it paid for her to open her windows wide with the heat blasting on high every day while the kids were in school to air the place out!! And you have a problem with it being used to terminate a pregnancy that is risking death or permanent organ failure to the women and deep that "religious beliefs" should be allowed to prevent a women with an ectopic pregnancy from getting immediate care. So now, we have crazy state legislators who tried to ban abortion thinking that doctors can just try to move the embryo and implant it into the uterus! There is nothing emotional here. It is a warning! Continue down the path you have chosen, that YOU want us all to buy into, dont come back to me if someday, it's someone you care about suffering and possibly dying needlessly because you just had to place yourselves between them and their doctor while nor caring about the real dangers pregnancy presents to women at times!

And awe, you poor thing, just think of all those slaves that wasted their lives building the pyramids (at least if one is to buy what the experts want us to believe) .
ya know what another name for that collectivism is??
Civilization. It started thousands of years ago, usually with strong spiritual and religious leaders laying down the framework and helping dictate the laws and taboos! Not everybody was happy then either. Women for the most part most certainly couldn't live as they wished. But, without civilization we wouldn't have what we have now, would we? If you want to be completely free, go live alone on an island somewhere. Dont ever get married or fall in love. Learn every little tidbit of information you would need to survive on your own. Become emotionally unattached to everyone else.. ya, sounds like a great life doesnt it? But, once you bring another person into your live, you are gonna find yourself having to lay aside want you want from time to time for their sake.
You seem to be fighting the very fabric that has kept us alive to this point.

posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 10:27 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

I am old enough to remember when families would gather around a dinner table for their meals ... "dinnertime" ...

I'm old enough to remember that as well.

The name is only important in that it can either emphasize or deny the fact that prayer is allowed. In many of our public schools, just mentioning the name "Jesus" in a religious context can get you disciplined. Children have been sent home because they wore a shirt with a cross on it. I remember one case where a child was asked as part of a class assignment to write a short essay about the person, living or dead, they admired most. The child chose to write the essay about Christ Jesus; they received a failing grade and were scolded for their choice.

In that environment, which is supported by the ACLU, children are taught religious intolerance. So if a child wishes to pray during "Preparation Time," they are likely going to be scared to do so. If schools taught tolerance of relligious perspectives instead of intolerance, your proposal might have more support; in today's environment? Nope.

Even if children, as you say, consider the "Moment of Prayer" as a requirement to pray, they cannot be forced to pray! That's something that people don't seem to quite grasp. You can hold a gun at someoe's head and demand they pray to God, and you might as well pull the trigger and get it over with. Prayer simply does not work like that. There has to be a sincere desire to talk with God and a pure heart... try to pray in a moment of anger and you're just thinking words. Your heart is not pure. Those verbal prayers you hear in church all the time? I'm sure God is listening, but probably with a smirk on His face. They are public rituals, not sincere prayers. Their purpose is to call attention to the congregation that God is among them... and, unfortunately, often to make the preacher look pious. That last part is why Jesus emphasized going into a "prayer closet" to pray... the rest of the world doesn't need to eavesdrop on your private conversations.

Yeah, my parents made me "pray" when I was young... I knelt by the bed and said
    Now I lay me down to sleep.
    I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
    If I should die before I wake,
    I pray the Lord my soul to take.
    God bless Mommy and Daddy and...
and I still wasn't praying. I was learning. I was practicing a ritual that later in life would have me actually talking with God, and He with me.

(I still think whoever came up with that 'standard' prayer for kids was a sadist... third line is morbid!)

No, today, in large part because I was taught to try to pray, my prayers start off something like
    Heavenly Father, I come to you in the name of Christ Jesus. I kinda screwed up today, Lord. I did ___________ when I should have done ______________. I want to say I'm sorry, and I promise to try harder in the future...
or maybe something like
    Heavenly Father, I come to you in the name of Christ Jesus. You know that thing that happened today? Well, it got me thinking and I wanted to talk to you about it...
It's a conversation. No one hears it except God... many times it is silent, and I am almost always alone. That is prayer. What we are talking about is a simple silent ritual, conducted inside one's own mind, allowed (not forced or coerced) to encourage whatever religious teachings the parents chose to instill in their child.

After all, parents are expected to support the school's teachings, right? Why is it so terrible for the schools to reciprocate and support the parents' teachings? If I were to spend hours upon hours instructing my child that 2+2=22 instead of 4, sooner or later someone from the school would be calling me up to chew me out for confusing the child!

But we hashed all that out already... the point was that Pelosi and Romney support the ACLU which is antithetical to Christian values. What about the lawsuits over crosses placed as a temporary memorial to traffic accident victims beside the roadway? How about Los Cruces, NM, being sued to remove the cross from it's city seal (the name Los Cruces literally means "The Cross")? What about the IRS regulations that restrict churches from saying certain things during service for fear of being financially penalized? I think those finally expired, but they did exist for a while and were backed by the ACLU. What about religious schools being forbidden from participation in government programs? The list goes on and on... and it is all anti-Christian. As a matter of fact, the ACLJ that I earlier referred to was started in large part because the ACLU had morphed from being a lobbying group designed to support the legally downtrodden into one that supported anti-Christian legislation instead.

If I am reading you right, we just spent several pages debating (and arguing) over one... ONE... of an almost endless series of legalities that restrict Christianity for the sake of restricting Christianity, and the result is that even you seem to have admitted that a child praying silently harms no one. How long would it take to address all of those concerns? Just to have a sensible compromise? That's the problem... the list of grievances is now so long and so varied that defending Christians has required a full-time agency devoted to the task, and those who support this situation, those who have been instrumental in implementing it, are now telling others how wonderful prayer is and how their prayers validate their actions?

Nope. Not buying it. They're just hypocrites aspiring to be Scribes and Pharisees.


posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 11:37 AM
An article from the Fall of 2019 reveals one reason why Mitt Romney cared so much about Burisma gas company.

Looks like it wasn't GOD who told Mitt Romney to vote "Guilty" on impeaching President Trump. Self-Protection was his primary motivator.

Mitt Romney’s national security advisor in his 2012 campaign — a career CIA spook who rose to its top levels — sits on the board of directors of Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company that formerly paid Hunter Biden $50k a month despite his complete lack of credentials or qualifications.

Joseph Cofer Black served as Mitt Romney’s special adviser, and has a long history of being embedded in the deep state apparatus that is at war with President Donald Trump

And it also an odd coincidence that Mitt has as CNN puts it “been a lone Republican voice expressing concern about President Donald Trump’s July phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump asked Ukraine’s President to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his family.”

With close associates such as Joseph Cofer Black, it is no wonder why Romney is so doggedly opposed to President Trump.

Romney is controlled by the deep state, and will go along with their narratives no matter how absurd they become.

posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 11:50 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck
And, apparently now days just wearing a shirt with a rainbow on it can get a kid kicked out of school.
We could just make things easy and agree that society has gone stark raving crazy.
If you want my opinion on weather I think kids should be disciplined for praying in school, I think it's wrong to do....
They should be allowed to pray in a manner that doesnt disrupt or draw much attention from others.
We've been here arguing over the meaning of words what the words moment of prayer conveys. I reject the idea that kids need permission to pray just as much as I am objecting to the idea that kids need permission not to pray which it seems would be required during a moment of prayer. Neither is a proper position in a secular free society that strives to ensure a freedom of religion and beliefs. So, I found a compromise that seems to work.

And, speaking as a mother who raised three boys, just because its bedtime doesnt really mean they have to quietly lay in bed and fall asleep. I think I could have gotten myself thrown into jail sometimes and they would have been still up and messing around. My authority as a parent, the schools authority, the govts authority relies heavily on people accepting that authority. So when you declare a moment of prayer and then have parents come in complaining and the teacher or principle say oh well they really dont have to the parent goes back and tells this to the kid... what is it saying to the kid about the schools authority?
As far as crosses on the side of the road after accidents, dont know. I know we had a bad accident awhile back and they set up a memorial that included a cross and it stayed there for quite awhile.. no one bothered it. Maybe if it was on a persons property and they didnt want it there they removed it? Or smartarsed kids?. And you practically telling their flock that if they dont vote for trump they will be heading for hell!! And, I am assuming you are talking about the rules surrounding their tax exempt status, one of which is that they dont preach politics on their pulpits. As for the religious schools, I think I have seen one or two of late that I openly stated on these boards that I didnt see what the problem was. Here is the thing though, if govt funds are going to a religious organization they either have to keep their religious doctrines out of the school or the govt has to assure that there are alternatives easily available for those who do not wish to be indoctrinated. I dont think I saw that as bring a case with those cases I mentioned earlier. I think it would be more of a concern as far as things like childcare, shelters for refugees, and yes those danged catholic hospitals which quite frankly shouldnt be allowed to expand into an area unless there is an alternative hospital nearby.

And. I do believe the aclu has taken up Christian causes also, as well as a whole lot of cases that doesnt have anything to do with any religion.
We have been in a transitional period for some time now.
And we really suck at regaining balance when these transitions upend the economy, the family, ect. Doesnt mean we shouldnt transition, just means it takes longer for us to adjust.

posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 12:06 PM
a reply to: carewemust

Actually exploiting Ukraine's natural resources is what it has been all about all along. And, my bet is that birisma is more western friendly while the company that Rudy's friends were trying to get their foot into was more russian friendly.

posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 03:15 PM
a reply to: dawnstar

And, apparently now days just wearing a shirt with a rainbow on it can get a kid kicked out of school.

I have seen no indication of that happening. As a matter of fact, didn't some schools recently allow the children to skip class so they could protest for Democratic causes?

Thank God above I am not a parent of school-age children any more... I doubt I could stop myself from beating the holy crap out of some principle/teachers before the cops could arrive. Yeah, I know, not very Christian, but then again I have said many times I am not perfect. Where my family is concerned, I am far, far from it.

As far as crosses on the side of the road after accidents, dont know. I know we had a bad accident awhile back and they set up a memorial that included a cross and it stayed there for quite awhile.. no one bothered it. Maybe if it was on a persons property and they didnt want it there they removed it? Or smartarsed kids?

No, these were lawsuits against the municipalities for pressing legal charges of vandalism against those who erected the crosses, with the ACLU helping defend the municipalities by arguing that religious symbols are never allowed in public. That is prohibiting the expression of religious belief, prohibited by the Constitution, and even worse, it targets those who are grieving over the loss of a loved one! So far these have been localized cases (primarily in highly Democratic areas), but that is certainly no reason to ignore a national organization that feels such.

And you practically telling their flock that if they dont vote for trump they will be heading for hell!! And, I am assuming you are talking about the rules surrounding their tax exempt status, one of which is that they dont preach politics on their pulpits.

First of all, I am not telling any flock anything, and certainly not that they will go to Hell! I do not do that.

Secondly, again, I have excerpted the restriction on government interfering with religion, and the restriction does not work both ways. There is no "separation of church and state," only a separation of church from state. The state is prohibited from interfering in a church (or mosque or temple or what have you). The church has no restriction from interfering in government... if they did, it would be making anyone religious a second-class citizen prohibited from any civic rights. Religion is not something one places on hold! It is as much a part of someone as the color of their hair, the shade of their skin, or the length of their foot! If it can be placed on hold, it never existed in the first place.

ANY restriction on speech in a place of worship is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Here is the thing though, if govt funds are going to a religious organization they either have to keep their religious doctrines out of the school or the govt has to assure that there are alternatives easily available for those who do not wish to be indoctrinated.

No. Again, religion cannot be placed on hold. You need to understand that. When you claim that someone can simply ignore their religious convictions because of their location or their activity, you are demanding that they abandon their religion. This is not some game people play. This is who they are.

Now, should someone work in the government, they should understand going in that their religious convictions must not interfere with their duties... as a government official, they cannot interfere with religion. If there is a contradiction, then they should not be in that office. I speak, of course, of things such as a county clerk who believes strongly against gay marriage being forced to issue gay marriage licenses. That happened here in Alabama recently, and was resolved by no longer requiring marriage licenses. It was necessary to make that change because several county clerks threatened to leave. Had the gay marriage allowance been in place when they were elected, I would have no sympathy for them... but it happened suddenly in the middle of a term due to a surprise Supreme Court decision. Therefore, I did have sympathy for them caught between fulfilling their duties and their religious convictions.

That's a perfect example of the lack of regaining balance you speak of.

Herein lies the problem... what is as important to me as life itself is unimportant to you. Therefore, you are looking at the issues as no big deal... who cares if someone has to stop believing something for a few hours a day? But it is a big deal to me and to every other serious Christian in the country. Our beliefs are simply not up for negotiation... God Himself told us our place, and no human, no group of humans, no government of humans has the right to change that.


top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in